Hello, I already have a gundog breed (working cockers) and am interested in the group as a whole. I am very interested in LM's and have been looking through various websites to gain more knowledge on these stunning dogs and was quite surprised to see a litter containing liver and white pups
Is the liver gene a recessive one, like in labs, does it have to be carried by both parents?
Is this just bad luck, or is this avoidable? I note that the breed standard allows for only a black head and black/white or blue roan body.
Eavie

Hi. It can happen in any breeding that carries the brown gene. There is also a gene for the tri colour Munsterlander, though there aren't as many of those around. We know that it is possible, and which lines tend to carry the gene(s) more than others, but there is always the possibility that any mating can produce a non standard pup, unless you are willing to send for a DNA test that proves the colours your dog is carrying. It stems from when the Large Munsterlander and the German Longhaired Pointer were one and the same breed, and also from experimental mating some years ago between the 2 breeds to try to widen the gene pool. Brown and white, or tri colour munsters are not supposed to be registered with the kennel club, but the KC will register them on the non-breed register so that you could still do agility, obedience, etc.

Edited to add: Most munsters in the uk are closely related, so the gene pool isn't all that wide. Colour is one of the last things we look at when looking for breeding dogs. Temperament, workability and looks are far more important.

thought so, would it be prudent then if you have a stud dog who has thrown browns, to state this, or withdraw from stud unless he is an exceptional example of the breed? If the test is available would it not be better to test than throw non standard colours?
Eavie

I think the answer to that might be in LindyLou's edit ;)

last reply was posted before LindyLou's edit....................have to say that in a breed that only comes in one standard colour with very specific markings (solid head) that surprises me!
Eavie

I agree with you Eavie,
Im also surprised a breeder would list temperment,workability.. and "looks"
I'd prefer temperment,workability and conformation.

Sorry, but looks to me mean conformation ;) As the breed is a good looking breed anyway you have to find the right 'looking' dog to mate with your bitch. You could have a decent dog with decent conformation, but it may have the same (minor) fault as your bitch, so you obviously don't want to double up on that. I know I'm not making myself too clear but hope you get the gyst of what I'm trying to say. :)

There is now a DNA test that LM's can participate in costing approx £40 and it can tell you if your dog carries the brown gene.  Obviously brown is just a cosmetic trait and doesn't mean the dog is any less perfect than it's black siblings.  What is a bit alarming though is how regular brown puppies are occuring in LM litters.  Previously you may have had 1 or 2 a year, so far this year 9% of LM puppies born have been brown & white.

The breed standard also allows for white/roan markings on the head.   Body markings are white or blue roan with black patches, ticked, flecked or a combination of these - so the markings are not that specific!

"Colour - Head solid black, white blaze, snip or star allowed. Body white or blue roan with black patches, flecked, ticked, or combination of these."

And yes both parents have to carry the brown gene for it to come through in the pups.    My Miranda had 2 litters to the same dog who was known to be a brown carrier yet all 28 puppies she had were black & white which means she doesn't carry the brown gene.   According to Joe Schmutz in the US (His wife Sheila has done a lot of research on coat color inheritance), she has had more than enough b&w puppies to be deemed a non-carrier.

Interestingly I had a discussion with a well known LM breeder late last year when he told me about the browns and the reason why they pop up.  Im sure they are perfectly good for working and make perfectly good dogs to live with, but of course no use in the show ring.

Browns cannot run in FT's and working tests as they have to be full register for that so working would be for their owner's uses only.    However if you were attracted to the same type of dog  & preferred brown to black - there is the GLP which is KC registered and you can compete in all disciplines with it.  A GLP is not much more to buy than some of the 'non-standard' LM puppies are being sold for.

I don't think anyone is doubting that browns don't make lovely pets etc. it's just they do seem to be popping up with a bit more frequency now.  However, more importantly is making sure you buy a puppy from a breeder who has hip scored & eye tested (clear) their dogs and has shown to have a good reputation for producing both consistent good show & working dogs.

But they can be fully registered same as non standard colour or long coat GSD's still GSD's, so fo course they could take part in field trials same as the Non standard coloured (yellow) Irish Setters O think.

Yes by the KC but not by LMC guidelines which you have to abide to if you're a LMC member!

>Browns cannot run in FT's and working tests as they have to be full register for that

As long as both parents are the same breed and their progeny are eligible for registration then whatever their colour their progeny can be registered on the breed registry, standard colour or not. Therefore browns (registrered 'non standard') can be shown in breed classes (and come last) but can compete in working trials etc on an even footing.

in order to do that though Jeangenie, it means that LMC members either have to break their own clubs rules, or leave the club in order to register the browns on the breed register as non standard.

In my breed we have several 'non-standard' colours as well as mismarks that can be given full birthright legitimacy. The parent breed club is enlightened.

Sorry but surely the KC will register any colour of pups but will put non standard for colour?

Absolutely right. All colours can be registered on the breed register.

if it is felt so strongly that they either shouldn't be KC registered or registered as "non standard" if there is a simple, inexpensive test to determine if brown is being carried, then shouldn't this be done prior to mating to ensure that at least one parent is a non carrier of brown?
Eavie

They can be fully registered with colour as non standard and if they are not to be bred from then papers endorsed.  they can still make excellent working dogs able to compete at working trials.

We have other things which are more important to breeders that need looking into. Hips and eyes are a priority. There are always homes for non standard pups so why take dogs out of the already small gene pool just for the sake of colour. We are aware that any breeding could possibly produce browns (or tri) but surely it is better to choose a dog with good working ability (for example) thatcould produce a non standard than to use a dog that is known to be a black only gene that can't work to save itself. Ok, that is a possibly a bit over the top, but hopefully you get the drift. Our breed is still a versatile breed with many dogs doing well in the show ring, the field, working trials, agility and obedience. Quite often the same dog can be doing more than one of these events. Cutting the gene pool could be very detrimental to this versatility. No-one wants this. Munsters can have very large litters, so a brown or two hasn't been a major problem, but as Christine has already stated, there does seem to be a large number this year. Maybe it will be discussed amongst breeders at a later date but it is still up to each breeder (and stud dog owner) to pick and choose their breeding stock.

I think the pertinent point here is yes, they can be registered on the breed register as non standard but only if you are not a member of the breed club as its against their rules and regs.
If you are a member of the breed club, then no KC reg or WTO register only...

Well then I think people need to change the breed clubs POV on this matter as surely to have the pups endorsed with endorsements not to be lifted would accomplish what the club needs, that they cannot have KC registered progeny.

To really know the extent of the problem of non standard pups born every pup needs to be registered for statistical purposes.

quite agree..Think maybe the KC could help more though, by really being consistent with their endorsements and also maybe bringing back the 'not for show' restriction..

The LMC has to take into account what the German breed warden says. He has the final say on what can be registered. What has that got to do with us in the uk, you ask? If we want to continue to take our bitches to European dogs, or use AI, or even import European munsters, we have to play the game correctly. We do not want the Europeans to refuse us access to their dogs, which could be a possibilty if we start registering non standard pups.

I'm not against non standard dogs, in fact I quite like the colouring, but we have to play by the rules.

As to endorsements, well we all know that there are ways around that. It happens time and time again when people ask the KC to remove them stating that they didn't know what it meant. Until the KC stops allowing these endorsements to be lifted then non standards have no chance of being registered. A shame, really, as we could then have a better idea of exactly how many there are. At the moment it's really only if we see them advertised, or if someone mentions that they've seen one, that we know about them. How many are out there that we haven't heard about over the years?

thats what I was saying about the KC endorsements - if they were actually consistant with them....

All you need is a signed statement from the buyer pointing out the endorsemetn and the KC wuill uphold them.  It seems a lot of people don't read the rules regarding this and don't get signed acknowledgeemt from teh purchaser.

Thing is though, there have been people that have endorsed and had a signed letter or contract with that in the terms and conditions, but yet still the KC have lifted the endorsement and by the time the breeder has found it its too late as a litter is on the ground..and I believe the endorsement only holds in theory between the seller and buyer so if the buyer was to then transfer into a relatives ownership, then the original agreement doesnt hold..It would be good if the endorsement was a life long thing no matter if the dog found itsself, even on paper, into another ownership, unless of course the breeder wrote to the KC to have it removed..

That is incorrect as long as there is a signed letter the KC will uphold the endorsement.  when they get a request to lift the endorsement the breeder is contacted.  It is only if there is nothing in writing that the KC cannot uphold it. 

The KC have issued statements to this effect quite recently, and the requirement for having acknowledgement in writing has been in place for quite some years yet many people judging by the letters to the canine press and some breed note writers seemed unaware of it, which means as per usual people are not reading things.

From the litter registraion form:
Breeders wishing to endorse any puppies should make themselves fully aware
of the complete regulation contained in the Kennel Club Year Book relating to
the use of endorsements, including the need to obtain written and signed
confirmation that the prospective new owner is aware of the endorsement(s).

Has anyone got the KC yearbook and can quote the complete regulation.  I know you get it on a seperate sheet when you get your Form 1 as I ahve read it numerous times.

Lots of people also think only the breeder can endorse, but it is the owner of the dog at the time of ownership.

From the current Year Book 2007/2008
B 3.25.12.
Endorsements

a. General The registered owner of a dog may, whilst the dog is still in his physical possession, apply to place one or more endorsements on a dog's records & to have registration certificate annotated accordingly. The endorsements which may be placed as follows:-
(1)Progeny not eligible for registration.
(2)Not eligible for issue of an export pedigree.

b.Conditions. The following conditions shall apply to the placing & removal of endorsements
(1) When a dog whose registration is endorsed is transferred to a new ownership, the endorsement(s)  will be maintained. However the person who placed the endorsement(s) must obtain written & signed confirmation from the new owner(s), at or before the date on which the dog is physically transferred that the new owner(s) is aware of the endorsement(s), regardless of whether or not the endorsed registration is available. If requested, the person(s)who placed the endorsement must be able to produce a copy of such confirmation
(2)If the endorsement is not drawn to he new owner's notice & an acknowledgement in writing of the endorsement, signed at the date of transfer by the new owner, then any conflict regarding the notice of the endorsement will be resolved in favour of the new registered owner(s). The endorsement will remain on the register, unless a successful application is made by the new owner of the dog under Regulation B.12.b(3)below"
.

This regulation goes on to give details of what applies if the dog is transferred to a third or subsequent owner

Unfortunately, the excerpt above gives me less faith in the endorsement system, although I appreciate the KC is in a difficult position on this. Doesn't the above mean that someone who bought an endorsed dog could transfer it to a friend/relative, who could then complain to the KC that they weren't made aware of the endorsements ... and hey presto, they'll be removed?

Not sure what the answer is though.

M.

B 3.26.12.b(4) covers subsequent transfers

Regulations B12b 1) 2) & 3) only apply where the registered owner who originally placed an endorsement on a dog's record transfers the dog to a new ownership. If subsequent becomes a matter between the parties involved. In such cases the registered owner placing the endorsement shall not be responsible if notification of the endorsement is not given to any new owner, & may exercise his right to decide whether the endorsement be maintained or removed subject to (5)below

(5) states that the KC reserves the right to maintain, remove or impose endorsements

The KC have to be quite careful as supposing the original owner has died & imposed the endorsement  subject to health tests being done before breeding & the health tests have been done & the dog is OK to breed from & all this is recorded in the confirmation signed by the new owner, the new owner has fulfilled the requirements of the person placing the endorsement. As the original owner is not able to agree to remove the endorsements the KC must be able to do the sensible thing(lolol well I do know that this has happened)

The problem occurs when the breeders fail to get the confirmation signed  & keep a copy !

Yes, I always advise people to ensure they put in writing not just which health tests are to be done, but also what is deemed an acceptable result to have the endorsement lifted.

M.

Its not just a case of people not reading - the rules that moonmaiden has just posted up shows quite clearly how people can circumvent the system as I had previously posted. I am sure though there has been cases of endorsements being lifted in the last few years where the breeder did have a signed letter from the buyers and thought they had gone 'by the book', however the KC may have tightened up on this recently (I hope) and of course there have been these where the registered owner/breeder placing endorsements didnt realise they had to get a signed letter that Brainless refers to.

Thanks K for re-iterating that point as it seems to have been missed when I wrote it!   ;)

Im on a roll tonight!!

Are you? ;)  Brown, white, seedy type or maybe a bagel?  ;)

brown with black seeds and the hypothetical kipper in the middle. No wonder I have heartburn..ROTFL

**** Note all the Munster people have dropped out of this thread as it's gone off topic!!!;)****