Think Twice



Avoid Spay/Neuter. His life may depend on it.

 According to a piece of email propaganda that I received today from the HSUS, Californians took ample advantage of a feature on the state income tax form to donate to spay/neuter programs in our state. And donate they did, to the tune of approximately $250,000.

Spay/neuter tax fund. Spay/neuter laws. spay/neuter license plates. Spay/neuter advertising. Spay-neuter promotion in veterinary schools.

We are subjected to so much brainwashing, it's no wonder we mutilate our animals unnecessarily more and more every year.

Like dutiful little citizens, we comply in droves with societal pressures to neuter our pets. 4 out of 5 dogs....sterilized. 19 out of 20 cats....sterilized.

Veterinarians surely should rejoice at this trend, as it assures them abundant work. It's the ultimate "job security".

More and more dogs with incontinence, bladder stones, hypothyroidism, hip and knee joint problems, and life-robbing cancers of various types including bone cancer, hemangiosarcoma, prostate cancer and bladder cancer.

More dogs sickened with weak immune systems, unable to tolerate simple vaccinations or recover from infectious diseases. More fearfulness, more anxiety and more dog-human aggression.

Naw, let's ignore all these scientifically proven facts and believe the politically correct mantra. SPAY NEUTER. BE RESPONSIBLE. Just ask the paradoxically-named "animal rights" groups like HSUS, PETA and Best Friends.

Spay/Neuter. It's dandy. It's the responsible thing to do. After all, if we told you the truth, you'd never voluntarily choose such a course of action.

So, the lies trip off our tongues so often that you believe them. After all, everyone says spay/neuter is beneficial, so it must be.

Ignore those pesky studies that show how much longer intact animals live. That show how much healthier they are.

Now I expect to hear from the normal pack of animal-rightist people who will recount how their neutered pet lived a long and healthy life. Who believe that everyone's pets should ALL be sterilized.

Rational people will draw the obvious conclusion; that pets will go extinct and/or suffer immensely from dangerously narrowed gene pools produced as a result of mass sterilization. But, your veganized, vitamin-deprived pea-brain just doesn't "get it" because you are incapable of independent thought and reason. 

Besides, your individual, anecdotal experience in meaningless. The STUDIES that compare vast groups of animals in a scientific manner are what provide us with useful information.

Those studies show that dogs are healthier and live longer when they remain intact. They have all their organs for very specific reasons, and those reasons extend beyond simple reproduction.

In my humble opinion, it is criminal to do something to your dog that will likely result in painful problems like arthritis and cancer. Don't our companions deserve to live their optimal lifespans, without our inflicting pain and early death upon them? After all, companions, we want them around us as long as possible.

Look it up. Study. Read. Make your own decisions.

Don't let AR nuts with their misanthropist, nihilist world views dictate our policies and our societal norms.

If you love animals, think twice.  

Down the Path Toward Extinction

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.    Bernard of Clairvaux  (1090 – 1153)

As noted in a prior post, the British "Canine Alliance" foolishly has expressed a desire to work with the KC to promote health testing in the show setting, providing that such checks apply fairly to ALL participants.

However, the idea of testing all show entrants is not practical, admits pedigree dog blogger, TV producer and animal rights puritan Jemima Harrison, stating, "can you imagine the uproar, anyway, should vets DQ some top dog de jour that's just arrived after a 300 mile journey to compete?"

Been there, done that. Remember Crufts last week? These people probably would have preferred to escape the spotlight of winning and then being singled out for ridicule for having an undisclosed "health problem".  The popular lynch mob sentiment seems to be "why not release the results of their exam if they have nothing to hide"?  Why not indeed? Privacy be damned, none of that exists after the witch hunt and public lynching. What was the crime again? Who knows? "Guilty!" is all that matters.

When the Canine Alliance members mentioned their objections to the heavy-handed and unfair way they have been treated by the Kennel Club, Harrison criticized them for worrying more about themselves than the dogs.

The DOGS are more important than the people who breed them, in the eyes of the animal rightists.
The dogs don't care if they are in a show, she muses, and anyway, she wants dog shows to go down the tubes for good…to be banned, in her words. (Like as if we didn't already figure that one out). Besides, if poodles cared they would object to being groomed to be "embarrassingly ridiculous" according to Harrison.

No, dogs don't care at all if they are in a show, or how they are groomed. They are DOGS, not humans. Golly, that is hard to remember for those who prioritize the treatment of dogs over the treatment of human beings. 

Yes, dog shows are primarily a human activity. We make the choice to participate, for whatever personal reason we may have. For fun, for possibly starting a breeding program, for camaraderie with fellow hobbyists, for the sense of accomplishment, for the bond you establish with your dog, for receiving recognition for a job well done. Don't we all seek approval? That is basic human nature.  

But according to the ARistas, dogs have the right to not be exploited at the hands of the exhibitors, judges and breeders.

In a newly-released statement, the Canine Alliance states:

"The Canine Alliance was formed to represent everyone involved with pedigree dogs, and to negotiate when necessary with any related organisations in the interest of all breeds. Its aims are to protect and support the well-being of pedigree dogs, to uphold the ethics of responsible dog breeding, to encourage health checking of all dogs and to allow the exhibition of pedigree dogs without bias or discrimination.... It pledges to be fair and totally transparent, always working to the benefit of pedigree dogs."

Any related organizations? Like who? YIKES! The Pedigree "exposers", perhaps? The RSPCA, an animal rights group?  The very group that has actual police authority? Don't they have enough power already to enforce their anti-dog breeding agenda on society? Guess not.

You don't negotiate with terrorists! Those with nothing to lose don't actually compromise very well. It's all take and no give. The demands just keep on coming!

Anyone with a lick of common sense realizes that if you give animal rights extremists an inch, they will definitely take a mile. But sadly, those whose country is overrun with AR laws and  bleeding-heart sentiment just don't seem to "get it". Exactly where do they envision this path to the future leading us?

Harrison, leader of the dog rights puritans, lays her cards on the table in her recent blog, as she mocks the published goals of the "Canine Alliance". Here is her plan for the path:

At last! An organisation that I can sign up to! After all, I'm involved with pedigree dogs and I can sign up to most of those aims. I also protect and support the well-being of pedigree dogs; I am happy to uphold the ethics of responsible dog breeding and to encourage health checking of all dogs….

So what shall we do first, CA?

• Limits on popular sires and inbreeding?
•  KC registrations dependent on taking and actually passing breed specific tests?
•  Health reps educated in rudimentary genetics?
•  Proper breed health surveys?
•  Ban dog shows in their current form (I mean, didn't you say you were working to the benefit of pedigree dogs?)
  
  It's so exciting, isn't it? Together, we can achieve so much!

My my, someone who neither breeds nor shows dogs, but "involved" so intimately. So thrilled to have such "achievements" to crow about. "Together", eh? Unfortunately, with all the conciliating that the KC has done, I'm sure she does feel that such "achievements" are hers to boast about.

And, if I didn't know she was a pet owner rather than a breeder, this idea would clue me in immediately. Requiring PASSING breed specific tests simply to be registered? And what end, pray tell, would such folly serve? Do many people seeking out a purebred dog really want an unregistered dog? And when we move beyond registration to actual showing and breeding, shouldn't breeders have the license to decide whether or not they wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater? 

Oops, guess not. After all, in true AR form, these folks believe it is horrific to pass on any defective genes. Dogs must be 100% disease-free to bred. Or, in the case of the British, to simply be exhibited! Ah, make that, must be disease-free to even be registered!   

Is it any wonder that people resist health testing when there is such a social stigma attached to the "unhealthy" dog and its "bad breeder"? According to the events unfolding in the UK, health test results may adversely affect a breeder's ability for self-determination in breeding decisions. There just MAY be a bit of reluctance to participate when the end result is punishment and derision.

And, the problem with such simple-mindedness is that there is no 100% healthy dog. ALL dogs, just like all people, can and do suffer from health problems, and yes, many are genetic. All animals carry some genes for detrimental health traits. Geneticists believe so, and I think they probably know whereof they speak.

In "Removing the Stigma of Genetic Disease", Dr. Jerold Bell writes: "My hope for each breed is that there will eventually be so many testable defective genes that it will not be possible for any dog to be considered "perfect." Then we can put emotions aside and all work together on improving our breeds."*

Purebred dogs as well as outcrossed dogs all carry problem genes. And dogs with extremes of conformation…..excessively short legs or short noses, for example….are not necessarily inbred, PDE rhetoric notwithstanding.

Geneticists advise against automatic dismissal of disease carriers. Such practices further limit genetic diversity. Such practices give us the same result as popular sire syndrome! For some of the endangered breeds, narrowing the gene pool by eliminating dogs with whatever health problem you are looking at is not always a black-and-white decision.

What the devil is a "proper" breed health survey? Oh, I'm sure the omniscient ARs among us will be waiting in line to help craft such projects. The very people who believe that elimination of hip dysplasia in domestic dogs is a realistic goal.

If one is actually "educated in rudimentary genetics", they would not recommend such drastic winnowing away at breed gene pools. Eliminate every dog with borderline or worse hips, and a significant proportion of ALL dogs will be gone. Canine orthopedists know that few breeds are free of hip dysplasia, and many if not MOST breeds have significant numbers of affected dogs.

So there go most all the breeds on hip issues, with the possible exception of sighthounds and standard poodles. In some of the toy breeds, eliminating all dogs with patellar issues would mean entire breeds would be tossed out.

Eliminating every Clumber with a diamond-shaped eyelid, as the AR extremists wish, would eliminate, well, EVERY Clumber Spaniel, wouldn't it?  This from the KC breed standard:

 "Acceptable to have some haw showing but without excess. Free from obvious eye problems."

"Haw" shows with a mild degree of ectropion. Apparently this part of the standard conflicts with the stated goals of the newly-instituted health checks. Wouldn't it be grand if they could get their act together and coordinate the goals here?

The KC just released information on breeds that are in danger of extinction in their country due to low numbers and closed gene pools.** Twenty-nine breeds are now considered endangered species in the UK. The specific breeds are not listed except for the "top five". In keeping with current scientific knowledge of the benefits of genetic diversity for health and longevity, increased numbers of imports and judicious outcrossing are being presented as methods to help prevent breed extinction. This is fabulous!! I applaud the KC for such forward-thinking ideas that breeders definitely need and can use to move forward. However, before they get the chance to implement these ideas, they may just find that the anvil of the health crusade may kill of some of the very breeds they want to preserve. I wonder if the Clumber Spaniel is on that endangered list? I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

Way to decimate the gene pools of the breeds most in danger of extinction. Jolly Good Show! 

Ronald Reagan reportedly once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Substitute "Kennel Club" for "government", and you have the ten most terrifying words in the English language.

*http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_stigma.htm

**http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4185

Animal Welfare - AR Lite?

Most of us are familiar with groups that consider themselves to be “Animal Rights” groups. PETA, HSUS, and the like. But most animal groups consider themselves to be concerned with animal welfare, not animal rights. These groups include ASPCAs, local humane societies, "rescues" and other groups

I propose that the difference between animal rights and animal welfare is merely a matter of degree.

Animal rightists don’t believe that people should have any involvement with animals in any way. No animal agriculture, no hunting or fishing, not even any pets. They don’t want to see people adversely affecting animals.

Animal welfare is a more insidious threat because the ideas are presented as more mainstream. No one wants animals to “suffer”, right? Therefore, we need a few laws on the books to prevent that. The animal welfarists, just like the animal rightists, wish to prevent people from adversely affecting animals

Animal welfare has been defined through any of the following concepts:


• Prohibition of dog fighting, and banning of breeds deemed "dangerous"

• Prohibition of tail docking

• Prohibition of ear cropping

• Prohibition of vocal cordectomy (commonly called “debarking”)

• Prescriptive care standards for housing, food, water, exercise and grooming

• Promotion of spay/neuter

• In my case, avoidance of spay/neuter!

• Prohibition of dewclaw removal

• Establishment of breed standards

• Kind treatment in animal shelters

• Euthanasia in shelters as a necessary evil

• Establishment of breeding criteria (age, number of litters, and the like)

• Limiting how many animals one can legally own

• Expectation of health testing of breeding stock

• Prohibition of crossbreeding

• Prohibition of inbreeding

• Limiting registrations, whether for cause or arbitrarily

• Tethering limits

Even such activities as dog racing, dog sledding, and other traditional pursuits are sometimes considered abusive and contrary to animal welfare.

So, exactly how far should the tenets of animal welfare extend into our lives? How much outsider intervention in animal husbandry is acceptable?

While I am sympathetic to many of the above “animal welfare” proposals, I am adamantly opposed to the government or anyone else attempting to force their ideals regarding care standards on the rest of society.


Dogs and cats are what’s for dinner in some countries. That’s not an appetizing picture to me, but I’m sure some people in other countries feel differently. When you consider that the overwhelming majority of people in western culture revere and adore their dogs and cats, we're really not hard-hearted and bereft of animal welfare concerns after all is said and done.

Designer Dogs

DESIGNER DOGS:

COMMENTS ON DELIBERATELY BRED INTERBREED CROSSES

By Bonnie Dalzell, MA

 

October 3, 2011. I corresponded for a brief time with one of the main Aussie Labradoodle breeders. As I recall from my correspondence, the F1 cross inherits the lab type coat so you have to back cross the poodle or breed to another F1 to get the non-shedding coat. In the first case you get a 3/4 poodle in the second you would need to have two different relatively unrelated labs and poodles to get decent genetic diversity in the F2's and of course only 1/4th of the F2's would have the desired non shedding coat.

Once you start breeding poodle coat to poodle coat you will keep it, of course, as it is recessive. Still, in order to have a viable breed, you should start with something like 20 lab - poodle pairs of relatively unrelated dogs or you are going to have an even more inbred "new breed" than the most inbred of the foundation breeds.


What prompted my correspondence with the lady in Australia was that the local rescue I help with was encountering some very aggressive male labradoodles. What is not appreciated by the general public is that some male standard poodles can be rather dominant and aggressive on maturity if not raised by a fairly strong minded, pack leader type owner.

Well, it seems that rather than getting the trainability of the poodle and the laid back (although full speed ahead energy) personality of the lab, many of the Labradoodle males were showing the strong, dominant personality of the poodle and the full speed ahead high energy personality of the Labrador. Just what you do not want in a dog that may be going to some owner who is attracted to the dog because it has a cute name.

As a dog trainer I have had two instances of personal experience with very strong-willed Labradoodles. In the right home they would have been fine but neither of them were suitable for the soft-tempered people who were their owners.


I have also met delightful Labradoodles. When I talked to the different owners of those dogs, all of them were Australian Labradoodles and had many generations of breeding for working seeing eye and assistance dogs behind them. These latter dogs represent "a breed in the making" - not first and second generation crosses made for the cute dog market without selection for suitable temperament and trainability.


My impression is part of the marketability of these inter breed crosses is that the name needs to have double vowels in it or have a diminutive form to make it sound appealing and cute.

Around 20 years ago a close friend of mine who bred bearded collies and afghan hounds died rather unexpectedly of ovarian cancer. One of her best Afghan bitches was pregnant at the time and I promised to help find homes for the pups when they were an appropriate age.


When the pups came it became obvious as they matured and turned out to have mustache faces that they were bearded collie - afghan crosses, so at an appropriate age we advertised to find pet homes. I called them "Culligans". The cute label helped and we did find good homes for all but one of them. More about that one later.


These dogs were actually part of a traditional "gypsy dog" cross which is called a "lurcher". Note this is not a cute name so people do not fall all over themselves to get or breed lurchers. Lurchers are the cross between a sight hound and a herding dog (specifically a drovers dog - one that moves the flock) or a sighthound and a hunting terrier.


The aim - which does show up in the first generation of the cross - is to get a dog which is a keen hunter but is highly biddable (that is pays attention to what the owner commands). If you breed a greyhound to a border collie and you have your prize lurcher you would breed it back to one of the parent breeds for the next generation and then after that to the other parent breed or to a small terrier. Back and forth between the parent breeds. And since they are bred for hunting (specifically poaching) you only breed from the ones that are good workers.


How did a gypsy or other person hunt with a lurcher? Until a few hundred years ago in England it was illegal for anyone lower in aristocratic rank to own a full-blooded hunting dog such as a greyhound. And anyway, all the game belonged to the aristocrats (remember Robin Hood).


So you strolled along the main road and sent your lurcher into the lord of the manor's fields to fetch you a fat hare (the poorer people were always protein deprived in their diets) and if the dog was returning with the hare and the gamekeeper came up to converse with you - the dog had been trained to hide with his prize in the bushes and not be seen.


A full-blooded greyhound would have caught the hare and perhaps eaten it or charged back to you with the hare no matter who was with you, and then things would have gone very badly for you - a mere peasant or a gypsy.


A number of or modern sight hound breeds have lurcher heritage - whippets are the most obvious, but the Borzoi goes back to crosses between Saluki (Tazi) from Turkey bred to native winter hardy Russian herding dogs with an infusion of the husky-like hunting Laika of Northern Russia. Even the aristocratic English Greyhound had a documented cross in 1770 to the ancestral bulldog. According to Lord Orford who was responsible, the intent was to improve the pluck and courage of the greyhound. As far as I can determine, all modern greyhounds have some ancestors that trace back to this cross because a 4th generation dog from the cross was a highly successful coursing hound.


This is basically a discussion of how a new breed can be formed by crossing breeds. It is important to know how things are inherited. Of course, breeding to select for specific functions not seen in breeds that are otherwise available is very important. In addition, having a number of healthy, vigorous and temperamentally fit dogs from the founding breeds present as parents of the founding population is necessary in order to avoid founding a breed on too small a population and producing dogs in which health is at risk due to inbreeding depression.


Simply doing F1 crosses to produce cute dogs with cute pseudo breed names to appeal to novelty owners in order to make money is against the long term well being of dog breeds as such.


Dogs deliberately bred for specific purposes need to be selected from parents talented for those purposes. This includes breeding dogs to be pets. One selects for a loving pet personality as well as general health and vigor in order to have puppies that will be successful as pets and companions. This is why the parents of dogs bred to be pets and companions need to be integrated into a home where their ability to function as pets and companions can be observed.


Especially with small-breed dogs, dogs that are kept crated as breeding stock all their lives have never been "tested" in the pet and companion venue. Could they be house trained? Will they be comfortable with visitors? Will they be trustworthy with children? Will they easily allow you to groom them and care for them? Who knows if all that was experienced by generations of their ancestors was sitting in a small cage.

Bonnie Dalzell, MA

mail: 5100 Hydes Rd PO Box 60, Hydes, MD,USA 21082-0060

EMAIL:bdalzell@qis.net

Freelance anatomist, vertebrate paleontologist, writer, illustrator, dog
breeder, computer nerd & iconoclast…

Borzoi info at www.borzois.com

http://www.batw.net

http://dogdimension.org/dokuwiki/doku.php

Black and White

Remember these whisky ads from 50-plus years ago? They graced the pages of most major magazines.

Black and white.
Salt and pepper.
Yin and Yang.


There's a natural partnership noted here, and it's not a coincidence. Not too long before the 1890s when this "Black and White" advertising campaign was initiated, these two now-distinct "breeds" were considered varieties of the SAME breed of dog. Black, white and sometimes wheaten and even brindle-colored terriers often appeared in the same litter. 

Folks who lived in the wilds of Scotland needed hardy dogs capable of digging rabbits, rats and foxes out of burrows among the craggy rockpiles (known as "cairns") and under thorn bushes; places where bigger dogs would be unable to go. The small terriers were the result of this need. The word terrier comes from the Latin "terra" or earth. Terriers will dig furiously into burrows in search of their quarry. Sometimes they dig in so deeply that the hunter might have to pull them out by their stocky tail. Their harsh, shaggy coats keep them warm in the snowy winters and protect their skin from brambles. The eyebrows help to keep the soil out of the eyes when digging.

In the 1800's,the terriers of Scotland were a diverse lot of similar type. The dogs were long and low, rough-coated, and well suited to rout out foxes, badgers and martens from their dens. 

Scottish Terriers as a group were referred to as Skye terriers, or Diehard Terriers, or Aberdeen Terriers. However, when dog shows came into vogue in the late 1800's, standards were drawn up and interbreeding between various subtypes of Scottish terriers was subsequently forbidden. "Fancy points" such as head type were selected for and little attention was paid to how well the dog controlled vermin.

The Scottish dog breeds that descended from the Aberdeen or Skye terrier of yesteryear are the modern Skye terrier, the Cairn Terrier, the West Highland White Terrier and the Scottish Terrier. These breeds have only formed over the past one hundred fifty or so years years as distinct breeds.

The Dandie Dinmont was another type of terrier known in Scotland, and likely shares some common ancestry with the other Scottish terrier breeds. Check the resemblance in this depiction of Guy Mannering in 1814; "Dandy Dinmont" with his terriers:

Any crossbreeding between these similar terrier varieties is strictly forbidden by the registering Kennel Clubs. According to Scottish Terrier historian Cindy Cooke, all today's Scottish Terriers descend from ONE common female ancestor. In the early 20th century, the gene pool was narrowed further down to just a handful of popular dogs. 

And therein lies a very serious problem. The result of generations of inbreeding is a physical depression, characterized by shortened lifespan, decreased vigor and fertility, and increased susceptibility to autoimmune disease, infectious disease and cancer. There is also a propensity for recessive health problems to become entrenched in a breed through inbreeding, and the proscription against outcrossing to other groups of terriers assures that defects will continue to affect a large percentage of a breed's population.

But don't take my word for it: more in depth information is posted on the "Great Scots" blogpage:

http://tartanscottie.com/macblog/?p=58

Dog breeding is not a black and white activity. We should stop occasionally and ponder the nuances of those shades of grey.

More on history of the Scottish terrier breeds:
http://stcinc.org/learn.htm

Early terriers.

Terriers in the 1940's. Distinct yet remain very similar in physical appearance.

The BS behind "Designer Dogs"

I ran across this ad this morning:

http://sfgate.kaango.com/feViewAd/16213571

If you can’t access the link, it’s an ad for Labradoodle puppies, selling for 2700.00 each.

Twenty seven hundred dollars!! That’s more than twice the average price of a genuine purebred dog, which, by definition, is “bred from members of a recognized breed, strain, or kind without outbreeding over many generations,” often hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of years. Also known as pedigreed, meaning it has a written, traceable, record of the lineage that proves its purebred status.

A Labradoodle, on the other hand, is NOT a purebred. Originally a mix of Poodle and Labrador, its initial claim to fame, that it was hypoallergenic, got great attention and a lot of folks, seeing a way to make a quick buck, jumped on the bandwagon, paired up random Poodles and Labs and sold their offspring as Labradoodles. This led to a rash of so-called “designer dogs,” an endless list of mixes with cute names such as Goldendoodles, Cockapoos, Pomapoos, Bascotties, Buggles, Malorkies, Pithuahuas, Pointsetters, Schnairedales, or the ever popular Jack Russell/Shih Tzu mix, aka the JackShiht. OK, that last one isn’t real (as far as I know), but shows how ridiculous this has become, because, again by definition, each of these dogs is an “animal of mixed breed,” or uncertain ancestry, also known as a crossbreed, half-blood, hybrid, mutt, or, the type of dog most often found in animal shelters. Did I mention those Labradoodles are going for 2700.00?

I could say it was an example of the gullibility of the American public, but it’s more than that. Over the past few years, the animal rights crusaders have done a fabulous job of downgrading purebred dogs and glorifying mutts, to the extent that adopting a shelter dog has become the only acceptable way to acquire a pet. On the other hand, people who are lured by the prestige of owning a special breed of dog, something that makes them the Paris Hilton of their community, will fall for the hype of a Labradoodle or any other cross bred “designer dog.” It doesn’t have the sour taste of being purebred, but it has the cachet of being something special, which makes them easy targets for the shysters out to make a buck (a LOTTA bucks!) off them.

What’s really sad is that by investing in “designer dogs,” these people are shelling out their hard earned cash for what they supposedly hate, backyard breeders and puppy mills, which are the main source of these animals. But what’s even worse is that even those who resist buying these mutts are still “drinking the kool-aid,” indoctrinated by the animal rights fanatics into donating millions of dollars to the Humane Society of the United States, the driving force behind the AR jihad, and thereby contributing to the fanatics who intend to remove ALL pets from our lives, no matter how we define them. Purebred, “designer” dogs, mutts, Heinz 57, every last one of them, gone forever. But that’s the subject of another blog.

"Sable"..Ultimate Natural Beauty!

Ah, sable! The very word evokes images of ladies' mink stoles of yore; plush and rich in color. It's not often these days that we see an actual Real McCoy fur coat; so when it comes to dog coat color we sometimes need to refresh our collective memories a bit in regard to natural coat color and the genetics involved.

The AKC glossary defines "Sable" thus:

Sable: Coat color produced by black-tipped hairs on a background of silver, gold, gray, fawn, or brown.

But a genetic sable may display an appearance very that is very different from this restrictive, limited definition.

First, let's back up a bit to the biology of coat color. There are two basic coat pigments. There is "eumelanin" which is your basic black, and the other is phaeomelanin which produces red/yellow. (The prefix "eu" means "true", while "phaeo" is from Greek meaning "color of the twilight sky".) All other coat colors are variation on these two foundation pigments.

Coat color genes work by reorganizing the basic pigments. Agouti genes result in a banding of individual hairs; a combination of eumelanin and phaeomelanin on each individual hair. Other genes may dilute black eumelanin to blue or brown....or two recessive dilute factors can combine to form the color of the Weimeraner. Still other genes modify phaeomelanin to form shades of red, orange, yellow, or cream.

Various pattern genes rearrange the color..for instance, the gene for the tan point pattern instructs the phaeomelanin to congregate in "points" above the eyes, on the face, legs, under the tail and on the forechest. Brindle genes instruct the eumelanin to form in stripes. White spotting genes remove color pigments completely, leaving defined areas of white. Merle dilutes whatever underlying coat color is present. The result can be a splotchy effect on phaeomelanin, or a silvering of eumelanin to result in "blue merle".

In genetic parlance, sable has traditionally meant phaeomelanin added to or replacing the black coat color. Agouti is the technical term for haircoat banded with different shades of eumelanin and phaeomelanin. It's often referred to as a "wild" type coat. And it's tough to beat Mother Nature when it comes to beauty! Think of that sable or mink coat, if you are lucky enough to have actually seen one!.

We normally think of black tipped hair when we think of a "sable" dog. But, not all dogs that are genetic sables have extensive black tipping. Some sables lighten with age or have banding that does not fit the "tipping" description....the hair can be banded in unusual ways, perhaps darker at the base and lighter at the tips. Some breeds like Collies have sables that do not have much black tipping if any! Some pups are born dark sable and lighten with age. Many dogs registered as "orange" or "red" are actually genetic sables.

Of course there are many examples of traditional sables....German shepherds often have a heavy sable coat with the heaviest black tipped hairs in the "saddle" area.

Fred Lanting wrote an interesting article about sables, where he notes there exists:

"So-called "golden sable" resulting from good brown lower parts of the guard hairs but not as much black tipping as some other dogs pictured in this article."

SABLES: GENETICS AND MYTHS

I believe we should not hold strictly to the AKC definition of "sable" as dark tipping, because many of our genetic sables do not have much dark tipping. "Sable" as a color category that would include anything from wolf sable to cream sable to orange sable, to dogs that appear yellow, red or orange!

Sable....true natural beauty!

Thomas Jefferson wearing a sable coat

Sable Marten (Weasel family)

How to ruin a breed

HOW TO RUIN A BREED

a primer

• Only breed quality dogs that meet an extremely narrow breed standard. The more show points earned, the better.

•  Seek out a popular sire; one who has already produced many Champions.

• Require that every pet be sold on limited registration. Or better yet, be sterilized.

• Withhold papers unless the buyer belongs to the breed club, shows his dogs, does health testing, and otherwise demonstrates proper ethics.

• Avoid breeding older dogs who are plain, even if they are healthy. As a general rule, breed your dogs when they are younger.

• Eliminate any potential carriers of genetic disease. (i.e., every dog ever born)

• Breed for color, fashion and flash. You want something so beautiful that it will take your breath away.

• Once you have achieved the "type" you like, stay within your line. Don't outcross.

• Discourage new people who show an interest. Breeding is only for the knowledgable. 

• Exercise restraint in your breeding activities. A litter or two per year is plenty.

• Always bear in mind that the only acceptable reason to breed is for improvement.