# Breeding for Color



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

I was on another forum type thing and someone mentioned what I felt was a very good point.

I know a lot of breeders who breed outside of the standard are frowned upon, especially those who intentionally breed for livers and blues. 

However, someone mentioned the fact that some breeders will kill puppies of certain colors because they are undesireable. I know that not all do obviously, but there are some that don't give the pups a chance because of the color of their fur.

Is this not considered color breeding? Only allowing the richest black/red dogs to exist and killing the 'faulty' ones?


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

Not so sure how many do that. Just selling under a limited registration and not doing a repeat breeding would work..


----------



## Vinnie (Sep 4, 2001)

Konotashi said:


> However, someone mentioned the fact that some breeders will kill puppies of certain colors because they are undesireable. I know that not all do obviously, but there are some that don't give the pups a chance because of the color of their fur.


This is a very old practice called culling. I don't think there are many who still practice this. More do what MRL suggested. Sell undesired colors that pop up in a litter under limited registration.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

Killing the pups used to be a lot more common. Now the ones that the breeder doesn't want bred are either spayed/neutered or sold with a spay/neuter contract. 

Also, there's a difference in breeding for a specific color to the exclusion of other traits like temperament and health, and deciding NOT to breed a dog because it is an undesirable color. No dog NEEDS to be bred and each dog should be assumed NOT breedworthy until it has proven itself to be an excellent enough example of the breed to reproduce.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Culling undesirable colors has happened in the past, certainly, and in fact was at one time rather common practice in Germany. Its not commonplace any longer, though I'm sure does happen still from time to time. This is also not a practice particular to this breed, but has been seen at one point in time in many breeds. Even today, dogs without the right color or markings may be culled in some cases. Though now a days this is usually done by simply selling on a spay/neuter contract or something of the sort, but not always.

It is not a matter of keeping "only the richest black/red dogs" but keeping those who fit the standard and culling any who don't. I don't see it the same as color breeding because they weren't selecting FOR a specific color, but rather against those not allowed by the standard. Personally, I think that a ridiculously extreme measure to take to uphold the standard. Though no doubt a lot of this was a result of the belief that the non-standard colors were genetically inferior and more prone to health problems, which is probably a big part of why they were non-standard in the first place.. a lack of understanding of the genetics of color. With modern science we know they are just different colors and there are no health problems associated with them (at least in this breed, that is not the case in all breeds) but in the past they didn't know that.


----------



## JustDSM (Aug 22, 2009)

Agreed with Maggie.. I think it's just completely wrong to take a pup's life just because he's not breed standard. The dogs could live very fufilling lives with loving owners with limited registration in a pet home. What's to say you couldn't even work these dogs?

My pup comes from a long background of SchH titled dogs, but I'm not going to fault her or love her any less if she doesn't live up to that background. The love and fun that comes from working together is what it's all about, at least in my eyes.

In short.. Give them a chance.. My 2cents.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Did some of the breeders do it, though because they didn't want others to know their dogs were producing a genetically "inferior" type? 
If they culled, no one would know, if they sold on a limited, then others could see what they were producing.


----------



## Vinnie (Sep 4, 2001)

onyx'girl said:


> Did some of the breeders do it, though because they didn't want others to know their dogs were producing a genetically "inferior" type?
> If they culled, no one would know, if they sold on a limited, then others could see what they were producing.


Yes, I've heard this was true. I've heard that they would cull say a white puppy because if the breed warden found out that they had a white he would disallow future breeding of the dam.

Culling took place here in America too and we have never had breed wardens. So back in the day when this was more common it was for reasons like extremely large litters (too many for the dam to handle) or they just didn't want others to know.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I know in the bird/field breeds it is done as well. Sad...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

In Germany your bitch could not raise more then seven or eight pups without a surrogate bitch brought in. I am not sure whether this is still true. But the litter owner would then cull the litter. They would take weak and off-color pups and any pup with a noticible fault first, but sometimes had to cull pups that did not have a fault. I am glad the process has been outdated. 

I think that some breeders may have culled pups so that people did not know that they produced this issue or that color. I think there may be another reason. When you have healthy pups, just an off color, you can sell them on a limited registration and people will buy them, know what they are getting and give you no more guff about it. But if you sell a dog with a physical issue, you disclose the problem, and sell the pup for a reduced rate because of the problem, and every time you turn around the people are calling and complaining, or telling everyone that this pup came out of your breeding. I can understand why breeders may choose to simply euthanize such a pup instead. I do not know if I could.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Some of our litters were so large that we needed a surrogate mother BUT we never ever said that they weren't from the kennel. Didn't matter how many puppies we had, we never euthanized one unless we really had to. 

Those breeders you talk about are NOT reputable breeders. A breeder that is reputable doesn't have anything to hide and will even admit that he once or twice had a dog that had these issues because that is part of breeding. We too had a lon coat once. Never had any pandas or whites but we've had one long coat, we've had HD (every breeder has it at some point) and ED... PLUS it always depends what the SV gives you. The Vet can tell you plenty of times that it is a perfect A, the last word has the SV and if they say that it isn't an A there is nothing really you can do about it. 

Killing because the dog doesn't have the desired color is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. There was a time where they only wanted the red/black shepherds and didn't want to see the sables. I hate the concept of breeding color because that is how you kill the race! That is why we have so many issues and problems with the GSD. They literally killed the GSD by breeding for colors.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

In Winifred Strickland's book, the German Shepherd Today, the statement is made that culling the litter when there are livers or whites or dogs of poor quality (paraphrasing a bit because it is memory), it is another thing to choose puppies that are uniform, etc. 

It has been the practice. 

She is like one of the icons of the breed, but she says to euth a shy dog because it will always be an embarrassment to you.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

Many breeders cull today... And some say the more you cull, the better. Cull pet quality. We have enough pets in the pound.

I could never cull anything, I couldn't even terminate a pregnancy if the pups were more than a few days old (meaning the mating had taken place a few days ago). 

There was a big discussion on culling in breeders HERE:
What is your opinion on 'culling'? - Dog Debates

But to cull a working dog for color, BULL if you do that. That is wrong... It's wrong to kill anything for their color, I can see why a show breeder would do it, because only certain colors are accepted and their are enough pets to go around, several times...


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

I agree that culls on dogs based solely on color have absolutely no place in modern dog breeding.

I do not believe these colors should specifically be bred for, however. While many do not agree with the standard, and would like to see changes within it, it is still the standard. Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean you should blatantly go against it to prove some kind of point. If you TRULY want change, then you work your butt off to show why it must be done... not just talk about what "should" be.

If people want Whites/Livers/Blues/Pandas accepted, then go out there and PROVE they are just as superior as their "accepted" brothers. Take them to the top, get the Sch3s and the herding titles. Get the breed surveys and the health testing done. If the dog TRULY is superior, then it shouldn't matter what color it is. It DESERVES to pass on those genes. Certainly more than some of the "correct" (according to the standard) dogs that are nervebag duds. 

I here the SV is going to accept Long Coats now. A step in the right direction. It doesn't have to stop there.


----------



## SunCzarina (Nov 24, 2000)

onyx'girl said:


> Did some of the breeders do it, though because they didn't want others to know their dogs were producing a genetically "inferior" type?
> If they culled, no one would know, if they sold on a limited, then others could see what they were producing.


that's what I always thought too.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

Interesting to ponder the correlation between culling for undesirable color and the human eugenics movement. Possible connection?


----------

