What is the relevance of colouring in breed standards?

Question

From my (admittedly very limited) understanding of breed standards for conformation, it appears that different colourings in some breeds are considered faults (eg. white patches on the chests of some breeds, or brown colouring in a shih-tzu), whilst in other breeds there is no such distinction (eg. a greyhound can be black, white, blue,brindle etc...etc...) and the different colourings are not considered a fault in any way.

My understanding was also that breed standards were decided based upon characteristics needed to perform the job they were originally bred for. If that is correct, what difference would it make if the dog was a different colour? Why would it make a difference in some breeds and not others?

Answer 1

As the foundations of the breed had no dogs of the penalized colors, it can be indicative of mixed breeding, somewhere up the line..
for instance, my own breed..None were imported from country of origin that were spotted..None of the 3 generations of those imported dogs were spotted, so therefore, a dog that shows up spotted, has likely been out-bred to another breed..The out-breeding may have been unintentional, or to enhance the size or coat..It may even be a throwback, to an unknown ancestor..but, as it is questionable, and the founders want to preserve the integrity as much as possible, the spotted dog is suspicious, so therefore it is a major fault.

However, dogs that are spotted can still be registered, and dogs from the spotted one can be registered..but no spotted one will be allowed to show..

Really good question, by the way..

Answer 2

Although, I tend to agree with you there was a time (long ago) when ignorant, uppity breeders quietly had a pup or so drowned rather than admit their precious 'Sophie' whelped a mismark or bluie or whatever the fault coloring. This was especially true in toy breeds where there was no reason for a dog to be a certain color. These dogs were bred strictly as lap dogs so color requirements would have been strictly a matter of preference. When a breed was first accepted into the UKC( I'm sure other clubs in other countries, as well) the owners and breeders of that breed would form their own breed club and decide the standard. Naturally, they were going to go with their favorite or only dog in their own possession. (Politics, of course.) In doing so they not only sacrificed the lives of precious puppies but also lost some good temperament, gait, bone (size),and coat among other desirable qualities. Breeders have bred for years and years trying to set type and get back some of what was lost. Tis a huge shame to kill what God has made because you are afraid your sire or dam may be cast in a bad light. Had they used some of these dogs for breeding and gotten all the wonderful qualities from them THEN they could have used the colors they desired and eventually bred what they considered undesirable colors out. There will always be throw backs but they should never be drowned or put to sleep. Plenty people are willing to give a home to these lovely dogs.
Conformation shows have become a big beauty pageant for the most part. A dog that can get the job done is desirable but if he doesn't have the looks that the dog behind him possesses he will most generally be overlooked.

Answer 3

Colour is a very important part in what makes a dog look like the breed he is & not like another breed. A Golden Retriever would look very like a Flat coat if he were black. It's true to a certain extent that breed standards are based on work characteristics but, of course, a number of breeds were bred purely to be companions. Many of the colour restrictions were put in to avoid confusion with other similar breeds and a number of breeds who list white as a fault probably do so because of white colouration's link with deafness & association with albinoism. The presence of some "undesirable" colours also links to the crossing of 2 breeds to produce another & since that particular colour wasn't what was desired by the original breeders it is classed as undesirable because they wish to breed it out. The problem with allowing small white patches may be that they turn into bigger white patches in the next generation, to the main colour in the 3rd generation & to completely white in the 4th. Colour can affect, not so much the working ability of the dog, but the work of the person working with him - a black dog is difficult to see at night/ a white dog difficult to see in snow etc.
That said, good breeders do not consider colour as the be-all and end-all in breeding. As long as the colour is within the breed standard, good conformation & temperament & health are equally important. If a dog is an exceptionally good colour, that is a bonus.

Answer 4

In Italian Greyhounds, brindle and black & tan are not allowed. The reasoning is that brindle could show that the bloodline was mixed with a Whippet and black & tan could show that the bloodline was mixed with a Min Pin or Manchester Terrier.

In Labs, Yellow, Chocolate, and Black are the ONLY accepted colours. "Silver" labs are suspected of being mixed with Weimeraners - diluting the bloodlines. Brindles are a DQ because of the probability of them being mixed with a brindled breed (Greyhound, Boxer, etc)

You get the idea. Basically, it shows an impurity in the bloodline somewhere.

There are also working reasons. The tip of a beagle's tail is white so that they can easily be seen when hunting through brush. Although this is not in the breed standard, it is considered normal tail colouring.

Answer 5

In the majority of breeds, the standards for colors are purely arbitrary - they are what was at the time the standard was written, was considered most pleasing to the eye. For example, an afghan with a patch of white on his face would not look at all aristocratic; a bearded collie has limits to how much white he can has on him which is in direct contrast to the old english sheepdog. The standards of some breeds are rather vague in a lot of areas, while other standards are very, very explicit - the same applies to color.

Answer 6

My best guess is that it's the same as with horses (I'm a horse person). In breed standards, the animal is judged on what makes it most typical of the breed. In some breeds, as you noted, there is very little variety in coat color, so the norm for that breed is that it should have that expected coat color and any deviation from the norm is considered sub-standard. In those breeds where there is greater variability in coat colors, there is no real norm, so the color doesn't figure into the judging process.

Answer 7

In some dog coat colour indicates incomplete or recessive genes and breeding 2 dogs together that carry the same gene can result high number of still births and pups being born blind and deaf and there fore a color coat may be considered unacceptable because of that

especially common in merle colouring with many breeds eg aussie, great danes, poms, shelties etc

http://www.handicappedpets.com/Articles/aussie/index.htm


In germany they have made it illegal to breed merle or harlequin patterns together calling it cruel and abusive breeding practices because of defective offspring produced

http://www.dogstuff.info/harle_breeding_banned_in_germany_yousha.html

Answer 8

The irony is that you would have to ask the parent club for each breed why, because there is no one answer.

With my Beagles the standard simply states "any recognized hound color"
then followed by this,,,,, lol
http://clubs.akc.org/NBC/beagle_colors.htm