Now that there's a FC/AFC Black Shorthair...

[Adam]

DKs are not bred to be man sharp. That's the Weimeraner.

I gave an example of how a black dog can better the breed.
If the L/W's black littermate is a better choice for a breeding then that pairing will better the breed. Simply using or not using based on color is not bettering anything - it's sticking to foundless ideal.

Black has done well in DKV testing,I see no reason black would not do well in AKC.

Agreed black has done very well in DKV testing where its accepted but you nor anybody has has giving ONE example of what a black dog can produce that a liver dog can't except for the color...

[Ayres]

Thats all I've been waiting for as well just ONE example of how it will improve the american GSP?

Adam it's not about the American GSP it's about the German GSPS so I say to all of them MOVE TO GERMANY it's the standard there.

First off, there is no "American GSP". The only breed in this discussion recognized by the AKC is the German Shorthaired Pointer. If you want an American GSP, petition the AKC to create a new breed, form a parent club, and run it how you wish.

Secondly, I thought I provided an example previously of a very fine black dog that has already contributed to the breed. In this case, specifics were given. Others have thrown in what they believe to be fine contributions as well. I don't know what else to tell you but to go back and read the thread.

[ACooper]

I like a sharp gsp, I do not like an aggressive gsp. There is a difference.

Adam can I ask why you wouldn't ever own one? Don't like the look or what? Just an honest question.

[ezzy333]

Steve,

You made me smile with your not being able to change label. That is the exact opposite of what almost univerally has been tha label people give me. Made me feel good.

Long ago when I tried to change something I would sit down and list the shortcoming as they are today.

Then I made a list of how to change or correct those shortcomings

Then make a list of how those changes would benefit the people I was trying to convince to agree with my position.

The first lesson in salesmanship is you sell the benefit and not the product.

I haven't seen you or anyone really do much of that. Think you might find that once you can show people how much better things will be for them change will come real quick. But if you are just going to try to convince people to agree with your opinions it isn't going to change for a long time. Why don't you start a topic where everyone can make their three lists and then you will have a chance of getting something worthwhile done.

I have already stated my opinion of change but not sure you heard it. I am 100% in favor of change that improves something more than it hinders and you can get a majority of the people involved to agree with you. But in the mean time till that change takes place, I will adhere to the present rules that were put in place by people just like us and was agreed to by the majority at the time. This you should understand, that you still have to adhere to the current rules and laws even when you don't agree with them.

There are other ways to try and get people to agree with your opinions but as you see they don't really work well when the benefits are not being sold. And I have little sympathy for the people who try to skirt the rules and then come back later and say we have to change them because of their own actions of ignoring what was in place. There seems to be a general pattern of people doing that more in modern society such as our immigration problems. A case of ignoring the law and now wanting relief when being threatened to be sent back. I see that same reasoning in the arguments I have seen on here. And also the fact that black is only a show standard and that is not true. It is the standard of the GSP breed in this country and just because you can register them has little bearing on the subject as the act of registration has no bearing on conforming to the breed standard but just that they are purebred. Same with trials as they only judge field ability. Breeders and no one else are responsible for making sure their dogs conform in a free society. And I don't want to go back to the breed warden situation as I think that has been a change that improved many things but does make it harder to control individuals.

With a breed with a small gene pool, it might add something to the breed by using some dogs with known faults and trying to cull them out but in the gene pool of our dogs I would need to see what qualities any one dog has that can''t be found in some other dogs. But that might be something you would want to include in your lists.

Sell the benefits and change comes quickly but selling your opinion will not change much at all. I agree that black would be OK for the GSP since it might add more than it hinders but it needs to be changed rather than ignored or misrepresented just because you or I don't agree and want it changed.

Guess I am too old to want change just for the sake of change with little if any benefit to our dog breeds.

Ezzy

[ACooper]

Agreed black has done very well in DKV testing where its accepted but you nor anybody has has giving ONE example of what a black dog can produce that a liver dog can't except for the color...

and navhda testing...okay so what can a liver dog produce that a black dog cannot? This is a pointless argument, people who want black accepted want black accepted for numerous reasons there isn't one, same with people who don't want it allowed, they are afraid of fad breeders or people profiting on color (this also pisses me off) etc etc.

I just don't see the big deal if black is allowed.

[adogslife]

The rule book isn't mine the rule book is the GSPCA's. I have very good friends that with black dogs that have asked me to show their dogs as soon as it does pass...I personally would not own one which is why I said from the get go I could careless if it passes or if it doesnt..

Adam,
I don't know you. This quote sounds as if you are a show handler.
Excuse me for assuming - but when someone says they would never own something I am thinking they find it not worth anything.

[Reech]

DKs are not bred to be man sharp. That's the Weimeraner.

I gave an example of how a black dog can better the breed.
If the L/W's black littermate is a better choice for a breeding then that pairing will better the breed. Simply using or not using based on color is not bettering anything - it's sticking to foundless ideal.

Black has done well in DKV testing,I see no reason black would not do well in AKC.

Agreed black has done very well in DKV testing where its accepted but you nor anybody has has giving ONE example of what a black dog can produce that a liver dog can't except for the color...

$$$$$$$$$


Me

[Adam]

The rule book isn't mine the rule book is the GSPCA's. I have very good friends that with black dogs that have asked me to show their dogs as soon as it does pass...I personally would not own one which is why I said from the get go I could careless if it passes or if it doesnt..

Adam,
I don't know you. This quote sounds as if you are a show handler.
Excuse me for assuming - but when someone says they would never own something I am thinking they find it not worth anything.

no problem I do show my own dogs and have been somewhat successful but its not something I do for money I'd much rather play in the field..

[Adam]

Agreed black has done very well in DKV testing where its accepted but you nor anybody has has giving ONE example of what a black dog can produce that a liver dog can't except for the color...

and navhda testing...okay so what can a liver dog produce that a black dog cannot? This is a pointless argument, people who want black accepted want black accepted for numerous reasons there isn't one, same with people who don't want it allowed, they are afraid of fad breeders or people profiting on color (this also pisses me off) etc etc.

I just don't see the big deal if black is allowed.

Liver to liver can only produce liver as of right now the ONLY acceptable color...My reasoning for the question is the people that are fighting for it continue to talk about bettering the breed but can't explain what would make the German shorthaired pointer in america better with the addition of the black coat color

[adogslife]

A black dog will only bring more if a breeder sells it for more. I know of several breeders that have black for the sole reason they believe it will boost sales and fatten their pocket. Same goes for solid liver and same goes for those who ride on the coat tails of breeders within a pedigree.
There are some fine black dogs out there that would add to the breed and there are those in the standard that ought not to have been bred at all.

I have not heard one stable arguement for the refusal of black.

[snips]

Liver to liver can only produce liver as of right now the ONLY acceptable color...My reasoning for the question is the people that are fighting for it continue to talk about bettering the breed but can't explain what would make the German shorthaired pointer in america better with the addition of the black coat color[/quote]

I do not know who is saying it will better the breed, I certainly have not. It is just a color that has been accepted in Germany forever and has been here for a number of years...For those people that have them I certainly do not see why they can title them in the field and not show...Maybe if it were accepted it would no longer be that fad or oddity...

[BigShooter]

As I understand it people that acquired black dogs under the existing standard would like the standard changed. Another way to say this is that people that acquired black dogs under one set of rules now feel like those existing rules are having a negative impact and black dog owners and breeders seek relief.

Somewhat right, but not completely. Owners of black dogs and breeders of black dogs are not the only proponents to remove the color as a disqualification. Check this very thread to find people who don't own black dogs who would vote to allow black in the show ring.

I did not say owners and breeders are the only proponents - nice spin.

...

5. The American Standard was changed 50 years ago or so and is now different than German DK colors allowed. One or more members believe human nature can & should be ignored. Change for the benefit of the few will be good for the many.

Actually, the last GSPCA vote showed 60% in favor of the change. It just wasn't enough to muster the necessary 66% to effectuate a breed standard amendment. With more votes in favor of the change than against it, you've incorrectly stated which side has the "few".

Not correct. Those voting for is a different population than those owning, breeding or wanting to breed to a black dog. Again - nice spin.

Issues:

1. We don't know if a large number or a small number of breeders are overlooking black dogs. "A great number of breeders" would appear to indicate a certain demand for the black market. Black breeders would like the opportunity to meet that demand as only they can.

Any breeder that breeds solely liver colored dogs is potentially overlooking a black dog for their breeding program. You're not going to know without a poll the specific percentage of breeders that overlook black as an option. That said, even without specifics it is a practical and logical statement; one that you haven't really refuted. Further, "a great number of breeders" has nothing to do with a demand for the black market. That phrase was used to show that there a larger number of breeders who breed liver only, to the exclusion of black. If you want specifics on that, do your own poll by taking 5 or 10 of the top gun dog magazines and reviewing the available litters posted in the classifieds. Or, go to some online gun dog classifieds and do the same thing there. Again, you haven't refuted this assertion of mine, and I don't expect you to. But if you're not going to refute it, don't try to spin it.

A great number is directly related to the number of those that may not overlook black if a change is made. It is logical to & practical to state demand would be met by breeders of black dogs. You have not refuted it. Don't try and spin it again.

2. Individual black dogs that would be superior to an existing standard colored dog for a particular breeding may or may not exist.

Key words being, they may exist. You apparently admit that. If they do exist, why limit that breeding due to color alone?


That a black dog superior to an existing standard color dog for a breeding exists, you failed to establish.

Some posters have suggested they'd like to see enough successful black dogs to be convinced that the black segment would be a welcome addition to the GSPCA standard. My perception is the requirement for convincing some folks is more than a handful of successful dogs.

True, and also some folks will never be convinced. But also, some folks are convinced now. And some have been convinced since the question was first posed to them.

3. Their is no concensus nor a preponderance of evidence that demonstrates adding black to the standard would result in the betterment of the breed.

See above. There is a consensus, by your own admission, that adding black to the standard may result in the betterment of the breed. Therefore, by that admission, I can just as easily claim that there is a preponderance of the evidence that adding black will improve the breed, so long as the breedings are done selectively for the qualities of the dog and irregardless of color -- including black in some breedings and excluding black when a liver dog is more compatible.

May is not the same as will. You cannot claim improvement will happen for certain because you do not control any breeders.

4. While DQ'd in the show ring. Field trials have always been available to showcase working dogs.

And that's where Sally has gotten it done! Also, there exist other formats such as hunt tests, NSTRA, etc.

5. I believe it is very naive of anyone to think this is merely about color in the show ring only and that it isn't about the divergence of breed development between the U.S. & Germany, equity, economics & politics.

I wholeheartedly agree. I just believe that it should be solely about the dogs, and not about human equity, economics and politics. And for me, it is.

Saying it is solely about the dogs is idealistic to say the least and ignores human nature. I don't know of anyone that places their needs below that of any animal.

I for one don't believe for one minute that the majority of non-backyard breeders don't have any desire to showcase their dogs in venues to increase the demand and value of their pups. Solely for the betterment of the breed just doesn't wash well.

What about the people who want to compete but have never bred a litter? Rather than make assumptions about their motives, I tend to let people speak for themselves. That way it's perfectly clear what their motives are.

I said I do not believe... nice spin though.

[Ayres]

Ezzy, your view of how to get things changed and my view of how to get things changed are obviously different. If you like to sit down and make lists, and then sell only the benefits to people, then you can do that. I'd rather have open discussion, talking about the benefits and the detriments, so that people can make an informed choice. And I'd rather have that open discussion before anything were put to a vote, that way people wouldn't feel rushed to make a decision without an opportunity to think. I just believe that it's more productive to provide points and counter-points rather than a sales pitch.

Also, if you're talking about just a majority, then the black color would have already passed. Last vote 60% of the valid ballots were in favor of the change. The only problem is that an amendment requires 66%. I believe over the years the number of members in favor of the change has steadily increased. Therefore, the majority is not getting their way because a super-majority is required for the change to be implemented.

Also, remember that we're trying to keep governmental politics away from GDF when not dog related. Equating a debate on a breed standard change to U.S. immigration is really apples and oranges; that line of discussion can't add anything but inflamed, passionate responses on an unrelated topic. As far as the comparison goes, however, it is VERY contradictory to the argument that brought this thread into being. The argument was to get a FC on a black dog to prove they can run in the field. Now how could a black dog ever earn a FC if nobody is to own a black dog (i.e. "following the rules"). Again, you and I will apparently disagree on this as it appears you've just provided a catch 22 situation.

[DeadwoodDogs]

I haven't read all 15 pages of this discussion because these issues/topics get me riled up.....but I will say the following:

Facts:

I have been active with DK/GSPS for over 25 years - and a former member of both the DKV/NADKC and GSPCA breed clubs.
I have bred and owned black DK/GSPs - and can say the same for liver.
I have seen black DK/GSPs that weren't worth feeding - and can say the same for liver.
I have seen black DK/GSPs that were world class in field, water, and conformation - and can say the same for liver.
Black DK/GSPs do offer pigment and eye color that are not typically found in liver DK/GSPs - primarily a conformation issue.

Opinion:

Black is acceptable nearly everywhere throughout the world, and in particular in Germany - the breed's country of origin....and so it should not be a conformation disqualification here.

If a black DK/GSP cannot obtain a show championship or dual championship - then it should not be allowed to run in the field either.

Greg Fry
Deadwood Kennels
Breeding the best I have to the best I can find.....no matter what the color.

[Adam]

[quote="DeadwoodDogs"]
Black DK/GSPs do offer pigment and eye color that are not typically found in liver DK/GSPs - primarily a conformation issue.
quote]

The darkest eye I've ever seen on a GSP was on a Liver dog that didnt have a black dog within 5 generations.

[adogslife]

How many black dog's eyes have you looked at?

[DeadwoodDogs]

I can't argue what you have seen - I can only state what I have witnessed.

I believe part of the reasoning for introducing black into the DK/GSPs many years ago (75-80 years ago?) was to improve pigment and eye color.

I'm a fan of any quality dog that can do it in the field and water with correct conformation.

[Adam]

I've seen plenty of black dogs I'm not saying black dogs do not have dark eyes because the majority do. All I said was the darkest eye I've seen on a dog was a liver dog so if done right you can breed correct eye color with liver dogs.

[adogslife]

Deadwood - the Germans were wrong about that. But it did help lift the head.

[DeadwoodDogs]

I haven't seen any gain in coat pigment with breedings to black but it is an easy way to increase the odds of darker eyes.

Obviously the Germans weren't right about everything....but then again, neither are the Americans.
Nobody is perfect...and no dog is either.

[Ayres]

I did not say owners and breeders are the only proponents - nice spin.

In the quote, you said "people that acquired black dogs" are the ones who would like the standard changed. Twice. You also said "black dog owners and breeders seek relief". I'm not spinning, you are. Dizzy?
-----------------------------------------------------

Actually, the last GSPCA vote showed 60% in favor of the change.

Not correct. Yes it is, look it up.

Those voting for is a different population than those owning, breeding or wanting to breed to a black dog. Again - nice spin.

Those voting for the change, as a percentage, is directly related to those voting against or withholding their vote altogether (40%). Only people voting on the GSPCA ballot get counted, as the standard is set by the GSPCA. People outside the GSPCA (or members who did not turn in their ballots) have no voice. You may think that's harsh, but it's a fact. No spin here. No fuzzy math. Hard numbers only.
-----------------------------------------------------

A great number is directly related to the number of those that may not overlook black if a change is made.

No, "a great number" is just that. Not a ratio, not a percentage, not "directly related" to anything. Just a number. Five may be a "great number", or maybe 50 to someone else. Since I first used the term, I'll define what I meant, which is to say that any number over one is a "great number". In my opinion, one single breeder overlooking a black dog that is a superior breeding prospect, simply because the dog has a black coat, is one too many. You are free to disagree with my opinion, but please don't go off on a tangent to argue semantics.

It is logical to & practical to state demand would be met by breeders of black dogs. You have not refuted it. Don't try and spin it again.

I've never spun it, nor tried to. Demand is being met right now by breeders of black dogs (who else?). It seems, though, that you will have a problem with demand rising for black dogs. This can be motivated by a number of things, but the predominant ones are 1) jealousy, because a breeder of black dogs might have more of a market, or 2) greed, because demand for liver dogs might decline slightly. Regardless, I have always argued that a change in demand, the "fad factor", should always be a secondary consideration at best. The primary consideration when discussing a breed standard change should be how it may impact the dogs, not the breeders.
-----------------------------------------------------

Individual black dogs that would be superior to an existing standard colored dog for a particular breeding may or may not exist.

Key words being, they may exist. You apparently admit that. If they do exist, why limit that breeding due to color alone?

That a black dog superior to an existing standard color dog for a breeding exists, you failed to establish.

I didn't have to establish an example, because you admitted that one may exist. Further, due to the subjective nature of what is deemed "better", any example I might provide would be a fine example in the eyes of some and a horrible example in the eyes of another. This argument of yours is a red herring.
-----------------------------------------------------

May is not the same as will. You cannot claim improvement will happen for certain because you do not control any breeders.

You cannot claim that it won't happen, either. However, I can claim that, if improvement is possible by the addition of black to the standard, then continuing to exclude those dogs in a breeding program will not allow the program to reach its full potential. I choose to not quash the possibility of improvement.
-----------------------------------------------------

Saying it is solely about the dogs is idealistic to say the least and ignores human nature. I don't know of anyone that places their needs below that of any animal.

You assume that such "needs" exist for everyone. Idealistic, yes, absolutely. However, I'm not jaded enough to think that some idealism can't flourish - that people can't do "the right thing" every once in awhile, or that altruism is nonexistent. When I'm debating a topic, I always hope I'm on the side that requires a little idealism.
-----------------------------------------------------

I for one don't believe for one minute that the majority of non-backyard breeders don't have any desire to showcase their dogs in venues to increase the demand and value of their pups. Solely for the betterment of the breed just doesn't wash well.

What about the people who want to compete but have never bred a litter? Rather than make assumptions about their motives, I tend to let people speak for themselves. That way it's perfectly clear what their motives are.

I said I do not believe... nice spin though.

You said you "do not believe ... that ... breeders don't have any desire...." It's a double-negative. I didn't spin it. To paraphrase, you basically said that you believe non-backyard breeders have a desire to get a CH on a dog with the motivation of increasing demand ($) for their line. Thus, I stand by my statements.

[BigShooter]

Re: Now that there's a FC/AFC Black Shorthair...
by BigShooter » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:27 pm
Summary for Greg:

As I understand it people that acquired black dogs under the existing standard would like the standard changed. Another way to say this is that people that acquired black dogs under one set of rules now feel like those existing rules are having a negative impact and black dog owners and breeders seek relief.

Somewhat right, but not completely. Owners of black dogs and breeders of black dogs are not the only proponents to remove the color as a disqualification. Check this very thread to find people who don't own black dogs who would vote to allow black in the show ring.

I did not say owners and breeders are the only proponents - nice spin.

In the quote, you said "people that acquired black dogs" are the ones who would like the standard changed. Twice. You also said "black dog owners and breeders seek relief".

To claim that the push to seek relief from existing rules was started by non-black owners & breeders is ludicrous. Pure semantics.

As I understand it:

Proponents for change:

1.
Ayres wrote: What is fact is that, because currently black is a DQ color in the show ring, for a great number of breeders all black dogs are overlooked as additions to their breeding program.

2. Individual black dogs may exist that would be superior for a particular breeding.

3. Changing the standard to allow black may be for the betterment of the breed.

4. Black is currently a DQ in the show ring. Some black owners have indicated they would like to show their dogs.

5. The American Standard was changed 50 years ago or so and is now different than German DK colors allowed. One or more members believe human nature can & should be ignored. Change for the benefit of the few will be good for the many.

Actually, the last GSPCA vote showed 60% in favor of the change. It just wasn't enough to muster the necessary 66% to effectuate a breed standard amendment. With more votes in favor of the change than against it, you've incorrectly stated which side has the "few".

Not correct. Those voting “for” is a different population than those owning, breeding or wanting to breed to a black dog. Again - nice spin.

Yes it is, look it up.

NO .... those voting “for” is a different population than those owning, breeding or wanting to breed to a black dog. Look it up.

Issues:

1. We don't know if a large number or a small number of breeders are overlooking black dogs. "A great number of breeders" would appear to indicate a certain demand for the black market. Black breeders would like the opportunity to meet that demand as only they can.

Any breeder that breeds solely liver colored dogs is potentially overlooking a black dog for their breeding program. You're not going to know without a poll the specific percentage of breeders that overlook black as an option. That said, even without specifics it is a practical and logical statement; one that you haven't really refuted. Further, "a great number of breeders" has nothing to do with a demand for the black market. That phrase was used to show that there a larger number of breeders who breed liver only, to the exclusion of black. If you want specifics on that, do your own poll by taking 5 or 10 of the top gun dog magazines and reviewing the available litters posted in the classifieds. Or, go to some online gun dog classifieds and do the same thing there. Again, you haven't refuted this assertion of mine, and I don't expect you to. But if you're not going to refute it, don't try to spin it.

The post was: Ayres wrote: What is fact is that, because currently black is a DQ color in the show ring, for a great number of breeders all black dogs are overlooked as additions to their breeding program.

Steve, you admitted you cannot demonstrate the accuracy of your statement and haven’t proven your assertion. You cannot demonstrate what number of solely liver breeders have or have not looked at or overlooked black dogs.

A great number is directly related to the number of those that may not overlook black if a change is made. It is logical to & practical to state demand would be met by breeders of black dogs. You have not refuted it. Don't try and spin it again.

I've never spun it, nor tried to. Demand is being met right now by breeders of black dogs (who else?). It seems, though, that you will have a problem with demand rising for black dogs.

A baseless assumption. However as previously discussed I can understand how this may be an equity issue for those that have remained within the standard.

This can be motivated by a number of things, but the predominant ones are 1) jealousy, because a breeder of black dogs might have more of a market, or 2) greed, because demand for liver dogs might decline slightly. Regardless, I have always argued that a change in demand, the "fad factor", should always be a secondary consideration at best. The primary consideration when discussing a breed standard change should be how it may impact the dogs, not the breeders.

Although you own a black dog, are friends with a breeder of blacks, are an advocate for dogs of black color, state the demand for black dogs can only be met by “who else” but black breeders, admit demand for standard colors may decline slightly you also want to argue that any negative impact on non-black breeders should be ignored.

No, "a great number" is just that. Not a ratio, not a percentage, not "directly related" to anything. Just a number. Five may be a "great number", or maybe 50 to someone else. Since I first used the term, I'll define what I meant, which is to say that any number over one is a "great number". In my opinion, one single breeder overlooking a black dog that is a superior breeding prospect, simply because the dog has a black coat, is one too many. You are free to disagree with my opinion, but please don't go off on a tangent to argue semantics.

You have not prevailed with your claim of “great” so you’d like to reduce it to as little as one. That makes this much to do about “almost nothing”.

2. Individual black dogs that would be superior to an existing standard colored dog for a particular breeding may or may not exist.

Key words being, they may exist. You apparently admit that. If they do exist, why limit that breeding due to color alone?

Other key words being, they might not exist.

That a black dog superior to an existing standard color dog for a breeding exists, you failed to establish.

I didn't have to establish an example, because you admitted that one may exist. Further, due to the subjective nature of what is deemed "better", any example I might provide would be a fine example in the eyes of some and a horrible example in the eyes of another. This argument of yours is a red herring.

Your argument is blue sky. It just as easily may not exist. There are what, about 13,000 plus GSPs registered? How many are blacks? Statistically the odds are significantly higher the larger portion of the population contains one or more standard colored dogs better than any black dog.

Some posters have suggested they'd like to see enough successful black dogs to be convinced that the black segment would be a welcome addition to the GSPCA standard. My perception is the requirement for convincing some folks is more than a handful of successful dogs.

by DGFavor » Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:49 pm

If'n it were me, I wouldn't make such a big deal about it and would steadily go about my business of doing it again...and again...and again. Build a history of success, prove your dogs not their color, and acceptance will follow.

True, and also some folks will never be convinced. But also, some folks are convinced now. And some have been convinced since the question was first posed to them.


3. There is no consensus nor a preponderance of evidence that demonstrates adding black to the standard would result in the betterment of the breed.

See above. There is a consensus, by your own admission, that adding black to the standard may result in the betterment of the breed. Therefore, by that admission, I can just as easily claim that there is a preponderance of the evidence that adding black will improve the breed, so long as the breedings are done selectively for the qualities of the dog and irregardless of color -- including black in some breedings and excluding black when a liver dog is more compatible.

See above. I said black may not result in the betterment of the breed. I did not address consensus and stated instead that the population voting is not the same as the individuals pushing for this change. I can just as easily say there is a preponderance of evidence that fad breeding typically does not result in betterment of the breed.

BTW – "irregardless" is incorrect and a double negative. The correct usage is “regardless”.

May is not the same as will. You cannot claim improvement will happen for certain because you do not control any breeders.

You cannot claim that it won't happen, either. However, I can claim that, if improvement is possible by the addition of black to the standard, then continuing to exclude those dogs in a breeding program will not allow the program to reach its full potential. I choose to not quash the possibility of improvement.

I can claim equally, if diminishment is possible by the addition of black to the standard, then continuing to exclude those dogs from the standard will not undermine the program’s potential.

4. While DQ'd in the show ring. Field trials have always been available to showcase working dogs.

And that's where Sally has gotten it done! Also, there exist other formats such as hunt tests, NSTRA, etc.

Congratulations to the trainer and handler. Let’s see more results & less talk.

5. I believe it is very naive of anyone to think this is merely about color in the show ring only and that it isn't about the divergence of breed development between the U.S. & Germany, equity, economics & politics.

I wholeheartedly agree. I just believe that it should be solely about the dogs, and not about human equity, economics and politics. And for me, it is.

Saying it is solely about the dogs is idealistic to say the least and ignores human nature. I don't know of anyone that places their needs below that of any animal.

You assume that such "needs" exist for everyone.

No, Maslow demonstrated the hierarchy of needs.

Idealistic, yes, absolutely. However, I'm not jaded enough to think that some idealism can't flourish - that people can't do "the right thing" every once in awhile, or that altruism is nonexistent. When I'm debating a topic, I always hope I'm on the side that requires a little idealism.

Where the rubber meets the road is when money matters hit the pocketbook. For some, like yourself, this is a game for others anything affecting a livelihood overshadows theory & idealism.

I for one don't believe for one minute that the majority of non-backyard breeders don't have any desire to showcase their dogs in venues to increase the demand and value of their pups. Solely for the betterment of the breed just doesn't wash well.

What about the people who want to compete but have never bred a litter? Rather than make assumptions about their motives, I tend to let people speak for themselves. That way it's perfectly clear what their motives are.

They made their bed when they chose to ignore the standard.

On a side note, at least two owners of black dogs (from different breeders) told me they got into blacks without knowing they couldn’t be shown. Later they decided the dogs were nice and wanted to show them, only to find out black is a DQ in the ring. They both want the standard changed because they felt victimized. Unfortunately ignorance of the law is no excuse as they say. These are two examples of the exemplary breeders of black dogs, breeding for the betterment of the breed and yet withholding important information from their customers.

I said I do not believe... nice spin though.

You said you "do not believe ... that ... breeders don't have any desire...." It's a double-negative. I didn't spin it. To paraphrase, you basically said that you believe non-backyard breeders have a desire to get a CH on a dog with the motivation of increasing demand ($) for their line. Thus, I stand by my statements

You said “CH” I didn’t. Value is not the same as ($). Value is the combination of quality & price. Yes I stand by my statement.

[honeyrun]

Secondly, I thought I provided an example previously of a very fine black dog that has already contributed to the breed. In this case, specifics were given. Others have thrown in what they believe to be fine contributions as well. I don't know what else to tell you but to go back and read the thread.

Ah, but there are plenty of Liver/white GSPs that can do the same thing.

I have been watching this thread with interest. I, too, am waiting for someone to comeup with something, anything, that the Black will bring to the table other than color.......

[postoakshorthairs]

Secondly, I thought I provided an example previously of a very fine black dog that has already contributed to the breed. In this case, specifics were given. Others have thrown in what they believe to be fine contributions as well. I don't know what else to tell you but to go back and read the thread.

Ah, but there are plenty of Liver/white GSPs that can do the same thing.

I have been watching this thread with interest. I, too, am waiting for someone to comeup with something, anything, that the Black will bring to the table other than color.......

So what is your stand on it...would you vote it in or not?

[AHGSP]

I kinda figured there was a "Pit Bull" waiting in the closet and a puppet asking questions.....

Took me a while to read all of this.... WOW! This whole Black issue is a really hot topic! What's the big deal....it is just a paint job after all

[honeyrun]

There is no Pit Bull here Bruce. I didn't even know this was going on till someone else told me about it last night. So, you are wrong again. I have not been active on any of the boards lately as I have been too busy with work and the dogs.

I have always wondered what so many others do, What exactly are you trying to bring to the breed by singling out the Black GSPs, that we don't already have EXCEPT the color black? A very simple question and it should be a very simple answer. Come on Bruce, take a stab at answering it in a one liner.

I could care less if it gets voted in or not. Black is here and more than likely to stay. if it gets on the ballot enough times, it will eventually pass. I will never own one, but I really don't care if anyone else does. Heck, there is black 3 generations back in two of my dogs.

[Adam]

I kinda figured there was a "Pit Bull" waiting in the closet and a puppet asking questions.....

Took me a while to read all of this.... WOW! This whole Black issue is a really hot topic! What's the big deal....it is just a paint job after all

Unless the presidents stimulus package is giving you money to try and become a comedian you should probably stick to whatever it is you're doing these days...

The big deal is as big shooter said "They made their bed when they chose to ignore the standard."

[ACooper]

Just curious Cindy and Adam why you will "never" own one? Just an honest question, I dont show dogs and 100% do not care if it passes or not, but I find it silly that it hasn't.

[honeyrun]

Coop,

For me it is just personal preference. I like the liver/white/ticked or solid liver, always have. I am sure that there are those that would never own a solid liver GSP either, same difference. That is why I really don't care if it passes. I will still show my dogs and finish them in the show ring as well as field titles. Makes no difference to me if I compete against black dogs or not.

[Adam]

Just curious Cindy and Adam why you will "never" own one? Just an honest question, I dont show dogs and 100% do not care if it passes or not, but I find it silly that it hasn't.

I like my liver dogs- You find it silly it hasn't passed and I find it silly its even being discussed..

Pretty much people knowingly bred something that wasn't allowed and now since those select few didn't want follow the rules and theres enough black dogs running around with an AKC REG# the rules should change?

Think of it as a law, the speed limit is 25mph but a select few disobey it and drive 55mph should we just change the posted speed limit to 55 to accomadate the people who decide not to abide by the rules? Or should they continue to be ticketed if caught?

[BigShooter]

I'm leaving town for a wedding. Carry on ..... carry on.

[adogslife]

If the road calls for a higher speed limit - why not?
It's done all the time.

[DeadwoodDogs]

The first black DK/GSP that I saw work in the field is still one of the best performing dogs I have witnessed. That dog was KS Orson vom Pottsiepen during his Solms test. I bred to him based on performance - not color. Since then I have owned blacks on and off - I currently do not own a black dog. However, I will not disregard breeding a dog because it is black nor will I breed a dog because they are black.

The best to the best - all options are available to me except using a stud owned by a DK person that will not breed an FCI registered dog to an AKC/NAVHDA registered dog.

I think the fad factor of black has already come and gone. If you want a black dog, there are plenty of blacks being produced. Allowing blacks in the show ring now shouldn't increase the fad factor - if anything, black might likely be discriminated against in the ring.

[Ken Lynch]

So much has been said so far that I am no longer sure where to start with a train of thought. So many people have liver dogs that contain dogs in their lines that came from lines from outside the USA, it is not funny. Those foreign lines allow and in fact have black GSP dogs in them. Even in the USA today black GSP dogs are brought into the lines of liver dogs and the liver get are shown in the AKC show ring. To me it seems rather ludicrous to think that the black dog has not contributed to the breed of German Shorthaired Pointer that exists in the USA today. It seems rather hypocritical for a person to say that the black GSP would only lead to the non betterment of the breed and yet own a dog with black blood in its pedigree. If one were to eliminated all these dogs because they had black blood in their lines I venture a guess that a rather pathetic few would be left.

Another train of thought which ignores the above is the argument along the lines of “What does the black GSP bring to the table that does not already exist?” Not sure how to answer so let me cast the question a different way to get the people who pose the question to try and answer their own question. If the proposal were to remove the solid liver dog from the breed standard, how would you answer the question “What does the solid liver GSP bring to the table that does not already exist?”

[DeadwoodDogs]

Good post Ken and while I was out mowing I was thinking the same thing....as Cindy said - two of her dogs have black in the pedigree a few generations back so black dogs have contributed to what is now in her line. Cindy don't get mad at me for saying that.

Your second paragraph - I would use dogs with areas of clear white as an example instead of solid liver. From what I have heard, white dogs were previously culled in Germany due only to coat color as they were undesirable, yet it is a recessive gene that can be carried without being displayed.

[honeyrun]

Ken,

That's an easy one......Absolutely nothing but color pattern. And I have a solid liver male along with many liver/white/ticked.

BUT....that color pattern is acceptable as the standard is written and has been since the inception of the GSP here in this country.

I have another question.....If the standard is written for all GSPs in the USA for AKC registration, and Black is a DQ, then how did they get the black dogs enabled to compete in all other events other than show? I am not being smart here, I would really like to know the answer to this.

Also, would it not have been more advantagous to get the standard changed to include Black prior to everyone breeding for it? There were too many people breeding for black for color only and advertising the RARE Black GSP when this all started. I am thinking that maybe that has soured many GSPCA members to the acceptance of black.

Here is another question.......Why was the color black listed as a DQ in the first place?


Greg, As I said, they are 3 generations back due to the DK influence that I brought into my line. But, as I said, my preference is for Liver/white and that is what I will stick with. I admit it, so I won't get mad.

[DeadwoodDogs]

Cindy,

I agree in that I question why the GSPCA would allow blacks to be registered and run for a FC but not a CH/DC. All or nothing seems more appropriate to me.

My DK history is a little rusty but wasn't the AKC standard originally written in the 30s? About the same time that black pointers were being introduced to the gene pool in Germany and segregated in a separate stud book?

[adogslife]

Could it be at the time the show crowd "ran the show"? Giving less preference for field ability?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who notices the blue blood of some of the judges?

[Adam]

Could it be at the time the show crowd "ran the show"? Giving less preference for field ability?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who notices the blue blood of some of the judges?

back in the 30's I highly doubt there was a "show" crowd if you read some of the breed history even some of the lines that have developed some of the current "show" lines they were all started by hunters who ended up showing their dogs the way it should be..

[adogslife]

I am sure the AKC began in the late 1880's (1887?)as a show organization and began recording show dogs in the studbooks before any field dogs.

[Adam]

The AKC did not write or create the standard the GSPCA did..

[Ayres]

To claim that the push to seek relief from existing rules was started by non-black owners & breeders is ludicrous. Pure semantics.

I never claimed it wasn't started by black dog owners and breeders. What I claimed is that black dog owners and breeders are not the only proponents. When you said "people who acquired black dogs" want it changed, you limited the pool of people who want it changed. You used an incorrect label, having the effect of portraying all those proponents as having a direct interest in the standard change. What I've tried to explain to you is that not every current proponent even owns a black dog. This is not an issue of 'black dog owners' versus 'everyone else' as you make it seem.

And you obviously don't know what is meant by semantics. THIS is arguing semantics:

What is fact is that, because currently black is a DQ color in the show ring, for a great number of breeders all black dogs are overlooked as additions to their breeding program.

Steve, you admitted you cannot demonstrate the accuracy of your statement and haven’t proven your assertion. You cannot demonstrate what number of solely liver breeders have or have not looked at or overlooked black dogs.

You're arguing my choice of words instead of addressing the underlying debate. You're deflecting away from the issue, not refuting it, and apparently claiming I've posted something so egregious that would cause me to "lose" this issue, when you haven't even addressed it. I'm not going to argue the semantics of this anymore. If you want proof that there are GSP breeders that do not consider breeding to black coated dogs, look at this thread and all of the previous threads on this forum approaching this topic.

One or more members believe human nature can & should be ignored. Change for the benefit of the few will be good for the many.

Actually, the last GSPCA vote showed 60% in favor of the change. It just wasn't enough to muster the necessary 66% to effectuate a breed standard amendment. With more votes in favor of the change than against it, you've incorrectly stated which side has the "few".

Not correct. Yes it is, look it up.

NO .... those voting “for” is a different population than those owning, breeding or wanting to breed to a black dog. Look it up.

Mark, I can't tell if you have a problem with my numbers or your own characterization of who benefits. Therefore, I've provided both arguments. 1) Again, if you are not a member of the GSPCA who turned in your ballot on time, then you have no voice on the issue. We're talking about a breed standard change. To get that done, it takes a 66% vote in favor of the change, out of all the counted ballots. Ballots voting against the change and ballots timely turned in which have nothing marked on that issue all count as a no-vote. The last time this issue was brought up with the GSPCA, 60% of the returned ballots were in favor of the change, and 40% were either against or did not have anything marked down on that issue. The time before that, 57% of the timely returned ballots were in favor of the change. (I did look it up - did you?) Progress is being made, and more are in favor of the change than are against the change. And 2) This is not an issue where the "few" will be benefited by overturning the will of the "many", as you previously characterized it, as any person voting in favor of the change will be benefited, in some fashion, including altruistically, by the passing of their vote. Because the numbers indicate more in favor than against or indifferent, it is obviously not a "few", but a "majority" that stands to benefit if the magic number of 66% is reached whenever this issue may come up for a vote again.

Further, if you do have a problem with the numbers, I'll say that you haven't done a poll, and you can't tell me the exact size of the "population of those owning, breeding or wanting to breed a black dog." I've provided concrete numbers and a very thorough explanation of why those numbers, and only those numbers, should be used when discussing the proportion of who is for vs. who is against or indifferent to the standard change. After reading over this point a couple times, I don't think you've meant to argue against this, but it looks like that could possibly be the case so I'm covering all bases.

... It seems, though, that you will have a problem with demand rising for black dogs.

A baseless assumption.

Baseless? Really? You've continually argued the economics of the issue, supply and demand, and who stands to benefit and lose. I hardly consider my statement "baseless". Incorrect, possibly. You would need to refute it for it to be incorrect. And if it is incorrect, I'll own up to it. I never said it was fact; what I said is that it seems that way. But a "baseless" assumption? No way. That's a cop-out to addressing the issue.

However as previously discussed I can understand how this may be an equity issue for those that have remained within the standard.

Exactly my point.

Although you own a black dog, are friends with a breeder of blacks, are an advocate for dogs of black color, state the demand for black dogs can only be met by “who else” but black breeders, admit demand for standard colors may decline slightly you also want to argue that any negative impact on non-black breeders should be ignored.

Yes. Exactly. I have never shied away from the fact that my side of this issue requires some idealism. One thing you can't forget, though, is that there really aren't any barriers to entry, stopping non-black breeders from entering the "market" should they desire. And, that said, I really don't think the supply/demand issue will be a very large factor. Black dogs are already available.

Individual black dogs that would be superior to an existing standard colored dog for a particular breeding may or may not exist.

Key words being, they may exist. You apparently admit that. If they do exist, why limit that breeding due to color alone?

Other key words being, they might not exist.

That a black dog superior to an existing standard color dog for a breeding exists, you failed to establish.

I didn't have to establish an example, because you admitted that one may exist. Further, due to the subjective nature of what is deemed "better", any example I might provide would be a fine example in the eyes of some and a horrible example in the eyes of another. This argument of yours is a red herring.

Your argument is blue sky. It just as easily may not exist.

Because a "blue sky" argument connotes the event whereby a debater sticks to facts rather than interjecting emotion into the argument, I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.

Your argument is still a red herring, or you don't have an argument at all. The facts are that you have admitted a possibility that a superior black dog exists for a certain application. If that possibility turns out to be true, then that superior dog should be used regardless of the black coat. If the superior breeding prospect happens to be liver, then go with the superior liver dog. Simple as that. Your argument's result would be to cut breeding options, with the possibility of cutting breeding program potential. I'm arguing to keep those options open so that the same breeding program can hit its full potential regardless of whether a dog is black or liver.

There is no consensus nor a preponderance of evidence that demonstrates adding black to the standard would result in the betterment of the breed.

See above. There is a consensus, by your own admission, that adding black to the standard may result in the betterment of the breed. Therefore, by that admission, I can just as easily claim that there is a preponderance of the evidence that adding black will improve the breed, so long as the breedings are done selectively for the qualities of the dog and irregardless of color -- including black in some breedings and excluding black when a liver dog is more compatible.

See above. I said black may not result in the betterment of the breed. I did not address consensus and stated instead that the population voting is not the same as the individuals pushing for this change. I can just as easily say there is a preponderance of evidence that fad breeding typically does not result in betterment of the breed.

Quite simply, see the argument directly above this. You've admitted that it "may", which already connotes that it also "may not". But by your own admission, the possibility is there. That's enough to prove my point.

BTW – "irregardless" is incorrect and a double negative. The correct usage is “regardless”.

That's correct! You caught me with bad grammar on that one. It's a good thing the words mean the same thing pursuant to common speech, regardless of whether or not it is very commonly accepted. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless I'll chalk that one up to regional dialect, but you're absolutely right that I should have used "regardless" instead of "irregardless".

May is not the same as will. You cannot claim improvement will happen for certain because you do not control any breeders.

You cannot claim that it won't happen, either. However, I can claim that, if improvement is possible by the addition of black to the standard, then continuing to exclude those dogs in a breeding program will not allow the program to reach its full potential. I choose to not quash the possibility of improvement.

I can claim equally, if diminishment is possible by the addition of black to the standard, then continuing to exclude those dogs from the standard will not undermine the program’s potential.

You fail to acknowledge that diminishment is already possible irrespective of color, and diminishment will happen if the breeder does not choose the superior breeding prospect.

While DQ'd in the show ring. Field trials have always been available to showcase working dogs.

And that's where Sally has gotten it done! Also, there exist other formats such as hunt tests, NSTRA, etc.

Congratulations to the trainer and handler. Let’s see more results & less talk.

If you don't want to talk, you don't have to. If you want to see more results look in other venues as well (except AKC conformation, of course).

Saying it is solely about the dogs is idealistic to say the least and ignores human nature. I don't know of anyone that places their needs below that of any animal.

You assume that such "needs" exist for everyone.

No, Maslow demonstrated the hierarchy of needs.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theoretical model not without criticism, most of which being the fact that there is no basis for the ranking of the "needs" in the order in which they are commonly depicted. Despite that, you've made some incorrect assumptions in your application, the largest mistake being that you have failed to acknowledge that certain "needs" may be met without impact of the debated issue, thereby causing any negative impact on a "greater" need to be overlooked in favor of a more positive impact on a theoretical "less important" need. Practically, one who doesn't stand to gain economically could still vote in favor of the breed standard change because he or she believes it is the right thing.

Idealistic, yes, absolutely. However, I'm not jaded enough to think that some idealism can't flourish - that people can't do "the right thing" every once in awhile, or that altruism is nonexistent. When I'm debating a topic, I always hope I'm on the side that requires a little idealism.

Where the rubber meets the road is when money matters hit the pocketbook. For some, like yourself, this is a game for others anything affecting a livelihood overshadows theory & idealism.

I don't consider this a "game" at all. Now THAT'S a baseless assumption. Just because I don't stand to gain or lose economically doesn't mean this issue isn't important to me. And like I said before, there are no real barriers to entry into the black-coat market. This isn't an issue that's going to put breeders of liver dogs out of business. The sky isn't falling.

I for one don't believe for one minute that the majority of non-backyard breeders don't have any desire to showcase their dogs in venues to increase the demand and value of their pups. Solely for the betterment of the breed just doesn't wash well.

What about the people who want to compete but have never bred a litter? Rather than make assumptions about their motives, I tend to let people speak for themselves. That way it's perfectly clear what their motives are.

I said I do not believe... nice spin though.

You said you "do not believe ... that ... breeders don't have any desire...." It's a double-negative. I didn't spin it. To paraphrase, you basically said that you believe non-backyard breeders have a desire to get a CH on a dog with the motivation of increasing demand ($) for their line. Thus, I stand by my statements

You said “CH” I didn’t. Value is not the same as ($). Value is the combination of quality & price. Yes I stand by my statement.

You said "showcase their dogs in venues". To be on topic, that would include the AKC conformation ring. Unless, you want to backpedal some more?

Value = the combination of quality and price. Your words. Also, you used the word "demand." Taking the two together, you did state that money ($) is a driving factor, and that "solely for the betterment of the breed just doesn't wash well." Sounds like I had it right the first time around.

On a side note, at least two owners of black dogs (from different breeders) told me they got into blacks without knowing they couldn’t be shown. Later they decided the dogs were nice and wanted to show them, only to find out black is a DQ in the ring. They both want the standard changed because they felt victimized. Unfortunately ignorance of the law is no excuse as they say. These are two examples of the exemplary breeders of black dogs, breeding for the betterment of the breed and yet withholding important information from their customers.

That's quite a story. I feel sorry for those puppy purchasers for not doing their own research or asking questions of the breeders (I do note that you said they weren't told, but did not claim that they were lied to). It's sure easy to place contempt with the breeders when you hear one side of the story. But that's just what this is -- a story. Do you think we need to start telling stories of liver-coat breeders who rip off buyers? I don't think we stand to gain anything by using such large brush strokes based on anecdotal hearsay.

Oh! And have a good time at the wedding you're attending. If you don't respond for a few days I'll know why.

[adogslife]

The American Kennel Club recognized the breed officially in 1930. In 1939 the A.K.C. granted the Minnesota GSP Club parent club status, and the GSP Club of America got it's start. Until 1953 the Minnesota Club remained the parent club, then it was mandated that the parent club be a separate organization. In 1962 the GSP Club of America was finally established into its present day structure.

The AKC granted rights and priveledges to form the GSPCA- don't you think they would have done what they were told?

[Adam]

The American Kennel Club recognized the breed officially in 1930. In 1939 the A.K.C. granted the Minnesota GSP Club parent club status, and the GSP Club of America got it's start. Until 1953 the Minnesota Club remained the parent club, then it was mandated that the parent club be a separate organization. In 1962 the GSP Club of America was finally established into its present day structure.

Recognizing the breed and writing the breed standard are 2 different things.. I apologize i was wrong

"The AKC did not recognize the German Shorthair breed until 1930. In 1935, "Sporting Dogs", an AKC official publication was printed. It contained the origin, history and standards of the 19 breeds recognized by The American Kennel Club at the time that comprised Group I. The German Shorthair Pointer standard found in this book and approved by AKC in April of 1935 was courtesy of the National German Shorthaired Pointer Dog Club. It is unknown if this club was the same group of individuals that subsequently petitioned AKC in 1938 to be the Parent Club for the breed."

[adogslife]

I know all this.
My point is - if the breed was recognized then someone (group of individuals running the AKC) had to have a vision of the breed. The AKC being primarily a show venue would want to control the standard to fit their own desires. Is it possible that the AKC did not know about the color black - or possibly, they were a rare color and decided not to include them - thinking their numbers are to small anyway?
They allow them to compete in all venues except the ring. They are rcognized as a tue GSP - what's up with the color thing?
Maybe they can't admit their error?

[Adam]

Are you saying there was no standard until, when - 1939?

AKC is a registry it is up to each breeds parent club to write standards.

[postoakshorthairs]

I don't really have a stake in the argument. I have a black female, but she is only a fair example of the breed so I choose not to breed, show, trial etc. I really don't understand why she is allowed to participate in field events and not show events. I personally have no interest in show events, but I just don't get the logic. I understand and appreciate those who say that not liking black is a personal preference. Brenda has said she doesn't care for the black color herself but she is in favor of letting them compete...which i think is spot on. I think it would be hippocritical for her kennel to breed Fritz to a black female for a stud fee and in the next breath say that she's not in favor of adding black dogs into the equation.

Also, would it not have been more advantagous to get the standard changed to include Black prior to everyone breeding for it? There were too many people breeding for black for color only and advertising the RARE Black GSP when this all started. I am thinking that maybe that has soured many GSPCA members to the acceptance of black.

Unless i am mistaken your male (the sire of adam's female) has sired a litter with a black female....so if you don't like the color and think the standard should be changed prior to breeding for it why would you allow your stud to be used. I'm not trying to be a wise a$$...just seems like your playing both sides. JMO

[ElhewPointer]

I haven't read through all the posts. Obviously there are some of you that are very passionate about this. That's not a bad thing. But IMO, when it comes down to it. The AKC would want this to happen because it is more money for them. More dual champions means more entry fees means more money.

[adogslife]

Believe what you will - I believe the error is with the AKC. The club involved with the creating the standard was goverened by the AKC - I believe the error is with the AKC back in the begining.

[honeyrun]

Post.....

Unless i am mistaken your male (the sire of adam's female) has sired a litter with a black female....so if you don't like the color and think the standard should be changed prior to breeding for it why would you allow your stud to be used. I'm not trying to be a wise a$$...just seems like your playing both sides. JMO

Hellooooooooo, did you not read where it didn't matter to me one way or the other????????? MY PREFERENCE is liver/white. Oh, and by the way, the owner of the black bitch knew of my preferences. AND didn't I admit that there is black 3 generations back in two of my girls???????

I also mentioned that black was here already and probably here to stay.

IT WAS AN OBSERVATION, that they probably could have and should have tried to get the standard changed BEFORE people tried to breed and sell on the basis of color only.

Oh and Post....., I do believe that you are purposely trying to be a wisea$$.