Piebald Mastiffs

[DMikeM]

This is the same argument being made in the Boerboel community. Some people want to exclude the Pie markings saying that another breed was introduced to create the Irish Markings, but when we showed that one of the original founding fathers of the Boerboel breed had Piebald dogs from the beginning they had to stop their crying. The English Mastiff has always had Piebald in it's colors and it probably comes from the same genes as the Boerboels does. Possibly the Tibetian Mastiff or some hound that was used in the start of the breed.

 

[cinnamon roll]

I love that coat on a MASTIFF!! I have no plans on showing nor breeding any dog. I don't care what the AKC or anyone says about it.

Saying that a pieblad is not a true mastiff is like saying that if your EM is smaller or larger than AKC rules then you don't have a real mastiff. JMO

So if you breed your dogs and they threw a piebald does that mean you wouldn't see it because it is "defective"? Or would you just give it away because it is not a "real" mastiff???

 

[WalnutCrest]

If I bred a piebald mastiff, I'd place it in a pet home and would give the pups owners whatever registration papers existed after they had him/her desexed at 2yrs of age ... and ... I'd hope that they'd love on that pup!

... it's easy to forget there is a standard if it's inconvenient to your personal tastes ...

...and...

...it's easy to forget that the most important thing your dog will ever do is wag its tail when you come home from a really bad day...

 

[WalnutCrest]

MAYBE there would be a large increase in unwanted pups, MAYBE not.

We must have a real different view of human nature (especially the nature of the BYB and people who breed dogs as a major source of household income).

Explain to me exactly what you have done to form your working theory in terms of working with piebalds. Also, what is "almost nothing"?

The onus is on the ones who wish to change the standard to show how doing so will BENEFIT the breed ... not on those who wish to maintain the integrity of the breed.

So, what have you done to prove that your maybe's and if's are fact-based and beneficial to the Mastiff proper?

No more if's and maybe's in my comment than yours, I just typed the words out and you presented your opinion as fact instead.

I agree that both positions have if's and maybe's; I disagree that mine was presented as fact.

The obligation remains on the ones wanting change to do the work and to PROVE that it is in the best interest of the breed to affect the change.

If it might be in the best interest, I'm not interested. If it is in the best interest, I'm passionately interested and will endeavor to see the change affected ... to hold an opposing view is contrary to my stated love of the breed.

I fail to see how allowing piebald genetics to replicate throughout the gene pool helps the breed.

Obviously at some point a pretty tri-party coat did, indeed say MASTIFF........Until a group of people decided that they didn't like it and wrote it out.

...which is the point. Writing a breed standard requires the one(s) writing it to make choices and decisions that will affect the breed for decades, or even centuries. Such decisions were made and generations after generations of breeders have faithfully carried the breed traditions, look, phenotype and function forward for well over 100 years.

And now it's inconvenient to some to maintain that standard and wish it to change to reflect their views. The Wilshires are nice folks -- I like Si and Jen -- and have had nothing but professional interactions with them. I'm ever so grateful for their Mastiff videos. They have their strongly held view. I just happen to disagree with them ... and based on some informal straw poles I've been a party to among a wide variety of other longer-tenured Mastiff breeders, fanciers and judges, most of them agree with me. The general puppy buying public and casual breed proponents may not agree with me ... and I'm ok with that.

 

[Rugers-Kris]

We must have a real different view of human nature (especially the nature of the BYB and people who breed dogs as a major source of household income).

I don't think we have a different view, I just think that those that already breed to fill thier pockets, still will and anyone that has the means and drive to spend excessive cash for a puppy should know better than to pay such a higher amount for a pie bald pup.



The onus is on the ones who wish to change the standard to show how doing so will BENEFIT the breed ... not on those who wish to maintain the integrity of the breed

I don't see why you can't maintain the breed and benefit it as well? If color is the only "change" and these pups bring ANYTHING more to the breed in ways of the standard otherwise, wouldn't that be a good thing?

So, what have you done to prove that your maybe's and if's are fact-based and beneficial to the Mastiff proper?

I haven't "done" anything nor did I imply that I have. I asked you this question because you implied some knowledge from your experience working with/breeding Mastiff's and was curious as to what negatives you could offer beyond the article and so far I am not hearing you present anything.



I agree that both positions have if's and maybe's; I disagree that mine was presented as fact.

The obligation remains on the ones wanting change to do the work and to PROVE that it is in the best interest of the breed to affect the change.

Unless these pups are abled to be bred, registered and shown, how is it you expect that they can PROVE this. I believe that is what they are saying, isn't it? They have already presented that there is no reason NOT to so I assume they will need to be given the opportunity to prove why they should.

If it might be in the best interest, I'm not interested. If it is in the best interest, I'm passionately interested and will endeavor to see the change affected ... to hold an opposing view is contrary to my stated love of the breed.

Again, you can't know if it is in the best interest because they aren't given the opportunity to do so.

I fail to see how allowing piebald genetics to replicate throughout the gene pool helps the breed.

I understand that but you haven't offered any reasoning or experience that says that it would hurt the gene pool? I find it hard to believe that you are against this just because the color doesn't say "Mastiff" to you. Is there something more that you aren't saying? If a litter of 10 hits the ground and one pie bald is amongst the pups and all other 9 pups are able to registered, shown or bred (Or at least the possibility exists that they can) ...What is it about this tri-colored pup that says that he or she may not be worthy as well? Other than color is it not possible that the one pie bald may very well be the pup from that litter that has the most "possibilities", bone structure, head, temperment, etc. and if that may be the case, is it worth continuing to exclude these pups that MAY very well be able to continue improving the breed?



...which is the point. Writing a breed standard requires the one(s) writing it to make choices and decisions that will affect the breed for decades, or even centuries. Such decisions were made and generations after generations of breeders have faithfully carried the breed traditions, look, phenotype and function forward for well over 100 years.

And now it's inconvenient to some to maintain that standard and wish it to change to reflect their views. The Wilshires are nice folks -- I like Si and Jen -- and have had nothing but professional interactions with them. I'm ever so grateful for their Mastiff videos. They have their strongly held view. I just happen to disagree with them ... and based on some informal straw poles I've been a party to among a wide variety of other longer-tenured Mastiff breeders, fanciers and judges, most of them agree with me. The general puppy buying public and casual breed proponents may not agree with me ... and I'm ok with that.

Because I am the general puppy buying public has nothing to do with my opinion. I certainly do not have years of experience bredding/working with Mastiff's but I am more than intelligent enough to read the facts and understand them and I AM passionate about this breed and although I personally have no desire to be a breeder, I have high hopes that the EM (Which is being bred by too many who don't care) can improve and more and more puppies that are being sold will have less medical issues and better temperments, etc. and I will continue to say that pie bald puppies should be allowed to exist in the EM world as just as worthy as the reamining pups in the litter unless you have more information that has not been brought to my attention that shows what the negative impact would/could be.

 

[ruthcatrin]

Anytime you're restricting breeding soley on the basis of a color you don't "like" you're narrowing the gene pool. Narrow it to far and you do damage to the breed.

These days genetic testing to confirm parantage is easy, and in many cases it would be entirely possible to do so back several generations, to prove "purebred" or not. Totally removing any concerns about parentage.

If theres no health problems associated with the color, and genetic testing can confirm parentage and thus "purebredness" then there is no Harm to the breed by including them, and I think the potential for good, from the increase in genetic material ought to be considered. In todays "dog society" there are many breeds who've become so inbred that their health is almost guaranteed to fail in drastic ways at an early age, so keeping the gene pool wide enough to prevent that in another breed SHOULD be of importance to any breeder.

 

[WalnutCrest]

What about the possibility of congenital deafness in some breeds where white is a common occurrence?

What will be done to restrict the prevalence of "piebald related" breedings during whatever sort of "test phase" is proposed above? IOW, how do you keep the unscrupulous amongst us from attempting to line their pockets (more than they already do) and/or entice others to attempt to line their pockets (i.e., new BYBs / PMs)?

What about BREED TYPE? I have a hard time believing that if you saw a smooth coated piebald mastiff, a regular ol' fawn Mastiff, a fluffy fawn Mastiff, a smooth coated Saint Bernard, and a long coated Saint Bernard in a dog park from 50 yards, you'd see "two mastiffs and three saint bernards" ... as would almost anyone (including me, quite possibly) not giving them a close inspection.

A specimen that exudes breed type should be identifiable as a member of that breed by someone with a passing (or more than passing) knowledge of the breed from 50 yards. A piebald mastiff isn't such an animal.

Great pets. Awesome therapy dogs. Rally ... sure. Tracking. Weight pull. Etc.

As breeding stock? No.

 

[WalnutCrest]

Anytime you're restricting breeding soley on the basis of a color you don't "like" you're narrowing the gene pool. Narrow it to far and you do damage to the breed.

Any time you restrict breeding based on ANY trait, you narrow the gene pool.

So, you don't like longer-bodied specimens ... you prefer a shorter distance down the back ... well, if you did, then that wouldn't be to the breed standard. Now, this isn't a call for uber-long specimens, however, length of body is a trait to be sought ... even if your personal taste dictates otherwise.

Why?

Because it's in our breeds' standard.

****************

Quite separately, if you wonder if there is any real risk of some sort of genetic bottleneck at this time in Mastiffs, please educate yourself about the various mis-marked (!) pedigrees that populate the majority of Mastiffs around the world. Within the last 30-40 years, it's a poorly kept secret that the breed has (probably) had Saint Bernard, Great Dane, Bullmastiff, and possibly Great Pyrenees, DDB, and/or maybe Newfoundland blood from one or more breeders who lied about their pedigrees (which lies weren't discovered until thousands of dogs carried these lines all around the world). As a result, the Mastiff proper runs very little risk of a genetic bottleneck as a result of the clandestine efforts of one (a few?) of the more prolific breeders in the 1970s and 1980s.

And, fwiw, there are still some breeders who continue to focus on breeding dogs with no genetic influence from these sorts of non-Mastiff infusions from the 1970s and 1980s. If you want to talk about a genetic bottleneck, it's those breeders who have an issue ... not the vast majority of main-line Mastiff breeders. The main-line Mastiff breeders simply need to be a little more adventuresome with the studs they use (i.e., be willing to import semen from afar, etc.) ... AND ... a little more restrictive on the bitches they use.

 

[TWW]

I really have to go with WalnutCrest on the fear of BYB. Some people will buy and believe about anything.
It is a crime they ever dismissed them from the standard.
I would like to see them brought back, just there would need to be a lot of work, that I don't know how would be done.

Most just want what is fashionable or rare. So they don't do the research at 90% of the people here would do.

 

[joshuagough]

There's a member here who on Sally (she's a pie), I believe that's the forum name also.. take a look at that dog let me know what you think. IMO there's no way someone (with decent breed knowledge) would confuse her with a Saint or any other breed.

She is stellar IMO. I'm not a big dog show fan due to all the politics in it. I've seen first hand if you have enough money and even a decent dog you can champion it as if it was the greatest dog in the world.

What about the possibility of congenital deafness in some breeds where white is a common occurrence?

What will be done to restrict the prevalence of "piebald related" breedings during whatever sort of "test phase" is proposed above? IOW, how do you keep the unscrupulous amongst us from attempting to line their pockets (more than they already do) and/or entice others to attempt to line their pockets (i.e., new BYBs / PMs)?

What about BREED TYPE? I have a hard time believing that if you saw a smooth coated piebald mastiff, a regular ol' fawn Mastiff, a fluffy fawn Mastiff, a smooth coated Saint Bernard, and a long coated Saint Bernard in a dog park from 50 yards, you'd see "two mastiffs and three saint bernards" ... as would almost anyone (including me, quite possibly) not giving them a close inspection.

A specimen that exudes breed type should be identifiable as a member of that breed by someone with a passing (or more than passing) knowledge of the breed from 50 yards. A piebald mastiff isn't such an animal.

Great pets. Awesome therapy dogs. Rally ... sure. Tracking. Weight pull. Etc.

As breeding stock? No.

 

[joshuagough]

delete

 

[ruthcatrin]

What about BREED TYPE? I have a hard time believing that if you saw a smooth coated piebald mastiff, a regular ol' fawn Mastiff, a fluffy fawn Mastiff, a smooth coated Saint Bernard, and a long coated Saint Bernard in a dog park from 50 yards, you'd see "two mastiffs and three saint bernards" ... as would almost anyone (including me, quite possibly) not giving them a close inspection.

By that standard there are several individual and distinct breeds that shouldn't be. Can you tell a Maremma and a Great Pyr apart at 50ft? It takes someone who KNOWS them to do so, and yet they're not the same dogs. Hell, the number of DOG PEOPLE who tell me Apollo (a TM) is such a lovely Leonberger.....

Nope, that arguement doesn't fly sorry.

Especially since, frankly, the piebald mastiffs I've seen pictures of are very DEFINETLY mastiffs in everything except color.

And sure you're narrowing the gene pool everytime you decide against a trait, which is why you, as a breeder who cares about the breed, should be considering what genes are being thrown away when you do so. And if the trait you're deciding against doesn't cause health problems, or damage to the physical structure of the breed, then serious thought should be put into whether you're harming the breed by ditching the rest of those genetics.

And frankly, BYBs are going to breed badly regardless. Look at the "silver labs" for example. I'm actually kinda shocked there ISN'T already a sub-set of BYBs who're breeding piebalds regardless of the standard just for the money they can make off them. I'd much rather see the Breed club look closely at the genetics involved, and educate everyone instead of attempting to bury it, cause by attempting to bury it they just make it more desirable instead. Rather if they educate themselves on the genetics involved, and if nessecary add stTements to the breeders code of ethics about not breeding such that results in a high level of genetic problems (in other words do the opposite of the GD club essentially requireing it) and they'll take the excitement out of it alot better than attempting to hide it.

 

[NYDDB]

By that standard there are several individual and distinct breeds that shouldn't be. Can you tell a Maremma and a Great Pyr apart at 50ft? It takes someone who KNOWS them to do so, and yet they're not the same dogs. Hell, the number of DOG PEOPLE who tell me Apollo (a TM) is such a lovely Leonberger.....

Nope, that arguement doesn't fly sorry.

Especially since, frankly, the piebald mastiffs I've seen pictures of are very DEFINETLY mastiffs in everything except color.

And sure you're narrowing the gene pool everytime you decide against a trait, which is why you, as a breeder who cares about the breed, should be considering what genes are being thrown away when you do so. And if the trait you're deciding against doesn't cause health problems, or damage to the physical structure of the breed, then serious thought should be put into whether you're harming the breed by ditching the rest of those genetics.

And frankly, BYBs are going to breed badly regardless. Look at the "silver labs" for example. I'm actually kinda shocked there ISN'T already a sub-set of BYBs who're breeding piebalds regardless of the standard just for the money they can make off them. I'd much rather see the Breed club look closely at the genetics involved, and educate everyone instead of attempting to bury it, cause by attempting to bury it they just make it more desirable instead. Rather if they educate themselves on the genetics involved, and if nessecary add stTements to the breeders code of ethics about not breeding such that results in a high level of genetic problems (in other words do the opposite of the GD club essentially requireing it) and they'll take the excitement out of it alot better than attempting to hide it.

Nice post.