# AKC Registration Dilemma



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I hope this thread doesn't get really ugly.
This thread, is spawned from another thread on another forum.

over 25 years ago, the AKC decided to register "silver" Labs as chocolate. The decision was based on a flawed understanding of color dilution.

But, there is a big problem with registering dilute Labs as chocolate!

The three colors accepted by the Breed Standard, have nothing to do with dilution. You can dilute any of the colors, by having two recessives in the D locus.

Basically, it means that the AKC is registering dilute blacks, as chocolate!

That might not seem like too big of a deal, but if you understand how coat color inheritance works, you will be mighty puzzled, if you see a pedigree where two chocolates, threw half a litter of black pups!

Now, that's just scratching the surface of the problem.

What are they registering dilute yellows as?

I'm betting they are being registered as yellow.


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

I was reading that thread as well. It may get ugly here but I hope not. I see alot of the history of the silvers going back to the lab/weim farm mentioned.

On a side note I am in the wrong business, 1800 for a silver pup with only hip clearances I just saw.(Sorry if that is construed as getting ugly)

The Parent club is the one who makes the standard not the AKC.


----------



## Brent McDowell (Jul 2, 2008)

Any way to cross post the other thread? I'd like to see what others are saying on this subject.


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

Brent McDowell said:


> Any way to cross post the other thread? I'd like to see what others are saying on this subject.


I am sure it will all be said here as well and them some, I will try and link it though when I get a chance.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Brent McDowell said:


> Any way to cross post the other thread? I'd like to see what others are saying on this subject.


I don't think it will help to keep this thread on topic, but here's the link.

http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/showthread.php?t=844075


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

I read the genetics study about the dillution gene and it seems that it is found in Weims and not in labs except silvers. So that begs to ask the question where did it come from? Also Crist Culo has some controversy surrounding his breeding of them, and the inbreeding is crazy to me, father/daughter, brother/sister,mother/son all for a silver color.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

This issue is settled. The parent club has decided that the dilute gene does not belong in labs. They will allow them to be registered but they do not and will not recognize the color.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

gsc said:


> This issue is settled. The parent club has decided that the dilute gene does not belong in labs. They will allow them to be registered but they do not and will not recognize the color.


I understand that, but if you read and understand my point about registering BLACK colored Labs (EeBb, EEBb, or EEBB) as chocolates, you can see that this "solution" creates more problems, than just changing the standard to include color dilution!

This is a case of trying hide something, that *can't* be hidden.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

The question was regarding silvers and a dilute black is not a silver. I haven't seen anything from AKC saying to register a dilute black as a chocolate. Do you have a reference?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

gsc said:


> The question was regarding silvers and a dilute black is not a silver. I haven't seen anything from AKC saying to register a dilute black as a chocolate. Do you have a reference?


Dilute black is called charcoal.

The AKC doesn't have a "charcoal" option, anymore than it does a "silver" option.

Charcoal Labs, are being registered as chocolate.


----------



## Takem_brewer (Jun 8, 2010)

I have never heard of charcoal labs being registered brown. They are being registered black, the "silver" being registered brown, and the "champagne" being registered yellow. I am not saying any of this because I agree with it, just have a friend who has one of those WONDERFUL silver labs that has no hunting drive and one of the ugliest labs I have seen. I have yet to see a good looking dilute dog.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Then to my way of thinking, they are not being registered correctly. AKC stated to register silvers as chocolates since they are. Logic would dictate that you would register charcoals as blacks since that is what they are. They are a mismarked black.

I think this demonstrates the lack of knowledge those who breed them really have.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Somehow, I don't see how the AKC's failure to adequately address the issue, can be blamed on the one registering the dog.

Regardless, of who's "fault" it is, it *is* happening.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

I probably don't know as much as copterdoc, but I do know a little about the dilution gene  because it has always been in the Chesapeake breed and some of the breed police hate it, although it's written into the standard as acceptable coloring for a breed that may be any shade of brown. 

As I understand it, this gene is similar to the one in horses that dilutes bays and chestnuts to buckskins and palominos; in other words it isn't strictly a coat color gene but a modifier that dilutes the base color into a dilute shade. It dilutes brown to a silvery grayish or taupe color, black to charcoal and yellow to near white. In Chesapeakes the dilute shade is called ash, although it's usually registered as deadgrass or tan. But all CBRs are brown (or some shade of) unlike Labs with their 3 distinct colors. So it's less problematic registering dilute or ash than registering dilute black or yellow Labs as chocos. After all Chesapeakes are all brown (as well as variations of brown like deadgrass, sedge or tan) but one person's light brown is another's deadgrass and another's tan.

It's likely that Labs at one point did have the dilution gene that came from other breeds in their history. It's been documented for example that Chesapeakes were crossed with them as recently as the early 1960s and CBRs definitely have the dilution gene. But just like other characteristics of breeds that were introduced in the Lab's early history, breeders selected away from (culled) the dilution gene and only recently was it reintroduced (via weim or some throwback, take your pick....).

It is not up to the AKC to police the dilution gene, that is the job of the Labrador Retriever club and individuals registering their dogs. The breed club, not the AKC, sets and maintains the standard. Don't look for the AKC to police this, they're already bleeding away registration money to start up breed registries (and remember, those will register goats or cats as Labs) so they can ill afford to police any breed's registration, let alone numbers as large as Labs, for what the parent club considers a disqualifying flaw. Sadly, it seems in our increasingly urban society that any real interest in purebred dogs is on the decline--readership here represents such a tiny fraction of the dog owning public. Probably more of them would rather have a "thoroughbred" silver Lab or Labradoodle than a genetically pure animal as long as it has "papers."

Finally, I think there actually is a genetic test for the dilution gene. If I recall, someone told me this gene is present in Tollers and can be tested for. Probably not a simple answer to what the Lab club faces with all these silver (and charcoal) Labs being registered as chocolates but the dilute yellows I would assume, would simply be registered as yellows and will continue to be sold for fancy prices as polar or white Labs....


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

As a breeder I fill out that portion of the paperwork, If I fill all dilutes out as a choco than it is my fault for not knowing what is in front of me.(If I bred dilutes,silvers,charcoals, etc) 
The AKC only cares about getting the reg money they do not even ask what color pups you have when you request and pay for litter paperwork(only when it is submitted to register the pup). 

On top of that most dogs are not even registered by their new owners, so there is no telling how much paperwork is screwed up.


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

Julie R. said:


> polar or white Labs....


I just saw in VA actually a "Super Rare Snow White Lab Pup" 3200$ for an 8 week old pup. Good marketing sold in a day.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Jason Glavich said:


> As a breeder I fill out that portion of the paperwork, If I fill all dilutes out as a choco than it is my fault for not knowing what is in front of me.(If I bred dilutes,silvers,charcoals, etc)
> The AKC only cares about getting the reg money they do not even ask what color pups you have when you request and pay for litter paperwork(only when it is submitted to register the pup).
> 
> On top of that most dogs are not even registered by their new owners, so there is no telling how much paperwork is screwed up.


Actually for all their faults, it really is not the AKC's job to police registrations. It is a club of clubs, and it never set the breed standards, the parent clubs of all the different breeds have always done that. Conscientious breeders can do their part by filling in the color on the registration slips of pups they sell, but Jason is correct, half the puppy buyers never even bother sending them in and anyway, conscientious Lab breeders don't breed dilute dogs. 

As I said earlier, most puppy buyers don't know or care about "papers" as long as the dog has them. Interestingly despite all the information readily available on the internet, there is just as much false information and slick marketing claims, so the lack of interest or knowledge about purebred dogs has increased exponentially to the point that the average buyer purchases on hype and false claims, not knowledge. This latter sad state of affairs is the reason the AKC is losing money to the bogus registries big time coupled with their failure to realize they did not in fact have a monopoly on registrations until too late.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

The LRC has taken a stand against Silvers. It is up to the consumer to research the dogs they purchase. It usually isn't too difficult to figure out they are of a Silver background because the breeders couldn't resist putting Silver in the names at least to some of the early dogs they go back to.

*SILVER LABRADORS*
There is no genetic basis for the silver gene in Labradors. The silver color is a disqualification under the Standard for the breed. The LRC does not recognize, accept or condone the sale or advertising of any Labrador as a silver Labrador. The Club opposes the practice of registering silver as chocolate.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

ErinsEdge said:


> ....The LRC does not recognize, accept or condone the sale or advertising of any Labrador as a silver Labrador. The Club opposes the practice of registering silver as chocolate.


I guess this is a "chicken or the egg" type of question, but since the AKC recognizes the LRC, as the official National Parent Club of the Labrador Retriever, who gets the final word?

I mean, the AKC *IS* violating the breed standard. 

This isn't merely a case of registering a "Dudley".
This is a recessive trait, that is not supposed to exist in the breed.

So, can the Parent Club "fire" the registry, that was there before it was?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Think about it, the registry doesn't even know what people are registering unless someone disputes the pups and DNA is done.


----------



## Martha Lancaster (Sep 5, 2003)

Here are the officers and directors of The Labrador Retriever Club, which guards the "AKC standard". This information is from the website: www.thelabradorclub.com.

Best wishes to you in your endeavor.

OFFICERS

President A. Nelson Sills 
Vice President Fred Kampo, Jr.

Secretary Mary Feazell
1221 Hidden Cove Court 
Granbury, TX 76049 
(817) 279-6048 
Treasurer Lyn Yelton 
AKC Delegate A. Nelson Sills 

DIRECTORS
Glenda Brown
Juxi Burr
William Daley
Don Driggers
Paul Foster
Charles Hays

Grayson Kelly
Nina Mann
Debra Miller
Linda Oldham
Sheree Paskert
Frances O. Smith DVM
William Speck
J. Kent Sweezey
Carolyn Tremer
Marcia Lucas




The Labrador Retriever Club, Inc., is the single organization officially recognized by the American Kennel Club as the national parent club of the Labrador Retriever. The Labrador Retriever Club, Inc., was incorporated in October 1931, in the state of New York, and is not affiliated with any other association titled or claiming to be the National Labrador Retriever Club.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

If the LRC, which is the parent club for the largest purebred breed in the AKC, fired the AkC it would probably cause it to fold. Think about it....it would be a nifty idea to require genetic testing for all AKC registered dogs (you could confirm parentage as well as presence of "bad" genes), but the prohibitive cost burden of that would be borne by breeders and all that would do is most of them to the other registries that are already bleeding it to death. And people would still buy dilute silver, charcoal and polar/champagne Labs and Labradoodles for ridiculous sums of money. It is a sad situation with no real workable solution.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I am not suggesting that the LRC needs to destroy itself to make a stand.

The problem is that the AKC is an Official Registry for the Labrador Retriever, and they have essentially given "permission" for the registration of dogs that clearly are the result of some kind of outcross.

The AKC does not register "labradoodles" and call them Labradors. They don't register "goldendoodles" and call them Golden Retrievers.

There is a line.

If the AKC doesn't maintain the breed standard on something as obviously anomalous as this, they are no different than the "other" registries.

So, it's the result of a 25 year old mistake. It's still here. It's still being continued.

If the Parent club says it's not a Lab, then the Registry has to agree. If they still need to Register these dogs, they need to identify them in the pedigrees.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

why in the world would anyone want a "silver lab"!? doc did you consider that they may be registered as chocolates not based on genetics or color, but on I.Q.? just kidding, i luv, luv, luv my own brown dogs. 

i have paid some fairly substantial bucks for purebred pups that i saw potential in.(all three colors) but my wife's peekapom (i.e. very cute crossbred mutt) was a gimmee! why normally intelligent people (if they have $3,500 extra for a ....doodle they can't be stooopid) pay a lot of money for a mutt is puzzling. if you want a mutt, rescue is the way to go. that's where a buyer should find all those silver, polar thingy's anyway. lol

john mc


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

The Parent Breed Club has made their determination. There is no such thing as a silver Labrador. 

The dilute colors are but one part of the issue. The lab crosses being marketed and registered as purebred Labradors is a more critical problem IMHDAO. It calls into question the integrity of the registry for all breeds, so the issue needs to be addressed preferably sooner rather than later. 

The real question now is HOW does the LRC and AKC right the ship and get it back on its' proper course. It will take the LRC and AKC working together to develop a plan and implement it.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

copterdoc, you are assuming someone has determined this is not a pure bred. The only offical AKC document I have seen states they are considered purebred. The breed club has determined they are a mismark. Those are still registerable. The LRC has stated it's case that they should not be bred. They have no power to stop the breeding, only to not support it in the standard. The AKC doesn't inspect litters and adjudicate their adherance to the standard, they just want to see that the litter is from registered parents, regardless of how poorly bred they may be.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

This is not just a miss mark.

It is a recessive trait that is a violation of the breed standard and most importantly is being intentionally reproduced on a large scale.

A Dudley, is also a violation of the breed standard, however it is perfectly explainable and predictable. A Dudley, is a chocolate yellow.

The dilution trait, is the result of two recessive alleles in a locus that the Labrador breed requires only contain dominant alleles.

Those recessive alleles had to come from outside the breed. There is no other realistic possibility.

This is as aberrant as a black Chesapeake, or a chocolate Flatcoated Retriever.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

uuuhhhh, Flatcoats do indeed come in "chocolate", only they call it Liver. 

http://www.petyourdog.com/images/dog breeds/flat_coated_retriever2.jpg


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

firehouselabs said:


> uuuhhhh, Flatcoats do indeed come in "chocolate", only they call it Liver.
> 
> http://www.petyourdog.com/images/dog breeds/flat_coated_retriever2.jpg


Okay then, a yellow Flatcoat!


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Okay then, a yellow Flatcoat!


Uhh.....flatcoats come in yellow too.....

WRL


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

WRL said:


> Uhh.....flatcoats come in yellow too.....
> 
> WRL


Well then, that shows how much I know about Flatcoats.

Are there any silver Flatcoats?


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Well then, that shows how much I know about Flatcoats.
> 
> Are there any silver Flatcoats?


Yeah. They look a lot like a Liver Flatcoat crossed with a Weim.... 

WRL


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Well, I learned something.

I guess the Flatcoat can be used as an example of how coat color is species specific, vs breed specific.

There are many different coat traits, controlled by multiple loci.

Some, like black and ticking are dominant. While others, like chocolate and yellow, are recessive.

Breeds are made, by removing all of the dominant, or all of the recessive alleles from specific loci.

That is the only way, that random breedings within a breed, can possibly reproduce similar offspring that fall within the breed "standard".


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Curious, how can anyone be sure that ALL recessive alleles have been bred out in a "breed?" Prior to DNA testing (about the last 5 years for dilution), I can't see how, unless one bred every single individual to every other individual in that breed to ensure they the recessive trait did not present itself. Dominants are pretty easy to successfully select against, recessives, well, can anyone actually prove that the dilute gene in Labs was not carried in a heterozygous recessive state from the breed origins in Newfoundland to expression as a Silver Labrador today?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ironman said:


> Curious, how can anyone be sure that ALL recessive alleles have been bred out in a "breed?"


The key is, in specific loci.

I can't even imagine how many loci a dog has.

However, there are some that have been mapped, and now we know the "address", so we can test and see whether they have dominant or recessive alleles "living" there.

That is how EIC, CNM, PRA and coat color inheritance tests work.

We know the address, so we just check and see who is home.


----------



## ebenezer (Aug 19, 2009)

Yellow flatcoats can not be registered in Canada


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

> The key is, in specific loci.
> 
> I can't even imagine how many loci a dog has.
> 
> ...


Yes, yes, that is all well and good, but how can anyone truly prove that the dilute gene in Labradors (d) was not their all along? Just looking at the D locus here. Without DNA testing, it would be impossible to truly prove such a claim as "there is no genetic basis for the silver gene in Labradors" when recessives can hide for innumerable generations until the right match comes along.

I took a look at the fuge thread and you need to be careful about the claim that all silvers go to culo, they don't. http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showpost.php?p=451852&postcount=235
If you have not read that whole thread, it would probably be a good idea.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ironman said:


> ...you need to be careful about the claim that all silvers go to culo, they don't.....


All AKC registered dilute labradors do go back to Culo.

I have no problem with silver Labs being sold at ridiculously high prices.

I have a problem with the AKC allowing them to be registered as "chocolate" Labrador Retrievers.

My problem, is with destroying what a registry is actually there to do. Which is, to maintain the basic breed standard.

I do not give one flying fart, what APRI and other BS "registries" choose to do, to pad their wallets.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I want to give some of you an idea of how large of a problem this is.

The below statement, paragraph, whatever you want to call it, is being used as a marketing tool by these charlatans.

I do not believe the AKC would consider it an official statement of any sort, even if it actually was made by an AKC representative.

All I want you to do, is copy and paste it into a Google search, so you can see just how many websites come up, using this as "permission" by the AKC to register these dogs.



> In 1987 we conducted an inquiry into the breeding of the litters that contained the dogs that were registered as silver and one of our representatives was sent to observe several of the dogs that had been registered as silver. Color photographs of these dogs were forwarded to the office of the American Kennel Club where the staff of the AKC and the representative of the Labrador Retriever Club of America examined them. Both parties were satisfied that there was no reason to doubt that the dogs were purebred Labrador Retrievers, however both parties felt that the dogs were incorrectly registered as silver. Since the breed standard describes chocolate as ranging in shade from Sedge to Chocolate, it was felt that the dogs could more accurately be described as chocolate than as silver."
> 
> Written by Robert Young of the AKC 3/27/00


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

In the past, the argument used against the AKC registration of dilute Labradors, has been primarily that they are an outcross.

Most of the time, the finger is pointed at a Weimaraner.

Well, that's always going to be a losing argument. The fact is, that nobody will ever be able to definitively prove that a Weimaraner was involved.

There is anecdotal evidence that dilute Labradors appeared as early as the 1930's. So, the people that want to argue for the AKC registration of dilute Labs, can use that as a counter.

However, there is an argument that they can't defeat.

It doesn't matter, whether dilute Labs existed after the Stud books closed! The Breed Standard makes it a disqualifying fault. According to the Breed Standard, the dilution gene is NOT ALLOWED in the breed.

That means that every AKC registered Labrador Retriever, is to be DD. No carriers, no affected.

There should not be any little d's anywhere, no matter how they got there. If they are found, they should be removed from breeding.

If a Breeder intentionally produces, and registers, dilute Labrador Retrievers, their AKC privileges should be revoked.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> The Breed Standard makes it a disqualifying fault


OK, so they can't be shown, just like if they're either to tall or two short. Mom and dad were still labradors.

What do you want AKC to do? Make us all VetGen our litters before the're eligible to be registered? Gotta weed out those carriers you know.

AKC is already having enough trouble with people not registering their dogs.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

There are problems, and then there are *PROBLEMS*.

I think the problem here, is that there is widespread intentional reproduction of a disqualifying fault that is the result of "alien" recessive genetics.

I don't consider other miss marks to be a big issue. Nobody is marketing "rare" AKC registered tan point or brindle Labrador Retrievers. If they were, I would say that is just as "bad".

This is not just a "show" issue. This is a case of the Registry allowing it's own destruction.

If they want dilute Labs, they need to create a new breed. They are NOT within the Breed Standard.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Howard N said:


> OK, so they can't be shown, just like if they're either to tall or two short. Mom and dad were still labradors...


For the most part, too tall or too short is polygenic.

It is not a simple recessive trait.

According to the Breed Standard, any "Lab" with a recessive allele in the D locus, is NOT a Labrador Retriever. At least not 100%.

There should be absolutely zero recessive alleles in the D locus of ANY Labrador Retriever.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

OK, How would you register this dog?









Just because the dog has an obvious disqualification, doesn't mean that it isn't registrable as a Labrador Retriever. This dog was DNA tested to be purebred, and color tested to be BBEee (note the extra "E")

If I've learned just one thing after messing with dogs for over 60 years it is that as soon as you say "it's impossible" mother nature will say "wanna bet?"

While dilutes can happen in Labrador Retrievers naturally (and it is NOT a disqualification), only a fool falls for a Wheim cross as a purebred Lab. They are way to easy to spot.



> According to the Breed Standard, any "Lab" with a recessive allele in the D locus, is NOT a Labrador Retriever. At least not 100%.


Then how did this obvious dilute manage to go BOS at Westminster?
She is also the mother/grandmother/great grandmother of 26 breed champions if my count is right.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Dilutes are dd.

There is no such thing as a dd Labrador Retriever. The Breed Standard does not allow for dilute Labrador Retrievers.

They are ALL supposed to be DD. Anything else, should be treated as an outcross.

Even if there is no other evidence that an outcross occurred, the mere existence of a recessive allele in the D locus, is sufficient to declare the dog ineligible for registration.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Dilutes are dd.
> 
> There is no such thing as a dd Labrador Retriever. The Breed Standard does not allow for dilute Labrador Retrievers.
> 
> ...


Show us where in the breed standard that it states that the recessive "D" is a disqualification or even a fault!!!!!!!

Also even if it was a disqualification or fault, just how would it be grounds to declare the dog ineligible for registration?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

From the LRC Breed Standard.


> Disqualifications
> 
> Any deviation from the height prescribed in the Standard.
> A thoroughly pink nose or one lacking in any pigment.
> ...


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

You just proved my point!
The "D" gene *is not mentioned*
Now take the time to read the rest of the breed standard, and you will find a discription of the three colors that is acceptible without being faulted or disqualified.

But that still does not mean that faulted or disqualified dog can't be registered. There are thousands of registered dudlies for example.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

tom said:


> ...Also even if it was a disqualification or fault, just how would it be grounds to declare the dog ineligible for registration?


Just because a dog has a disqualifying fault, does not prove that it is not "purebred".

For instance, you can breed a EeBb (tri-factored) Lab, to a Eebb (yellow factored chocolate), and you will probably produce a few eebb puppies.

eebb, is a yellow with no black pigment. It's eye rims and nose will not be black. That is a disqualifying fault.

However, dilution is only the result of a recessive trait that is *against the Breed Standard* if it is expressed in any way whatsoever. 

The mere existance of a recessive allele in the D locus of a Lab, is damning evidence of an outcross.

It doesn't matter whether the outcross occurred last week, or 100 years ago. It's not supposed to be there!


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

> However, dilution is only the result of a recessive trait that is against the Breed Standard if it is expressed in any way whatsoever.


Ya know some of us are long time LRC members, and as such participated in the 1994 revision of the breed standard. So you can take my word for it that nowhere in the standard is it stated or implied that the recessive expression of the "D" gene violates the standard. The standard does state how much variation in color is allowed without being faulted or disqualified.

The gene for EIC *is not suppose to be there either*, but it is! How many registered Labs have EIC?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

A dilute Lab doesn't fall under black, chocolate, or yellow coat color. The yellow Lab in your pic is not dilute either.

BTW, a dog only has two alleles per locus, just like every other living thing. They get one from Mommy, and the other from Daddy. A dog can't have three Parents.



tom said:


> ...This dog was DNA tested to be purebred, and color tested to be BBEee (note the extra "E")....


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

tom said:


> ...The gene for EIC *is not suppose to be there either*, but it is! How many registered Labs have EIC?


There is no Breed Standard for EIC. There is for coat color.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

> BTW, a dog only has two alleles per locus, just like every other living thing. They get one from Mommy, and the other from Daddy. A dog can't have three Parents


I think you need to go back to school my friend! Look up the term "*aneuploid"*
It's the same condition that causes a Downs Syndrome child (three 21st chromosomes), and a male calico cat (XXY chromosomes).



> The yellow Lab in your pic is not dilute either.


Wanna bet?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Aneuploid, is an odd number of chromosomes, not alleles.

Dogs have 78 chromosomes. 39 pairs. Each pair is a pair. You know, as in two.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Now you are just being stupid! Where in the hell do you think "alleles" are located?
If a living being has one extra chromosome, it has one extra of each gene located on that chromosome.
The dog in the pic has 79 chromosomes instead of the usual 78, and on that extra chromosome is an extra "E" gene.
Just like a Downs Syndrome child has three copies of the 21 chromosome.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

> The yellow Lab in your pic is not dilute either.





tom said:


> Wanna bet?


Yes. I also find it odd that a LR has never won Westminster best of show.

Dilute Labs, are not only dilute in the hair. It dilutes the pigment in their skin as well. Their noses and eye rims are not ever black. For any coat color.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

tom said:


> The dog in the pic has 79 chromosomes instead of the usual 78.


Do you think we should be breeding Labs with extra chromosomes, and registering them with the AKC?


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Do you think we should be breeding Labs with extra chromosomes, and registering them with the AKC?


Don't need to worry about breeding it --it's sterile for the same reason that you can't breed a cat to a dog. The chromosome numbers don't match up.

But yes, why shouldn't it be registered? Both of it's parents were breed champions, and both of it's parents have produced breed champions.
The dogs breeder/owners are well respected in Holland. (where the dog is from)



> I also find it odd that a LR has never won Westminster best of show.


Never will either.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

There was an article published in RFTN that was reprinted from Pure-Bred Dogs in the AKC Gazette Jan 1988 when the Silvers were first hitting the scenes from this breeder which I believe is what the LRC believes. I've known of several parties that believe the dilute does occur in Labradors but when they contacted said breeder figured out it was not naturally occuring. Once they hear the story of this breeder they realize it's not a random occurrece. This is an excerpt which does not scan well:

"Of great concern to Labrador breeders are certain "silver/gray" Labs being offered for sale by breeders who tell their customers that "silver" is a recognized Labrador Retriever color. That statement is not consistent with the standard for Labrador Retrievers, as filed with AKC by the Labrador Retriever Club, and accepted by AKC as the breed standard.
One of these Labs, seen at a field trial,had, according to Dr. Dennis L. Nelson, DVM, the "identical coloration of a Weimaraner, including the eyes, with movement also similar to a Weimaraner."
. Dr. Nelson says, "From my knowledge of genetics of coat color in dogs. the gray color as it appears in Weimaraners. Great Danes, Greyhounds and Chows, comes from. a recessive gene in the "D" locus. The Labrador breed does not possess a recessive gene at this location. The dominant "D" gene
aIlows full expression of color in the "B" gene or "b" recessive gene, producing black and chocolate, respectively. The recessive "d" gene modifies or dilutes the recessive "b" gene to produce the gray color. This being the case, both parents would have to possess the "d" recessive gene either as "Dd" pair or "dd" pair. This would seem to rule out a simple mutation producing these pups and would instead indicate to me that both parents, either deliberately or not, have had blood outside the Labrador breed, introduced most likely in the form of a cross with a Weimaraner.
"No matter what the mechanism of the entry of this color, these dogs in no way conform to the standards of the breed. I think the matter requires
immediate attention in order to stop the introduction of this trait into the Labrador breed. I do not believe that it is even important to establish anything other than the fact that these Labs do not meet the standard requirements of the breed to eliminate them from registration, even though I suspect there has been a deliberate attempt to introduce outside genetics into the hreed.
"In many cases, this may' be done without a detectable change being made, but in this case, there is a definite change that is easily detectable and is highly unlikely to have resulted from random mutation."
The Labrador Club has received a great deal of correspondence from concerned people who have seen these "silver aberrations."
The Labrador Retriever Club of Greater Denver contacted the noted Denver canine geneticist, Mrs. Jo James. Mrs. James has done a great deal of research on color in the Lab. She says this silver color is nothing new: "I ran into the dilute gene when I did the original study and work on color ir, the Lab. I would sell you a Weimaraner that was "chunky," a little undersized. but had lots of bone, and would not dock his tail. You could show him for a rare "silver" Lab. The genetic background is the same. This gene had to lie dormant for a long time. Or did somebody add it again along the way? The dilute gene (recessive) is present in many breeds. Many others are suspect of carrying them. All it takes is one breeding to any of them to recover it in the Labrador."


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Yeah, that's the strongest point I am trying to make.

It doesn't matter how the dilute Lab came about.

It could have been a Weim, Chessie, Norwegian Elkhound, or even spontaneous mutation.

I guess it could have been Immaculate Conception!

That doesn't change the fact that it's a simple recessive trait that does not match the Breed Standard.

If you produce it, you STOP breeding those lines!

If the registry can't stop the intentional reproduction and registration of dilute Labs, they can't stop the intentional reproduction and registration of brindled, saddled, albino, tan point, or polka dotted Labs either!


----------



## Cindy Read (Nov 13, 2004)

Unless I have missed it has any of the silver labs been DNA tested? That would tell the story. 

Cindy R.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Cindy Read said:


> Unless I have missed it has any of the silver labs been DNA tested? That would tell the story.
> 
> Cindy R.


DNA testing, is not like they make it out on T.V.

They can look at mapped loci and see whether there is a hidden recessive or not.

Since a dilute "silver" Lab, is expressing both the recessive traits of chocolate, and dilution, a DNA test would show either EEbbdd, or Eebbdd.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> DNA testing, is not like they make it out on T.V.
> 
> They can look at mapped loci and see whether there is a hidden recessive or not.
> 
> Since a dilute "silver" Lab, is expressing both the recessive traits of chocolate, and dilution, a DNA test would show either EEbbdd, or Eebbdd.


Well, there is now a test out that tests for "breed make-up". You know, test your sliver dog and see if it comes up as a Weim/Lab cross. Since the test has been out Culo Kennels no longer offers the $100k challenge.

However, you keep saying that the "dilute gene does not exist" in the Lab breed. But it does in other breeds. Are you aware of the "crossbreeding" that was done during/after WWI and WWII to "other breeds" in order to increase the Lab gene pool? The article I read, stated that some Labs were bred to Norwegian Elkhounds. I believe they have the dilute gene.


WRL


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

> If the registry can't stop the intentional reproduction and registration of dilute Labs, they can't stop the intentional reproduction and registration of brindled, saddled, albino, tan point, or polka dotted Labs either!


All "registerable", only disqualified in the show ring.
I would imagine that almost everyone on this forum has seen Labs from good breedings with white feet for example.



> DNA testing, is not like they make it out on T.V.


Oh-really!

http://www.vetgen.com/canine-coat-color.html
http://www.vetgen.com/canine-breed.html


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Whether the lines outcrossed to the Norwegian Elkhound or not, dilution is not a Labrador Retriever trait.

I'm talking big picture here. The definition of a breed.

A breed is made when you select for certain traits, and keep them, while excluding others, and removing them.

It takes a long time. Many generations.

Your "job" is done, when you can randomly select a breeding pair from your lines, and produce a full litter of animals that fall within your selection criteria.

That can't happen, if there are hidden recessives in the loci that affect something in your Breed Standard.

A breed, is the result of the complete absence of recessive or dominant alleles in selected loci.

For instance, there are no dominant alleles in the B locus of any CBR. There are no recessive alleles in the T locus for Dalmatians.

If there were, there would be some black CBR's, and Dalmatians without spots.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Whether the lines outcrossed to the Norwegian Elkhound or not, dilution is not a Labrador Retriever trait.
> 
> I'm talking big picture here. The definition of a breed.
> 
> ...


I think you are barking up the wrong tree. You seem to want something to happen. AKC is not going to make it happen. They are the REGSITRY. They don't write the standard.

If you want to petition the LRC for dilute labs to not be REGISTERABLE, then that is were you will have to go. AKC's only job is to keep track of what offspring come from what parents. They don't care if they are brindle or pink. As long as they come from the parents the breeder says they come from.



WRL


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

tom said:


> Oh-really!
> 
> http://www.vetgen.com/canine-coat-color.html
> http://www.vetgen.com/canine-breed.html


Do you even have any comprehension of what those tests look at?

There is no such thing as "Weimaraner DNA". All they can do, is look for the presence of recessive or dominant alleles in known loci, and match them to known breeds.

It is an educated guess, and.....


> NOTE: The test is not intended for use in certifying any dog as purebred. Evidence of the breeds that historically were combined could be identified, allowing for the misconception of a non purebred animal.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Do you even have any comprehension of what those tests look at?
> 
> There is no such thing as "Weimaraner DNA". All they can do, is look for the presence of recessive or dominant alleles in known loci, and match them to known breeds.
> 
> It is an educated guess, and.....


That's true. BUT were there any breed with a dilute gene in the foundation dog of the Labs? Isn't that what you are saying? I would think you would welcome this test.

WRL


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Whether the lines outcrossed to the Norwegian Elkhound or not, dilution is not a Labrador Retriever trait.
> 
> I'm talking big picture here. The definition of a breed.
> 
> ...





> Do you even have any comprehension of what those tests look at?


I have more than just a little comprehension of what those tests look like.
If you would like to discuss genetics * in depth* be sure to let me know!


Again; there is nowhere in the breed standard that it is stated or implied that the "D" gene cannot be recessive. The standard only states the parameters of color not to be penalized *in the show ring*.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

WRL said:


> I think you are barking up the wrong tree. You seem to want something to happen. AKC is not going to make it happen. They are the REGSITRY. They don't write the standard....


I understand that.

I just don't think the AKC realizes the importance of protecting the integrity of their registry.

A dog's registration paper is nothing. It's what it stands for that matters. Certification of a Breed Standard.

The AKC is an Official Registry. There are only three that I know of for the Labrador Retriever, and each one honors the other's Pedigrees.

I don't care how many BS registries pop up and steal money from stupid people. 

I just want to have at least one legitimate registry for the Labrador Retriever, that isn't polluted by greedy people, intentionally registering outcrosses as purebreeds.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I understand that.
> 
> I just don't think the AKC realizes the importance of protecting the integrity of their registry.
> 
> ...


Not the AKCs job! If you go that route where does it stop?!? Do they refuse registration because the dogs tail set is wrong? Or it has a bad bite? There isn't even close to one out of a thousand Labs that meets the breed standard.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I understand that.
> 
> I just don't think the AKC realizes the importance of protecting the integrity of their registry.
> 
> ...


You keep talking about "breed standard" "breed standard".....

THEY DO NOT IMPLEMENT OR MAINTAIN BREED STANDARD! They REGISTER DOGS!!

Go to the LRC with your concerns!!

WRL


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

WRL said:


> That's true. BUT were there any breed with a dilute gene in the foundation dog of the Labs? Isn't that what you are saying? I would think you would welcome this test.
> 
> WRL


I don't know. I don't believe it matters.

There are probably a few recessive color traits present in the Labrador Retriever breed. The thing is, when they pop up in a litter, they aren't line bred and reproduced, to be sold for an increased price.

I believe that the registry is paramount in protecting the breed standard. If something like this is hurting the integrity of the blood, I think the registry needs to address it.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I don't know. I don't believe it matters.
> 
> There are probably a few recessive color traits present in the Labrador Retriever breed. The thing is, when they pop up in a litter, they aren't line bred and reproduced, to be sold for an increased price.
> 
> I believe that the registry is paramount in protecting the breed standard. If something like this is hurting the integrity of the blood, I think the registry needs to address it.


It does matter. Because if there were, then it should go the same route as "mismarks" like brindling.

The registry is not responsible for protecting the breed standard.

I am done with this thread. I think if you have such a hard-on for doing something about the "dilute gene" then great. But you've been told a million times that it does not fall on the AKC but on the LRC.

If you want to do something about it, that is the route you should take.

WRL


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I don't know. I don't believe it matters.
> 
> There are probably a few recessive color traits present in the Labrador Retriever breed. The thing is, when they pop up in a litter, they aren't line bred and reproduced, to be sold for an increased price.
> 
> I believe that the registry is paramount in protecting the breed standard. If something like this is hurting the integrity of the blood, I think the registry needs to address it.


No different than "teacups" found in the Toy breeds, while those runts are registrable, they will not be winning any dog shows.
It is the responsibility of the show ring and the trial grounds to prove the value of a dog for breeding, not the registries. So tell the next show judge you see that a dilute should never be put up.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

tom said:


> Not the AKCs job! If you go that route where does it stop?!? Do they refuse registration because the dogs tail set is wrong? Or it has a bad bite? There isn't even close to one out of a thousand Labs that meets the breed standard.


I can't go online, and find 20 some pages of Breeders, intentionally producing AKC registered Corkscrew Tailed Labrador Retrievers.

Truly rare and accidental "mistakes" do not concern me. Polygenic traits, are not so easily identified and removed.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

If the AKC takes away the registration of dilute Labrador Retrievers, it removes the Breeder's motivation to outcross and lie about it, or inbreed to reproduce it within AKC registered lines.

This.....


> In 1987 we conducted an inquiry into the breeding of the litters that contained the dogs that were registered as silver and one of our representatives was sent to observe several of the dogs that had been registered as silver. Color photographs of these dogs were forwarded to the office of the American Kennel Club where the staff of the AKC and the representative of the Labrador Retriever Club of America examined them. Both parties were satisfied that there was no reason to doubt that the dogs were purebred Labrador Retrievers, however both parties felt that the dogs were incorrectly registered as silver. Since the breed standard describes chocolate as ranging in shade from Sedge to Chocolate, it was felt that the dogs could more accurately be described as chocolate than as silver."
> 
> Written by Robert Young of the AKC 3/27/00


....won't work anymore. They will be forced to use APRI or ConKC, and they will stop undermining the real registries.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I can't go online, and find 20 some pages of Breeders, intentionally producing AKC registered Corkscrew Tailed Labrador Retrievers.
> 
> Truly rare and accidental "mistakes" do not concern me. Polygenic traits, are not so easily identified and removed.


You *CAN* go on line and find a bazillion pages of breeders intentionally producing AKC registered "teacups" or "mini" in just about every breed.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

tom said:


> You *CAN* go on line and find a bazillion pages of breeders intentionally producing AKC registered "teacups" or "mini" in just about every breed.


Well, that's a big problem then!


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Well, that's a big problem then!


Again; you are missing the point. The registery * only* states that a dogs parents are dog "X" and Bitch "Z", it is the show ring and trial grounds that determines if that dog meets the breed standard.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

tom said:


> Again; you are missing the point. The registery * only* states that a dogs parents are dog "X" and Bitch "Z", it is the show ring and trial grounds that determines if that dog meets the breed standard.


My point is, that a recessive in the D locus of a Labrador Retriever, is sufficient to prove that somewhere along the line, dog "X", wasn't really dog "X".

Even if there were recessive alleles still present in the D locus when the Stud Books were closed, there is no legitimate reason to intentionally reproduce them.


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Wow, Copterdoc! This is turning into quite the pissing match.
Let's all just take a step back and cool off. Please go back to the link of the pedigree I posted that DOES NOT go to culo. I know Culo once offered the $100k deal if anyone could disprove his Lab's purity, and he says he still does if you contact him. Having researched several of the dozen or so UNRELATED lines of Silvers, I am more than willing to offer a Million dollar challenge to you today. Please show me where Culo is in the pedigree of the dog I posted the link to. You are so sure of your "facts" that I'm sure you can spend a few moments searching the net or buying one or two AKC pedigrees to prove me wrong and get you million dollars, heck of an investment right? Please, show me where that pedigree goes back to culo. 

Another item to ponder. The dilution gene affect the expression of color in Labs. Is that a bad thing? That is to say, if one gene modifies the expression of another so what. That is exactly what is happening with the yellow Lab that ranges from White to Red, the expression of another set of alleles on a coat color. Seems like this is no different other then the d gene is mapped and can be DNA tested for and the alleles of C locus are still not quite understood. Oh yes, the dilution of yellow is a shade of yellow which means that you could have a dilute yellow and not know it without DNA testing, which is likely where the dilute gene hid over the breed history, in plain sight but undetected. No doubt any "Silver" or "Gray" pup met its fate in the bottom of a bucket historically, but these yellows, no one would know it...oh yes, when you are working on your pedigree research of the silver lines, please note how many have yellow close behind them.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ironman said:


> ...Please go back to the link of the pedigree I posted that DOES NOT go to culo. You are so sure of your "facts" that I'm sure you can spend a few moments searching the net or buying one or two AKC pedigrees to prove me wrong and get you million dollars, heck of an investment right? Please, show me where that pedigree goes back to culo.


I'm going to come right out and say it. I don't believe that the dogs in that dog's pedigree, are really the dogs in that dog's pedigree.

I believe the fact that the dog is dd, is sufficient proof of that. Whether or not it is proof, I feel very strongly that dd Labrador Retrievers should not be bred. It is exactly like breeding brindle, (except, there is no money in that, right?).

I really only care about the ones being registered by the AKC.
You obviously do not agree. http://cssilverlabs.com/documents/chloe5gen.pdf



Ironman said:


> ...Oh yes, the dilution of yellow is a shade of yellow which means that you could have a dilute yellow and not know it without DNA testing, which is likely where the dilute gene hid over the breed history, in plain sight but undetected. No doubt any "Silver" or "Gray" pup met its fate in the bottom of a bucket historically, but these yellows, no one would know it...oh yes, when you are working on your pedigree research of the silver lines, please note how many have yellow close behind them.


 Dilute yellow, is not unrecognizable. The D locus does not merely dilute the hair. It dilutes the skin.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

WRL said:


> You keep talking about "breed standard" "breed standard".....
> 
> THEY DO NOT IMPLEMENT OR MAINTAIN BREED STANDARD! They REGISTER DOGS!!
> 
> ...


I don't think the LRC is part of the problem here. 

They have this on their website.....http://thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Silver

They do state that they oppose the practice of registering silver as chocolate.

The only fault I can see with that stance, is that it does not address the real problem of dilution. It doesn't cover dilute black and yellow.

So, if the Parent club says don't, and the registry says do, who is wrong?

I think it's the AKC.


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> I'm going to come right out and say it. I don't believe that the dogs in that dog's pedigree, are really the dogs in that dog's pedigree.
> 
> I believe the fact that the dog is dd, is sufficient proof of that. Whether or not it is proof, I feel very strongly that dd Labrador Retrievers should not be bred. It is exactly like breeding brindle, (except, there is no money in that, right?).
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone is questioning whether YOU think they should be bred or not. 
You really are going to cop out and say there was a mis-mating in that litter? Please prove it...I'd say the fact that the Lab is dd is sufficient proof that it was not mis-bred. You obviously understand genetic recessives, so you should recognize that both sides of Huskar's pedigree must have carried the gene. Which now you are stuck with saying both sides had a mis-mating. If that was the case, it should not be too hard to prove then. That dog was born in 2001 and in all that time, no one has proven it was a mis-mating. Heck, the dog's DNA is even on file, go for it. But alas, there are many more lines, older ones like Beavercreek and newer ones that fortunately as they are being found, those who have them are getting all the DNA done of all the living ancestors to "prove" the there is no mis-mating for the naysayers such as yourself.

The Yellow. Yes, dilution does affect the skin, most obvious is the nose and eye rim, especially in chocolates. A yellow, eeBB or eeBb, will typically have black skin, add the dilution gene and it becomes what is being called charcoal, or "blue" in most breeds. So, there is usually a shade lightening of the black, but it is hardly perceptible, ESPECIALLY in yellows who frequently have snow nose conditions that lightens the nose anyway, much more than simple dilution would. No, in a yellow that has black pigment, you would never know the dog was dilute without DNA testing. 

Speaking of pigment, you do understand how the dilution gene works don’t you? There is no actual change in pigment (aka color). The dilution gene causes the normal pigment to be arranged in the hair shaft in a clumped and random fashion rather then more or less evenly. The clumping leaves clearer areas of the hair shaft that messes with the way light is absorbed, reflected and/or refracted that results in a grey appearance at the macro level. But the actual pigment never changed color. If you don't believe me, go find a Silver Lab, take its hair and find a light microscope and enjoy the an eye opening experience, there is no gray in the hair at all, only chocolate (in the case of "silver"). So this brings us back to how the dogs are registered. Silvers are allowable as chocolate. As I just pointed out and challenged you to corroborate, the pigment is totally brown. To back that, the DNA will of course come back bb for chocolate. We all know chocolate is an allowable Labrador color and that according to the breed standard last I checked, "light shades" are allowed in Chocolate. Wow, it looks like the AKC and LRC made the correct decision 30 years ago when the jointly agreed to allow the silver to be registered as chocolate. The DNA supports it, the pigment supports it, and the breed standard allows for it. Calling it “Silver” is no different than calling a yellow Lab “White.” Both are names to explain a shade of a standard color that is influenced by other loci.
Do I think a Silver would have a chance in the Show Ring, presently, no way, especially due to the LRC changing their stand (yes, the line you are continually referring to from the LRC is only just over 1 year old). But the fact remains that these Labs are as much Lab as any other. If anyone wants to claim otherwise, they’d best have incontrovertible evidence to back their claim. In nearly 30 years, none have.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I showed you where the LRC says they oppose the registration of a silver Lab, since


> there is no genetic basis


 for the silver gene in Labradors.

Now, you show me where they say, or said, it's okay.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> So, if the Parent club says don't, and the registry says do, who is wrong?


Interesting discussion.

Perhaps you could look at this color dilution thing from the standpoint of other disqualifying faults & it is easier to see why the parent club & AKC would have differing positions.

Lack of two testicles in a male dog is considered a disqualifying fault in all breeds (per AKC regs). Many breed Standards also mention this as a disqualifying fault (perhaps all do; not sure). Yet these dogs are still registerable. If presented in conformation competition, they will be disqualified. However, they can still compete in other performance venues & attain titles. The question for the AKC is not whether they meet the parent club's accepted Standard, but rather whether they are purebred for whatever breed they belong to.

In some breeds, like Goldens, there is an upper and lower height disqualification. These dogs can still compete in performance venues & achieve the highest titles available. If they do not meet the height qualifications of the Standard they would be disqualified (or should be) in conformation competition. They can be purebred, but not meet the AKC Standard of the Breed. 

While the parent club will discourage dogs with disqualifications from being bred, that does not mean it won't happen. It does. If bred to another purebred of the same breed, the offspring will be AKC registerable.

Now, OTOH, if the color issue would raise the issue of whether the dog was truly a Lab v. a mix with some other breed ... then through proper channels, the AKC might require a DNA test to confirm the status of the individual.

So both the parent club & the AKC are doing their respective "jobs" ... but their jobs are different ones.

I don't think that a parent club can tell the AKC not to register an individual of a given breed just because it is an unacceptable/faulty/unattractive representative of the breed. Since many working breeds have the "split" between "show lines" and "performance lines", it would be quite a dilemma if the parent club could make AKC "revoke" registration because of disqualifying faults under the breed Standard. For example, revoke the registration of an FC Golden Retriever because it was not within the size for the Standard. I don't think anyone would buy into that with the limited # of Golden Retriever FCs.


----------



## wheelhorse (Nov 13, 2005)

Ironman said:


> Another item to ponder. The dilution gene affect the expression of color in Labs. Is that a bad thing?


Yes that is a bad thing. It's called color dilution alopecia. Dogs with the condition will suffer a life time of chronic bacterial skin infections and it's associated problems as well as cold intolerance.

Why would any want to deliberatly breed for this is beyond my understanding.


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

No problem, you already posted that info in post #39. Too often silver haters overlook this part "...the staff of the AKC and the representative of the Labrador Retriever Club of America examined them. Both parties were satisfied that there was no reason to doubt that the dogs were purebred Labrador Retrievers..." 

Contact the AKC and they will tell you the same thing today.


Some people claim that the LRC thought that the silvers would just go away so it was no big deal to allow them in the late 1980's. It was not until silvers took off in popularity over the last 5-10 years that the LRC has now changed their tune. Wonder why?? 
If the LRC had genetic proof that these were not purebred Labradors they could have all their registrations pulled at the AKC, yet they haven't, instead all they have is a position statement against them like they do the pointing Labs, telling.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Thank you Gerry.

I realize there is no easy solution.

I think the root of the problem, is greedy people that are capitalizing on a designer breed and abusing a registry, that they really don't value or appreciate.

If they were ashamed to be increasing the incidence of disqualifying faults, this would not even be on the radar.


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

wheelhorse said:


> Yes that is a bad thing. It's called color dilution alopecia. Dogs with the condition will suffer a life time of chronic bacterial skin infections and it's associated problems as well as cold intolerance.
> 
> Why would any want to deliberatly breed for this is beyond my understanding.


Not so fast. Indeed this does occur in some breeds with dilution, but not all. To date there has not been any proven cases of dilution alopecia in Labs that I have found. There are coat issues with some dilutes which have been diagnosed as a thyroid issue, something we see in all Labradors. In short, Silver Labs have the same health problems as any other Labrador. The unfortunate issue is that many of the breeders of Silver Labs do not health test, which then perpetuates some conditions, a sad situation and a reason to carefully research any silver breeders and their lines, but the diseases are the same as is found in the general Lab population.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ironman said:


> ...the staff of the AKC and the representative of the Labrador Retriever Club of America examined them. Both parties were satisfied that there was no reason to doubt that the dogs were purebred Labrador Retrievers..."
> 
> Contact the AKC and they will tell you the same thing today.


Who is "Robert Young of the AKC"?

According to what I can find, he is a photographer. I'm not sure photographers can make official statements for the AKC.


----------



## wheelhorse (Nov 13, 2005)

Ironman said:


> Not so fast. Indeed this does occur in some breeds with dilution, but not all. To date there has not been any proven cases of dilution alopecia in Labs that I have found.


Ah, no. It HAS been documented in Weim/Lab crosses, ie silver Labs.

Problem here is you believe that a Weim cross is a true Labrador no matter what info/facts are presented to you. 

That's ok. 

Just don't try to make me believe they are a Lab. Just like you can get a poodle X to pick up a bird and call it a retriever, you can get a Weim cross to do the same and can call it a retriever. Just don't capitalize retriever...


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> No problem, you already posted that info in post #39. Too often silver haters overlook this part "...the staff of the AKC and the representative of the Labrador Retriever Club of America examined them. Both parties were satisfied that there was no reason to doubt that the dogs were purebred Labrador Retrievers..."
> 
> Contact the AKC and they will tell you the same thing today.


This is one of the *myths* that are being perpetuated only by the silver breeders. *Provide that actual documentation from AKC and/or LRC. *That article I posted from the AKC Gazette was from the 80's, The whole problem is it can't be proven by DNA because the science didn't exist at the time and now it is too late and we have to live with it unless someone has the bones from the original crosses.


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Indeed the culo originals are dead but, like I said, there are newer lines that have all their DNA in order. Two can be found on the web if you know what to look for, the others are held privately for the time being, until those that have them are willing to come forward with them. 
By all means, contact the AKC and ask them their position on the "Silver" Labrador, no need to keep digging up old quotations.
I think it is telling that registered Labradors have produce a unique color and and the AKC affirms their purity (with on-site investigations in the 80's and now with DNA), and haters still say "prove it." If those against silvers want to call them mutts, it is they who must prove their claims in that they are contrary to the position and practice of the registry that is responsible to assure purity(AKC in this case).

In all, we are just rehashing older threads from this forum and others. Perhaps it would be worth while to go back and actually read those prior to going the rounds all over again on points that have previously been thoroughly explored.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

tom said:


> You just proved my point!
> The "D" gene *is not mentioned*
> Now take the time to read the rest of the breed standard, and you will find a discription of the three colors that is acceptible without being faulted or disqualified.
> 
> But that still does not mean that faulted or disqualified dog can't be registered. There are thousands of registered dudlies for example.


The D locus IS mentioned in the LRC's statement concerning silver Labradors.

It says


> SILVER LABRADORS
> 
> *There is no genetic basis for the silver gene in Labradors*. The silver color is a disqualification under the Standard for the breed. The LRC does not recognize, accept or condone the sale or advertising of any Labrador as a silver Labrador. The Club opposes the practice of registering silver as chocolate.


The first sentence says it.

Two recessives in the D locus *IS* the genetic basis for silver coloration in a chocolate Labrador Retriever.

Since the LRC has stated that *there is no genetic basis for the silver gene in Labrador Retrievers*, then silver Labs are *NOT* Labrador Retrievers!

It may be considered related to a common mismark, or a Dudley, but it's not the same thing. Those can be produced without outcrossing.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

NOW THINK FOR ONCE!!!!
Again::: *It is not mentioned in the **STANDARD***. Until it is mentioned in the standard it remaines LRC's problem, and the AKC has nothing to say about it!


*END OF STORY*


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

tom said:


> NOW THINK FOR ONCE!!!!
> Again::: *It is not mentioned in the STANDARD* Until it is mentioned in the standard it remaines LRC's problem and the AKC has nothing to say about it!
> 
> 
> *END OF STORY*


I promise to think, if you promise to read.



> SILVER LABRADORS
> 
> There is no genetic basis for the silver gene in Labradors. *The silver color is a disqualification under the Standard for the breed*. The LRC does not recognize, accept or condone the sale or advertising of any Labrador as a silver Labrador. The Club opposes the practice of registering silver as chocolate.


The above quote is taken from the LRC website. Here is the link.
http://thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Silver


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

*DAMMIT* It has to be included in *this* document before it has any merits or is enforceable!

http://www.akc.org/breeds/labrador_retriever/index.cfm



> Color
> The Labrador Retriever coat colors are black, yellow and chocolate. Any other color or a combination of colors is a disqualification. A small white spot on the chest is permissible, but not desirable. White hairs from aging or scarring are not to be misinterpreted as brindling. Black--Blacks are all black. A black with brindle markings or a black with tan markings is a disqualification. Yellow--Yellows may range in color from fox-red to light cream, with variations in shading on the ears, back, and underparts of the dog. Chocolate--Chocolates can vary in shade from light to dark chocolate. Chocolate with brindle or tan markings is a disqualification.


Nowhere is the genetics for dilution mentioned!!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

tom said:


> *DAMMIT* It has to be included in *this* document before it has any merits or is enforceable!
> 
> http://www.akc.org/breeds/labrador_retriever/index.cfm


Okay, I have two points to make here.

First of all, the LRC is the organization that sets the breed Standard, not the AKC.

Second, the LRC's interpretation of the breed Standard is that the silver color is a disqualification.

So, if the AKC's interpretation of the breed Standard does not match the LRC's, it's the AKC that is at fault.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

A disqualification is not grounds to refuse registration. It has to go farther than that.

One thing you can take to the bank; there are no silver labs with championship points! At least not that I have ever seen, and I sure take in more than my share of dog shows. So they are being passed over or disqualified.
Fact is, I've never seen anyone with 'nads big enough to enter a silver lab.


----------



## agengo02 (Nov 3, 2009)

Kind of a response from the first link but I hate when people try to argue that if a pro trainer washes the dog out then it is done. I have one of these weim/lab crosses; no it's not a silver lab, no I didn't pay a dime for him, yes I consider Labmaraners a breed. He has always done well for me, but I brought him to a couple of pros to get an evaluation. WASHED OUT BY BOTH. Since getting the bad news, we have excelled in every aspect of duck hunting. No major problems and he is easy enough for a first time trainer to train. I hate when people try to make a broad statement for an entire group. It's also my experience that haters are always going to hate.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

tom said:


> A disqualification is not grounds to refuse registration.


I certainly agree.

However, the LRC has officially stated that there is no genetic basis for the silver coat color in the Labrador Retriever breed.

Not actually *BEING* a Labrador Retriever, most certainly *IS* grounds to refuse registration.

We don't need to dig up the bones of long dead dogs. The DNA is still here. It's in these dilute dogs.

The expression of dilution, is *all* the evidence needed to refuse registration. It is irrefutable proof that the dog's lines have been outcrossed to a non-Labrador breed.

It does not matter if it was hidden for 100 years. The dog is still not a Labrador Retriever.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

The problem is honesty on the registration form. Clearly buyers of gray "Labs" don't care that they're registered as chocolate....and AKC doesn't know they're silver, they just know/care that they got to cash another check. Heck, someone could register a whole litter of chocolates as black or yellow, and if the owners didn't complain, AKC would register them as black or yellow and never know the difference either.


----------



## blackice (Mar 15, 2011)

I go back and support what Jason G. said. I too have seen crazy prizes for White & Silver labs. We must educate folks on the risks of buying these basically unsound, unhealthy dogs. I can't beleive folks breed for this stuff because the "uneducated buyer" hasn't a clue what they are getting but love the odd color. Let's help stop the demand for these colors through eduaction of all our clients, friends, et.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> The problem is honesty on the registration form. Clearly buyers of gray "Labs" don't care that they're registered as chocolate....and AKC doesn't know they're silver, they just know/care that they got to cash another check. Heck, someone could register a whole litter of chocolates as black or yellow, and if the owners didn't complain, AKC would register them as black or yellow and never know the difference either.


Fraudulent registration is illegal. I guess that doesn't matter, if you don't do anything to enforce it.

There are a *LOT* of these dogs being registered with the AKC. They are not really eligible for registration!

I doubt the AKC will attack this issue thoroughly. But, the AKC really is our registry. It "belongs" to us, and it is very important that it maintains it's integrity.

*WE* need to take a stand.

If someone wants dilute Labrador Retrievers to be recognized, they need to start their own Breed Club. We already have one, and it says that silver does not have any genetic basis in the Labrador Retriever.

Once they start their new Breed Club, they can create their own breed Standard.

Lastly, they need to find their own registry.
They can't have this one. This seat is taken.


----------



## Takem_brewer (Jun 8, 2010)

> Then how did this obvious dilute manage to go BOS at Westminster?
> She is also the mother/grandmother/great grandmother of 26 breed champions if my count is right.


This is not a dulute, this is just a very light colored yellow lab. The dullte yellow has a shiny look to them just like the silvers or charcoals do, and they are typically darker yellow. Every dilute yellow I have seen has the dudley nose as well, and do not think it is possible for the dilute to have the black nose like the picture of the dog above. I don't think you are quite understanding what the dilute gene is. horizonlabradors.com has good examples of what they call the champagne (dilute yellow) labs. I am not affiliated with them and not advertising, just showing you a website that has this color, as this is a new color that not a lot of the dulte breeders have yet.


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Most breeders that are breeding for dilute yellows, like the link provided, are indeed breeding dudleys so thier nose is grayish pinkish, very unsightly IMO. Unlike these dudley noses, the charcoal nose, you would not be able to tell a difference at all visibly. 




copterdoc said:


> Fraudulent registration is illegal. I guess that doesn't matter, if you don't do anything to enforce it.
> 
> There are a *LOT* of these dogs being registered with the AKC. They are not really eligible for registration!
> 
> ...


Copterdoc, you are indeed quite attached to your paradigm, gotta give you props for that. Now consider, in order to for these dilution gene carrying Labrador Retrievers to be removed from the registry, there must be incontrovertible proof of impurity, that is the only way a dog can be removed. The LRC's position statement is just that, a position that reflects its membership's beliefs. I'd imagine that the AKC is not too happy with the LRC over their recent reversal of opinion on this matter as it has the to potential to make people like you hot under the collar, and leaves the AKC between a rock and a hard place. All the AKC needs is real, incontrovertible proof of impurity. The problem is, that is completely impossible to produce. This proof could come in one of two ways. 1) prove through DNA that a silver Lab puppy was not from the listed AKC Labrador Retriever parents, or 2) Prove with DNA that the likely progenitor to the Labrador (St John's Water Dog, saying little of the other breeds mixed in) nor the earliest Retrievers registered as "Labradors" carried the gene recessively. If you want to take a real stand that the AKC will listen to, get started with your DNA studies...and time traveling. Otherwise, your are wasting your breath and time. 

Careful on wishing for the Silver Labrador Retriever enthusiasts to establish their own club and thereby breed, that is exactly how Yellow became an acceptable color in the breed. The Labrador Club recognized that if that club were to get breed recognition for the yellows they would have littermates registering as two separate breeds. Yellows as "Yellow Labrador Retriever" and Blacks as "Labrador Retrievers." The same would happen with silvers that come in mulit-colored litters, the dilutes would be registrable as one "breed" and the non-silvers would be registrable as another "breed." I know you said that "they need to find their own registry," which could alleviate the dual breed thing, but then you laid out this winner of a statement: 


> They can't have this one. This seat is taken


What seat would that be? The Labrador Retriever seat by chance? Oh my, that would mean even you recognize that Silver Labrador Retrievers are actually Labrador Retrievers! How else could they occupy the same seat?
Funny.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

Regardless of if they are true Labs or not, it seems like the more important issue here is with people breeding FOR Silver Labs. The gene pool just isn't that deep.

Generally, I don't think it is good for the breed as a whole when people breed primarily for color (with the possible exception of black).


----------



## feigle (Mar 10, 2011)

OK this may be a dumb question and please tread lightly on my ignorance of the matter. So lets say you register a silver as a choc. then you run a HT or what ever. Dont they check your registration? and would'nt it say Choc not silver? how hard would it be to fake a dog or fake an age? or could the registers deny entry because the markings dont match?

I dont mean to offend if i did, just scratching my head on the issue, heck they may not even check that deep.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

The only time that color is a disqualification in an event is in the show ring. You can enter any mismarked or "wrong" color lab or any other acceptable breed in hunt tests and field trials if you so desire.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ironman said:


> ....The Labrador Club recognized that if that club were to get breed recognition for the yellows they would have littermates registering as two separate breeds. Yellows as "Yellow Labrador Retriever" and Blacks as "Labrador Retrievers." The same would happen with silvers that come in mulit-colored litters, the dilutes would be registrable as one "breed" and the non-silvers would be registrable as another "breed."...


We know things about genetics that we didn't know back in 1985.

If two Labrador Retrievers are bred, and they produce *ANY* dilute offspring, that means that both parents are at a minimum carriers of the recessive dilution trait.

Since both parents are carrying a trait that the LRC says does not exist in the Labrador Retriever, *NONE* of those pups can be registered. They are the result of a cross breeding somewhere in their pedigree.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ironman said:


> .....All the AKC needs is real, incontrovertible proof of impurity. The problem is, that is completely impossible to produce. This proof could come in one of two ways. 1) prove through DNA that a silver Lab puppy was not from the listed AKC Labrador Retriever parents, or 2) Prove with DNA that the likely progenitor to the Labrador (St John's Water Dog, saying little of the other breeds mixed in) nor the earliest Retrievers registered as "Labradors" carried the gene recessively.....


That is not true.

All the proof that is needed today, is that the dog carries a single locus trait that the Breed Club states has no basis in the breed.

That's it. It's so simple.

Now, the only issue is enforcing it.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Since _both parents are carrying a trait that the LRC says does not exist in the Labrador Retriever_, *NONE* of those pups can be registered. They are the result of a cross breeding somewhere in their pedigree.


So you'd have to rescind the registrations of the parents too wouldn't you? They both carry genes not found in labs.

Since they were mistakenly registered as labs any awards they earned would have to be rescinded also and the dogs below them moved up for their awards. Any prior pups would have to be de-registered also.

Honest Copterdoc, this whole silver lab thing is not very important to me.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Howard N said:


> So you'd have to rescind the registrations of the parents too wouldn't you? They both carry genes not found in labs.
> 
> Since they were mistakenly registered as labs any awards they earned would have to be rescinded also and the dogs below them moved up for their awards. Any prior pups would have to be de-registered also.
> 
> Honest Copterdoc, this whole silver lab thing is not very important to me.


I don't think you would have to rescind or revoke the registrations of known carriers. But, since they would have to have outcrossed blood, their offspring should be ineligible for AKC registration as Labrador Retrievers.

Giving them a limited registration would be sufficient.

My greatest concern, is that this road we are currently on, ends with the LRC's acceptance of the dilute coat trait in Labrador Retrievers.

The way the AKC is currently "allowing" these dogs to be registered, makes it impossible for us to know in the future, which lines have been, or are suspected of being, crossbred to produce this trait.

The longer this goes on, the worse it is going to get. However, if these non-ethical breeders are challenged by the AKC, they will just register their dogs with a different registry.

They will still produce crossbred dogs, and call them Labradors, but at least they won't be AKC registered as Labrador Retrievers.


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

Copterdoc, you don't get it. If say two black labs produce a couple dilutes in their litter, then by your reasoning the parents are "impure." If impure, then the AKC must revoke registration, as obviously the dogs are "mutts" since the LRC changed their mind a year ago to say these dogs are not pure. So, okay, revoke the parent's registration...but that means that one of the grand parents on each side were also "impure," if you can't prove which ones, you have to revoke all 4 grand parents. Moving on to the next generation and you have the same problem, you have no way of knowing who was the impure so you'd have to revoke them all, etc, etc, etc until you have revoked every Labrador in the pedigree back to when the AKC started registering Labs....and all the various offspring of each of those labs, equating the entire Labrador population. What you are proposing is flat out impossible. *UNLESS*, you have DNA proof of the impurity (meaning you can incontrovertibly prove where a misbreeding happened, the exact dogs). Good luck with that one.

The interesting thing about this is your argument is pretty one-sided. Even the majority of posters here that have posted common sense statements as to why you are wasting your time are likely also against these Labs fundamentally. If you want a really productive discussion that could reach a true resolution you need to have both parties at the negotiating table, not a mob-type forum harangue. I'll guarantee you that many of "these non-ethical breeders," as you call them, will be fighting mad if the AKC were to revoke their registrations. Indeed they would go to another registry if they were forced to, but by darn, they'd have blood in the courts over it first. Remember, there needs to be actual incontrovertible proof *that will stand in court* if you are to get your view jammed through, not just the opinion of the breeders who make up the LRC. We know what happened last time the LRC changed its breed standard, the ensuing lawsuit drove the divide in the breed deeper than ever. Is that really what the LRC wants to support? More infighting, more hatred, more breed division?


----------



## Giuseppe (Jan 6, 2021)

Ironman said:


> Copterdoc, you don't get it. If say two black labs produce a couple dilutes in their litter, then by your reasoning the parents are "impure." If impure, then the AKC must revoke registration, as obviously the dogs are "mutts" since the LRC changed their mind a year ago to say these dogs are not pure. So, okay, revoke the parent's registration...but that means that one of the grand parents on each side were also "impure," if you can't prove which ones, you have to revoke all 4 grand parents. Moving on to the next generation and you have the same problem, you have no way of knowing who was the impure so you'd have to revoke them all, etc, etc, etc until you have revoked every Labrador in the pedigree back to when the AKC started registering Labs....and all the various offspring of each of those labs, equating the entire Labrador population. What you are proposing is flat out impossible. *UNLESS*, you have DNA proof of the impurity (meaning you can incontrovertibly prove where a misbreeding happened, the exact dogs). Good luck with that one.
> 
> The interesting thing about this is your argument is pretty one-sided. Even the majority of posters here that have posted common sense statements as to why you are wasting your time are likely also against these Labs fundamentally. If you want a really productive discussion that could reach a true resolution you need to have both parties at the negotiating table, not a mob-type forum harangue. I'll guarantee you that many of "these non-ethical breeders," as you call them, will be fighting mad if the AKC were to revoke their registrations. Indeed they would go to another registry if they were forced to, but by darn, they'd have blood in the courts over it first. Remember, there needs to be actual incontrovertible proof *that will stand in court* if you are to get your view jammed through, not just the opinion of the breeders who make up the LRC. We know what happened last time the LRC changed its breed standard, the ensuing lawsuit drove the divide in the breed deeper than ever. Is that really what the LRC wants to support? More infighting, more hatred, more breed division?


Very good point, as anyone who has done any type of search on silvers know they were around as early as 1904 in England (The MotherLand) the first to recognize the breed. The problem is the folks who take it for granted that because someone told them from the LRC club, it it has to be true. When all it really is they are protecting their breeders market.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Giuseppe said:


> Very good point, as anyone who has done any type of search on silvers know they were around as early as 1904 in England (The MotherLand) the first to recognize the breed.


Well this changes everything, at least everything in an 11 year old thread.
Can you recommend a good "Silver Lab" breeder?


----------



## Don Smith (Mar 23, 2004)

Giuseppe said:


> Very good point, as anyone who has done any type of search on silvers know they were around as early as 1904 in England (The MotherLand) the first to recognize the breed. The problem is the folks who take it for granted that because someone told them from the LRC club, it it has to be true. When all it really is they are protecting their breeders market.
> View attachment 89024
> View attachment 89025
> View attachment 89025


You post purported classified ads with no authentication so small that they really can't be read even with magnification? Doesn't fly. With two posts, I smell a dilute breeder. Here's what does fly --
*AKC/LRC JOINT STATEMENT ON ALLEGED “SILVER LABRADORS”*

According to the breed standard, established by the Labrador Retriever Club, Inc., there are three acceptable colors of Labrador Retrievers. Those colors are Black (all black), Yellow (fox-red to light cream), and Chocolate (light to dark chocolate).

Silver is not an acceptable color of Labrador Retriever and is a disqualifying fault.

Based on an agreement in 1987 between the American Kennel Club and the LRC, it was agreed that there was no proof that these silver dogs were not purebred and the breeders of the silver dogs subsequently registered them as chocolates.

Using parentage testing, it cannot conclusively be proven that silver Labradors are not purebred dogs or are crossed with Weimaraners. The Labrador Retriever breed does not carry the dilute gene dd that appears universally in the Weimaraner and is responsible for silver color.

Responsible breeders are tasked with breeding for health and standard and not solely for aesthetic.

While we respect the choice of pet owners to select the breed of their choice, the LRC, Inc. does not view silver Labradors as appropriate breeding stock and believes that they should not be bred. They may compete in AKC events but are disqualified from the conformation show ring.

June 13, 2017

Read this paragraph carefully - "Using parentage testing, it cannot conclusively be proven that silver Labradors are not purebred dogs or are crossed with Weimaraners." Of course not. Parentage DNA testing only establishes parentage, not ancestry. "The Labrador Retriever breed *does not* carry the dilute gene dd that appears universally in the Weimaraner and is responsible for silver color." (emphasis added). That sentence is dispositive. By persisting in registering dilutes as Labs, AKC is ignoring the statement they agreed to. There's a word for that.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

LAUGHABLE GIUSEPPE!!!! especially since the type/font of those articles has been altered. LMAO. I suggest GIUSEPPE take his/her fake news elsewhere.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

The font's been changed but the "facts" are unaltered, Tobi. Put this out there a few days ago in another humorous British (and "gentlemanly!") context 









Bred for Brilliance


The British Labs of Blue Cypress Kennels




shootingsportsman.com





but amidst all the other cloud cuckoo land blather you may have missed what I'm excerpting below - again, it's of recent vintage:



> Gus was born at Blue Cypress Kennels, which has a unique breeding program established a quarter-century ago by the late Randall Rollins. The kennel’s inspiration began when Rollins was invited to England for a driven shoot. It was the first time the lifelong dogman was exposed to British Labs, and boy was he smitten. He loved their size, which was slightly smaller than their American counterparts. He favored their ripped musculature and incredible stamina. Square heads that were packed full of bird smarts begat intensity and athleticism. *The dogs—mostly black and yellow but some fox red and silver*—were wired to hunt but still had unusually calm dispositions...[blah, blah, blah]


MG


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

A big part of the solution (except AKC doesn't care and won't do it) would be to eliminate any Labrador with a Culo dog in its pedigree. I'd guess that would take care of 99% of the crossbreds, as he definitely had an "oops" litter when a Weimaraner that he did not own hooked up with one of his Labs. He was mad about it until the grey pups were born, then he realized he could profit on the color and started inbreeding from that litter and forward, just for the grey color.


----------



## Don Smith (Mar 23, 2004)

Sharon Potter said:


> A big part of the solution (except AKC doesn't care and won't do it) would be to eliminate any Labrador with a Culo dog in its pedigree.


The more absolute way of eliminating the problem would be to require all Labs to be D Locus tested before they could be registered and for AKC refusing to register any dogs that have a recessive gene on the D Locus. We'll never see that happen either.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

It took me a long time to scroll to the point where someone thought this was necessary. 

Giuseppe, it wasn't. .....but you probably knew that.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

crackerd said:


> The font's been changed but the "facts" are unaltered, Tobi. Put this out there a few days ago in another humorous British (and "gentlemanly!") context
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So does that mean that some 25 yrs ago is of 'recent vintage' ? If so, I feel that I must be 'historic vintage' ('Ancient vintage isn't for another 25-30, I guess).... Being vintage is probably good for certain beverages and collector's items, but I am not feeling positive about the human equivalent. LOL!


----------



## Don Smith (Mar 23, 2004)

crackerd said:


> The font's been changed but the "facts" are unaltered, Tobi. Put this out there a few days ago in another humorous British (and "gentlemanly!") context
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I read the article - twice. I acknowledge that the article says "The kennel’s inspiration began when Rollins was invited to England for a driven shoot. ... *The dogs—mostly black and yellow but some fox red and silver ... .", *but I actually went to the kennel's website and looked. I looked at every photo of every dog - and there are a lot -, every litter - and there are a lot of those, too -, etc. There were absolutely no silvers. Guess it goes to show you can't believe everything you read.

One way to confirm what's in the article is to send the kennel an inquiry expressing an interest in a silver "Lab" puppy and see what reply you get.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

It appears the author of the story knows little to nothing about US FT's other than what (I would imagine) he has 'heard' via those that have never actually been to a FT ...." If a handler’s dog runs out of sight, then the dog is considered to be out of control and is disqualified. American field-trial Labs aren’t required to be quiet, and in some instances aggressive behavior is valued. The genetics of those winners are promoted."


----------



## Don Smith (Mar 23, 2004)

Tobias said:


> It appears the author of the story knows little to nothing about US FT's other than what (I would imagine) he has 'heard' via those that have never actually been to a FT ...." If a handler’s dog runs out of sight, then the dog is considered to be out of control and is disqualified. American field-trial Labs aren’t required to be quiet, and in some instances aggressive behavior is valued. The genetics of those winners are promoted."


I saw that. I agree. Clearly trying to promote British Labs. I've seen that often.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Tobias said:


> So does that mean that some 25 yrs ago is of 'recent vintage' ? If so, I feel that I must be 'historic vintage' ('Ancient vintage isn't for another 25-30, I guess).... Being vintage is probably good for certain beverages and collector's items, but I am not feeling positive about the human equivalent. LOL!


No, it means that a purported writer who wasn't there when the kennel founder had an epiphany about "British Labs" found a cockamamie way of blathering on about the wonders of field-bred or field trial British Labs, "mostly black and yellow, but some fox red and silver." Which is 99.9% unlikely ever to have happened on a driven shoot, much less "silvers" seen at British FTs, but maybe Polmaise or Eug can contradict me.

The British field trial that the current Florida kennel trainer participated in according to the article wasn't a FT at all, but a "working test." So the trainer cited in the puff piece (by way of Amsterdam, plenty of puffing to be had there) became yet another 'Merican claiming to have competed in British field trials only to have actually taken part in a "working test," which goes like this: no game, live or cold; dummies only, "waterless" retrieves, and not even a real test of the steadiness inculcated into every British FT dog. In other words zero credibility throughout. But again maybe our venerable rtf cousins as above can tell us there actually are, or were, or will be again, "silver" Labs running British FTs or even at shoots. I did see a "silver" litter listed on a gundog forum during the pandemic for...$8,000 females, $6,000 males - registration by the UK Kennel Club uncertain but who knows. Then again, maybe the Colonel (Milner, not Blimp) will call us all to attention as the proxy for the Duke of Buccleuch's original lines being "pewter" or "gunmetal" Labs as the precursors to them British "silvers"... "Giuseppe" who resurrected this thread could be the Duke's gardener on free loan from Versailles, for that matter, by way of the Gardone Val Trompia and some silversmithing secrets that he's put a good shine on-- 

MG


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

A “Silver British Lab” 
Wouldn’t that be special.


----------

