Breeding a disqualifying fault.

Height, could be a problem in the field with Beagles. You want them to run under as many thorns as possible. Still, I don't know why standards insist on having height as a DQ. If 14 inches is ideal, and 15 inches is ok, why would 15.5 be the end of the world?

Judges know, some aren't incompetent (some are :rofl1 but they will put up what they want to put up on that day. The ones who can easily hide the faults to a T are the ones who generally have trimming down and understand the concept of what you can do with layers, etc... thus the dogs often look better, usually presented better, and those will win most of the time over the ones who do not do as good of a job in the grooming department, handling department, etc. regardless of if it's better than the dog "with the pretty hair do." Why do you think so many hire handlers?

I love showing, I just don't think it's the be all end all in seeing how well a dog conforms to the standard

There is a breeder in my breed that does this (most of the puppies she breeds must be finished, regardless of if it'll end up a pet). Word travels, people form opinions. It's not because all of her puppies turn ugly, either.

What's to stop ugly (I use the term nicely ), but older, dogs from finishing either? Because it happens all. the. time.

Yeah, you see it a lot in borzois. Especially with all breed judges. It's very common for an all breed judge to put up 4-5 year old males just because they carry a ton of coat. I've seen some really fantastic younger dogs passed over so an older dog that does the eggbeater paddle thing with front and back feet as it walks can get put up.

Sight hound breeder judges tend to pick much better, more consistently. They realize that the topline you see in the ring is totally disguising their true topline.

It's one of the reasons highly ranked smooth collies tend to have better structure than highly ranked roughs. You can conceal an awful lot of faults with that coat and a fantastic presentation that you'd never get away with on a smooth.

I don't see anything wrong with it. As long as the dogs are healthy with good structure and temperament -- who cares if there's a "chance" of some, one, or no puppies being oversize? It's all a crapshoot. One of my best friends breeds shelties; The females she breeds are always between 12 and 14 inches; The males are never more than 15 inches. 16 is DQ. She gets puppies anywhere from 11 to 19 inches (many times in the same litter). When you're dealing with a breed that has multiple sizes in it's genetic makeup, you're bound to get a mix sometimes.
Cosmetic faults are really just cosmetic. NO dog is perfect. Not every puppy in a litter is going to be perfect, and most breeders are not able to put a Ch on every puppy in a litter for one reason or another. If the reason is a little more predicatable, oh well, you're prepared.
I see so many dogs in the show ring that don't have faults "according to standard" but still have terrible structure, and many have health issues. People should be more willing to get the risk of an oversized puppy than the risk of a serious health problem. If a dog is a bit tall, a bit small, has a blue eye, a drop ear, a curly tail, the wrong colour.... Does it affect the health? The temperament? The working ability?? Than, what's wrong?

All of this too. ^^ Personally I'd take a dog that was slightly over or under sized, yet had beautiful angulation and the correct substance over a dog with a crappier shoulder or unbalanced angles but was within the height standard. Yeah height can be disqualifying depending on breed, but which is the bigger fault?

Same thing with something like a blue eye. If the dog had the right lines, the right health, temperament, etc. and was better than its siblings, I'd probably breed it despite a blue eye. Those are recessive, just be careful about line breeding and it shouldn't become an issue.

Hmm; what's your market want?

Are they the people that will conf ch their dog as a puppy; then go out and hunt happily with the dog for the rest of it's life; not worrying about height dq/faults.

Or

are they pet people who don't care either way

Or

are they hardcore perfectionists who aren't going to overlook any faults and that is all you have on your pup list? And do you offer height as a guarantee? And can you guarantee a pup's future height as a baby? i.e. Big puppy = big adult?

IF I was left with group three and looking for future breeding stock for myself and I was serious about lead and feed criteria; I'd look for the smaller male; if I had the other people as puppy prospective owners; I'd go with hunting ability, temperament, health, and let the height chips fall where they may.

Interesting thread.

I agree height is not a big concern, but there is better choices out there. You could breed your bitch to Louie to begin with. But if you don't, you could breed one of the puppies (using that term loosely) that was in standard, even after fully mature.

I think there is usually a reason for a DQ, the breed clubs don't just make them up for fun. And even if an oversized bitch was bred to an in standard dog, doesn't mean you will get in between. You still can get an oversized dog. Then would you breed the over sized dogs again?

Disqualifying faults are often made up for no real reason, or reason other than politics. Take my favourite example tollers here is the breed standared:NSDTR Club of Canada - Toller Standard

to quote the disqualifying faults
The bolded one is of interest. This is a fairly new fault. Why did they make this a fault? It doesn't affect the health, temperament, or working ability of the toller. You can't say well its historical, as it used to be just fine..... So ya seems it was made 'just for fun' or for politics, which is the same thing.

(its not even directly inheritable which makes it even sillier)

Actually no its not that simple. Height is (in most mammals anyway, dogs humans and horses for sure) polygenic so you can't say 50/50. Even if it was a single trait it would then be dominant and recessive, so only 50/50 if it was oversized and the dog was heterozygous. And if that was the case it would be really simple to breed back out.

This is why I think anyone who wants to breed should take a few courses or educate themselves not only on how inheritance works, but what many common issues are genetically (ie recessive, dominant, polygenetic, or epistatic... maybe even epigenetic)

I don't know every DQ for every breed, but it seems like for Beagles the height there is a reason for the DQ. (Someone said it helps them avoid thorns while hunting?) I agree the white on tollers is stupid.

I edited my original post to take out the 50/50 because that is not what I meant. I don't know anything about genetics. I was trying to say that you can still get an oversized dog even if you breed an oversized to an undersized, you most likely will still get small dogs or large dogs. You breed for what you want, if your dog has a soft topline, you aren't going to breed to a dog that has a roachy topline, you would breed to one that has a solid topline...

I still think it's wrong to be breeding dogs with a disqualifying fault. Especially when it would be easy to avoid it.

Why is it wrong? (in the case of DQ being strictly cosmetic) Isn't the goal the betterment of the breed? And it only helps them avoid the thorns if you have low thorns. One of my best friends is an avid hunter. I can tell you for sure that a slightly higher dog isn't going to be a detriment. And after all isn't a beagle supposed to be a hunting dog? The height thing is a range imposed by kennel clubs.

This is the reason the PRT is not the same size as the JRT. No kennel club will accept 10-15 inches as a height range in a small dog (I got this directly from kennel club officials) So the PRT had to make less than 12 inches a DQ. Not because its good for the breed, not because it aids in health or temperament. And it directly impairs the working ability of the breed. So are you saying a stunning but slightly smaller dog should not be bred, simply to match what is written on paper?

In the scheme of things I would rather see dogs who are cosmetically less perfect when compared to the paper ideal but are better examples of the breed.

Because if your breeding for the betterment of the breed, why breed towards something the standard does not call for? Especially when your breeding for the show ring, which is what the OP is doing it seems like.

But if you know genetics, she could be breeding better for the show ring.

For example.. There was a dog I really liked for Bounce. Was strong in all the areas Bounce is weak. But he was oversized. He still won in the ring cause no one sticked him. He had a littermate that was tiny. Therefore he is not goign to be homozygous for tall genes. So the plan was to breed them, and hope for a pup with Bounce's shape, his substance and movement and her size. Worst case senario it would have been a litter of fantastic sport prospects/pets. Best case scenario a litter full of fantastic sport prospects/pets and show dogs. (sadly he didn't test clear on a genetic health test)

He was by far the best option for improving the breed.

Also there are many faults that are bad but not DQ. You can have a health issue riddle dog and if its pretty and has no DQs and breed it. I know of more than one breeder who will compromise health and breed known carriers all because they care more about achieving the paper standard than the betterment of the breed as a whole.

I love dog sports, but that doesnt' mean I am going to breed away from the JRT breed standards, or working ideal just to make better agility dogs. Just because someone loves to do conformation doesn't mean they should go away from the ideal just to match the current paper standard. (though its great when you can get both)

Around here it could. We have overgrown blackberries everywhere a rabbit might be found. Though I'm not sure even the smallest beagle could enter all of it, given the choice, I'd take the small one.


I agree with Dekka about some of the disqualifications. Some of them aren't inheritable while dogs with directly inheritable heath problems
don't face a DQ. For that matter, I don't recall ever seeing a standard specifying four legs.

Which is why JRTs have such a large height variation. Depending on what quarry you might need a great big JRT or a little one. I would think with any hunting dog a larger height variation would be a good thing (if they are actually working)

^ This.

I see no problem doing the breeding proposed in the original post. Although it could be disappointing for a nice puppy to go oversized, it isn't something that could affect it's health or it's ability to make someone a nice companion.

Thanks for your replies. I think I know what Im going to do, and have for a while, but it's always interesting to see other's opinions.

Another flip of the coin could be Parti Colored poodles. FCI (I think its FCI) acceptable, and in Auss (I think) but not in AKC or CKC. You cant tell me Parti Colored has anything to do with retrieving ability.

Another random one is blue in weims.

and i know several guys that run snowshoe hares or deer that prefer the larger beagles, over standard in fact. but i also know a couple of deer doggers that like the little pocket beagles. in a working dog a lot boils down to individual preference.

My understanding is too much white is faulted because they are red dogs with white dogs, not white dogs with red. I've seen fully Irish marked dogs. Marsh has a littermate that's a mismark, and Marsh has hardly any white. So I agree with it being a fault, because I don't think Tollers should be marked like Border Collies or Brittanys, but it shouldn't be a DQ because it's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

There was one at our Obedience trial last month! A very striking looking dog. My puppy class has a longhair too.

They historically have always had the option of little white markings on the back of their neck. They could have said markings larger than 'x' cm. And if they are supposed to be solid red dogs, why not get rid of feet markings.

The dogs who were showing and winning had white patches the size of a quarter. So not really an issue. And why make the change anyway? I mean why make the change to make them more solid? If its not historical or practical why limit your gene pool over something so trivial?