People do not breed "pet quality" dogs. OFTEN "pet quality" means - mismarked.
I'd like to touch on this really quickly.
As far as Shibas go- a LOT more goes into deciding what "pet quality" is beyond just mismarks.
What is "ridiculous" is the assumption that good breeders would look at a SINGLE aesthetic factor as the reason for petting a dog out.
At least in my breed, a LOT more goes into it beyond that.
We're looking at FIRST AND FOREMOST excellent health (OFA, CERF, etc.) and proper temperament. No matter HOW beautiful a dog is, it isn't worth the time of day if it fails the first two requirements. From there proper angulation, good feet, appropriate size, correct tail set and length, lovely headpiece, good coat TEXTURE (more important than color), and yes, coat color itself.
If a dog posesses the most important characteristics I'm willing to overlook some "minor" flaws (after all- all dogs have them!)
For example: There isn't a correctly marked red sesame in this NATION. (We're still trying to convince the Japanese breeders to let us have a great one...but no luck yet...they're basically priceless). Most of the "sesame" dogs you see are in actuality, mismarked reds- but their other qualities are SO outstanding, that they're worthy of breeding. Correct color is important- but not at the EXPENSE of everything else. And we certainly wouldn't cut an outstanding dog from a breeding program because of a smattering of black hairs on his shoulders.
There IS a color we disqualify from the ring completely. White Shibas are no longer accepted. This is partially due to historical reasons (which I won't get into here unless people really want to know), but also because we found that these dogs had considerably more skin/allergy issues (as well as weaker immune systems), than Shibas in the "traditional" colors.
We don't just breed for "pretty."
What everyone here is getting at is that to breed EXCLUSIVELY for ANY ONE trait is to court certain disaster. And THAT is what worries most people about the majority of silver Lab breeders. A lot of them are looking at color as THE ONE factor that decides a dog's suitability for breeding, and this IMO, is a FAR greater crime than simply disqualifying a single color.
One particularly poignant example I'm thinking of involves a local breeder of Malamutes in my area. This breeder made it a point to tout her dogs enormous size. (Over two times the standard- and often these dogs were achieving such weights at 6 months of age). It became apparent that this was her SOLE selling point. Does it surprise anyone to know that the local Malamute rescue has more of HER dogs than anyone else? That to date- she has sold dogs that have KILLED family members?
And this in a breed that is RENOWNED for it's friendly, people-loving temperament.
When you breed for ONE trait to the EXCLUSION of all else you ARE screwing yourself. We do NOT breed in a vacuum. Traits that have seemingly NO connection to one another phenotypically (eg: size and temperament), may in fact be inextricably linked by genes.
(Remember "rage syndrome" in the reddish Cockers a few years back???)
Consider the total package, or do the dog world a favor, and refrain from breeding.
