I am in favor of forcing silvers to be registered as silvers because registering them as chocolate is a fraud. Registering them as silvers also helps breeders identify pedigrees that contain silver.

Does anyone know how we get the ball rolling on this?

Yes, I am a LRC member.

Why would you want these mixed breeds registered as silvers? At least we can inform the public what the silvers really are. If the AKC says there is such a thing as silver labradors and they will register them as such, the discussion will be over. It would be a loss to the breed. Right now all we are dealing with is a handful of dishonest breeders. I for one do not want to welcome them as fellow labrador breeders.

I think the issue has to be brought up to the powers that be at LRC and also AKC trying to keep the emotions in check----

It is done for the white GSD so there is a way.

The biggest fraud is people paying lots for these dogs because they are told "it is rare"

I think we need to have them register as a dilute of one of the three colors with a "Z" notation in the registration number much like that of white dobermans. This way we can track the dilute whether it's hidden in the yellow color or if it's just a possible carrier of the dilute from those tainted lines.

If they are forced to register them as a dilute chocolate or dilute black then people buying them will know that these dogs are indeed a result of the unnatural dilute gene that was introduced by the weimaraner. It wouldn't be calling them a "rare" color such as silver, charcoal or champagne, but rather registering as a result of what they are. Those that are from the dilute lines but are of the recognized color will contain the letter "Z" in their registration number and we will not have to guess which dogs are from those lines.

I think if we call them by the name dilutes, the puppy buying public could easily recognize why the dogs are the color they are and whether or not they want to "buy" into the slick sales pitch of the silver breeders. But at least this way they will more easily identified.

sounds good but again this is parent club and AKC-- maybe it is time to bring the horse back to the barn and get people talking and not just reacting.

But if they must prove that they are not just mixed why not register them as has been mentionned.

If somewhere back in making the labrador of today from the labrador that the Brits saw some what 200 years ago did have a dilute gene and we know the Brits in the making did add a little of this and that then don't we owe looking at it. The Greater and Lesser St. John dogs of by gone era does not look like the Newf and the lab of today-- so what got added, subtracted.

I agree with Z.

And....Maybe the dilute gene was a mutation, or maybe it was hidden for 200 yrs and has only recently been expressed in kennels in the US. Or maybe it was introduced by a breed that carries the dilute gene.. Well, my good old common sense just takes over and I have to go with the latter.

The dilute gene will introduce greater health issues into the general population and I am just not about to condone that! Registering Silvers as Chocolates was a Very Big Mistake by my way of thinking. We now have no identification for the Silver Factors (our biggest threat)to the overall population, as they can be registered and shown,and none of us will know. The Silver Breeders are masters of advertizing and sales pitches and are now consciously using well know dogs and pedigrees in their x-breeding.

I have breeder friends with Australian Shepherds (dilute gene causes health issues...her words) and breeder friends with Newfoundlands (Greys have skin issues...her words).

I try be a true advocate of the breed I love. We have all kept our heads in the sand on this issue.

I will be writing letters voicing my opinion to re-visit the registration of Silvers as Chocolate and the need to further identify a Silver factored dog.

Just old school.

"Malmesbury reported that he had keep the blood lines pure as he could with the imported dogs from Newfoundland."

Why do I think the silver breeders would be thrilled to pieces to be made legit?

This is an Ironic subject.

The whole reason "Silver" Labrador Retrievers are not registered as "Silver" today is because the AKC and LRC jointly decided they should be Chocolate. Now, you all want them to be registered as Silver again! There are many "Silver" Labrador breeders that have long sought for just that and here you offer it as a good idea from your side of the debate. Wow! All that needed to happen was for a Silver to attend the Potomac and Silvers get a recognized Lab color!? I really doubt it.

I think it would be reasonable if we remove emotion and bias from the decision and simply follow the genetics and biology in an objective manner. Labradors that are called "Silver" due to the macro-level appearance are bb at the B locus, so too are the Labradors that we call "Chocolate" bb at the B locus. The pigment granule color of the "Silver" colored Labrador is Brown. The pigment granule color of the "Chocolate" colored Labrador is also Brown. The reason they differ in appearance at the macro level is due to the arrangement of the Brown colored pigment granules at the micro level as a result of the modifying dilution gene. Modifying genes that affect the macro-level appearance of Labrador coat colors are normal in the Labrador. It is the presence of modifying genes that produce the spectrum of variations with in the Yellow color and to a lesser extent chocolate and even Black. Genetically and Biologically, "Chocolate" is an appropriate designation for any Labrador possessing Brown pigment granules (bb). Let them be registered as their foundation genetic colors.

I know you folks will never get it that in order to have "Silver" Labradors kicked out of the AKC YOU will have to produce incontrovertible evidence of your beloved weim crossbreeding theory. It's a lot of wasted energy that will never produce a result for you that could be much better spent mentoring "Silver" Labrador breeders. Teaching everything you have to offer on how to build a better Labrador, how to be a better breeder. I guarantee you that if you did, you'd turn more "Silver" Labrador breeders to your views and opinions than by attacking and belittling. I've seen it happen, once they get a taste of English lines that have been conscientiously improved upon for decades and decades (long before you ever were in Labs), and a willing mentor, they give up on the "Silver" Labs and go to BYC. But for those of us that are dedicated to our lines and breeding programs, do you think that rejecting us and alienating us will do anything to help us produce sound Labradors? Impeding access to the top Labrador lines only works to impede the Labs we produce! You all go nuts about the horrid inbreeding that happened with Silver Labs decades ago, but have you done anything to assist any of us in strengthening our gene pool to help eliminate inbreeding practices, more importantly eliminate the detrimental consequences of inbreeding; health? I'm not outright blaming you for the state of the Silver Labrador Retriever generally, but you must recognize that the breeders who support "Silver" Labradors are only growing in number. You must recognize that if you somehow forced the LRC and AKC to withhold registration, it will not stop these Labs from being produced! There will still be Labs called "Silver Labrador Retrievers" whose breeders will still strive to breed to the best AKC Lab lines. You will still be mad as a bee in a bonnet about it all, probably worse. Would it not be better for everyone (breeders, dogs, pet owners) if we could find a way to ensure that since "Silver" Labradors will never go away, that they are at least the best they can be? Wouldn't that be the actions of enthusiasts who are devoted to the dogs they love?

I know you want to reply that "a devoted enthusiast would never help a Silver Labrador breeder, not even if hell froze over; and that forcing them out of the breed is the devoted thing to do." But really, where has that mantra gotten us all in the last several decades? You know it won't stop "Silver" Labradors form being produced. It just drives a wedge of animosity between supporters of the breed we all love. How many factions must our breed have? Field, Show, Silver, BYB, etc... I can guarantee you that the "Silver" Labrador breeders are not in favor of another split in the breed...

Going in Circles... your rant is not convincing anyone but you my friend are going in circles. I do not want Silvers registered as Chocolate. I do not want them re-registered as Silver. If they are here I want them identified so I can keep them out of my lines, and out of the general Black, Yellow and Chocolate population so no dilute genes get mysteriously mixed and we will then have another big problem of more health test..etc etc.
You are seriously mistaken by your argument that if we HELP you improve your lines... EXCUSE ME... What Lines????... You have no Lines!!! I do not consider your lines Labrador. I consider them a x-breed and I consider the dilute gene another health issue that I do not want to deal with.

The whole reason "Silver" Labrador Retrievers are not registered as "Silver" today is because the AKC and LRC jointly decided they should be Chocolate. Now, you all want them to be registered as Silver again! (NO.. YOU ARE MISTAKEN, WE DO NOT WANT THEM REGISTERED AS SILVER, BUT IDENTIFIED AS HAVING A SILVER GENE, SO WE CAN KEEP IT OUT OF OUR GENE POOL. BIG DIFFERENCE) There are many "Silver" Labrador breeders that have long sought for just that and here you offer it as a good idea from your side of the debate. Wow! All that needed to happen was for a Silver to attend the Potomac and Silvers get a recognized Lab color!? I really doubt it. (YES YOU ARE RIGHT - THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN)

I think it would be reasonable if we remove emotion and bias from the decision and simply follow the genetics and biology in an objective manner. Labradors that are called "Silver" due to the macro-level appearance are bb at the B locus, so too are the Labradors that we call "Chocolate" bb at the B locus. The pigment granule color of the "Silver" colored Labrador is Brown. The pigment granule color of the "Chocolate" colored Labrador is also Brown. The reason they differ in appearance at the macro level is due to the arrangement of the Brown colored pigment granules at the micro level as a result of the modifying dilution gene. (YES YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEM) Modifying genes that affect the macro-level appearance of Labrador coat colors are normal in the Labrador. It is the presence of modifying genes that produce the spectrum of variations with in the Yellow color (NOPE, NOT THE SAME) and to a lesser extent chocolate and even Black. Genetically and Biologically, "Chocolate" is an appropriate designation for any Labrador possessing Brown pigment granules (bb).(THIS IS WHERE YOUR SCIENCE GETS PSEUDO - TRUE CHOCOLATES VARY IN COAT COLOR THE SAME AS YELLOWS, THE INTRODUCED DILUTE GENE HAS NEVER BEEN IN THE LABRADOR POPULATION AND TO NOW CALL IT OR REFER TO IT AS A RECESSIVE TO BROWN MAY BE TRUE, BUT NEVER BEFORE IN LABRADORS) Let them be registered as their foundation genetic colors. (THE DILUTE GENE WAS NEVER THE RECESSIVE OF CHOCOLATE IN OUR BREED UNTIL IT WAS INTRODUCED BY SOMEONE OR SOMETHING AND QUITE FRANKLY NOW IT DOES NOT MATTER..WHAT SHOULD MATTER TO EVERYONE IS THAT IT DOES NOT GET REPRODUECED! GET IT YET!


I know you folks will never get it (WE GET IT)that in order to have "Silver" Labradors kicked out of the AKC YOU will have to produce incontrovertible evidence of your beloved weim crossbreeding theory. It's a lot of wasted energy that will never produce a result for you that could be much better spent mentoring "Silver" Labrador breeders. (WE DO NOT RECOGNIZE SILVER BREEDERS AS PART OF US.. THEY ARE EXPLOITERS) Teaching everything you have to offer on how to build a better Labrador, how to be a better breeder. I guarantee you that if you did, you'd turn more "Silver" Labrador breeders (WE DO NOT WANT the SILVER COLOR BRED PERIOD AND WE ARE TRYING TO EDUCATE AS TO WHY)to your views and opinions than by attacking and belittling. (NO ONE IS ATTACKING AND BELITTLING - UNDERSTANDING THE BREED AND EDUCATING SOMEONE OUT TO EXPLOIT IS NOT EASY) I've seen it happen, once they get a taste of English lines that have been conscientiously improved upon for decades and decades (long before you ever were in Labs),(WHAT A BIZARE STATEMENT! WE HAVE BEEN IN LABS ABOUT 200 YEARS) and a willing mentor, they give up on the "Silver" Labs and go to BYC. But for those of us that are dedicated to our lines and breeding programs, do you think that rejecting us and alienating us will do anything to help us produce sound Labradors?(YOU ARE NOT BREEDING LABRADORS – YOU ARE TRYING TO INTODUCE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT LABRADOR AND YOU ARE BREEDING IT AND CALLING IT LABRADOR- WE ARE NOT REJECTING YOU OR ALIENATING YOU - YOU ARE NOT EVEN ON THE SAME PAGE! WE ARE EDUCATING YOU ON THE LABRADOR BREED) Impeding access to the top Labrador lines only works to impede the Labs we produce!(LABRADORS COME IN 3 COLORS, WE ARE NOT IMPEDING ANYTHING YOU PRODUCE AND DO NOT WANT OUR DOGS INVOLVED IN IMPROPER BREEDING PRACTICES) You all go nuts about the horrid inbreeding that happened with Silver Labs decades ago, but have you done anything to assist any of us in strengthening our gene pool to help eliminate inbreeding practices, more importantly eliminate the detrimental consequences of inbreeding; health? I'm not outright blaming you for the state of the Silver Labrador Retriever generally,(WE ARE NOT THE ONES TO BLAME - TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS OF INBREEDING,DETRIMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND HEALTH, THE PUBLIC IS BECOMING MORE AWARE OF THESE PRACTICES OF THE SILVER BREEDERS) but you must recognize that the breeders who support "Silver" Labradors are only growing in number.(UNFORTUNATELY IF PEOPLE ARE EXPLOITING THEIR DOGS FOR MONEY AND X-BREEDING WEIRD COLORS,RARE,UNHEALTHY DOGS IT IS VERY SAD. THE PET LOVING PUBLIC WOULD REALLY BE UPSET ABOUT THIS PRACTICE) You must recognize that if you somehow forced the LRC and AKC to withhold registration, it will not stop these Labs from being produced! (I WILL TRY) There will still be Labs called "Silver Labrador Retrievers" whose breeders will still strive to breed to the best AKC Lab lines. (SILVERS ARE NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE PARENT CLUB, IT WILL NOT MATTER WHAT INITIALS YOU PUT ON THEM, THEY ARE NOT RECOGNIZED AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE BRED..BUYER BEWARE) You will still be mad as a bee in a bonnet about it all, probably worse.(PROBABLY NOT, GETTING MAD SOLVES NOTHING EDUCATING OTHERS DOES CHANGE THINGS) Would it not be better for everyone (breeders, dogs, pet owners) if we could find a way to ensure that since "Silver" Labradors will never go away, that they are at least the best they can be? (SILVER BREEDERS, CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT. WE OWE NOTHING TO SILVER BREEDERS TO HELP MAKE THEM BETTER AT ANYTHING), Wouldn't that be the actions of enthusiasts who are devoted to the dogs they love? (I LOVE MY LABS, MY RESCUES, AND ALL DOGS, BUT I BREED LABS IN THE 3 COLORS THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE STANDARD SINCE IT'S INCEPTION. I AM DEVOTED TO MY DOGS BUT I OWE THE SILVER BREEDERS NOTHING.)


I know you want to reply that "a devoted enthusiast would never help a Silver Labrador breeder, not even if hell froze over; and that forcing them out of the breed is the devoted thing to do." But really, where has that mantra gotten us all in the last several decades? You know it won't stop "Silver" Labradors form being produced. (THE PUBLIC MAY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GENETICALLY MODIFIED DOGS WITH HEALTH ISSUES) It just drives a wedge of animosity between supporters of the breed we all love. How many factions must our breed have? Field, Show, Silver, BYB, etc... (SORRY YOU ARE CONFUSING HERE : I SHOW, I DO FIELD WORK .... YES - SILVER AND BYB WOULD BE IN THE SAME CATEGORY) I can guarantee you that the "Silver" Labrador breeders are not in favor of another split in the breed... (THE SILVER LABRADOR BREEDERS HAVE LITTLE INFLUENCE ON ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE BREED...OTHER THAN TO EXPLOIT THE LABRADOR FOR MONEY.... THEY ARE NOT “IN” THEY ARE “OUT” ).

I BELIEVE THAT TO REGISTER A SILVER OR DILUTE SILVER COLORED DOG AS CHOCOLATE LABRADOR SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. I FEEL THAT BY DOING SO PUTS THE WHOLE LABRADOR RETRIEVER POPULATION AT RISK THAT MAY NOT ONLY AFFECT THE LABRADOR IN COLORS BUT MAY AFFECT SUCH THINGS AS THE HEALTH OF THE BREED, THE TEMPERAMENT, STEADINESS, WORKING ABILITY,THE COLOR OF EYE, THE BEAUTIFUL HEAD, THE COAT, THE TAIL, .. ..

As has been said over and over, there is no way to prevent these dogs from being registered as Labradors. Done deal. Now, if anyone else can ignore the rants and emotion, I would like to make progress on the original question: What exactly needs to be done to force these dogs to be registered as silver so that reputable breeders can identify them in pedigrees? Specifically, is this something that can be done by the LRC without a membership vote, or does a motion have to be passed at a meeting? I can put together a motion, but before going through a lot of wheel spinning I would like to know what the correct process is.

And just to be sure there is no misunderstanding - this is simply an AKC REGISTRATION issue. NO WAY should the standard be changed and this will in no way affect the fact that silver is and always will be a disqualification in the conformation ring.

The LRC is a closed operation. Policy decisions are made by a few long-entrenched members on the board. Rank and file members pay dues but get no say in policy. Good luck trying to get anything done.

It's easy to find out who the board members of the LRC are. Talk to them. If they want to discuss, you'll know. If they don't want to discuss, you'll know. Get the member list, talk to everyone you know that's a member. If the old-timers won't budge, get enough "just paying" members to vote and throw out the old board. It can be done.

Sorry, you are not familar with the by-laws of the LRC and how Board Members and Officers are elected, the general membership cannot vote.........

Z wrote,
I think we need to have them register as a dilute of one of the three colors with a "Z" notation in the registration number much like that of white dobermans. This way we can track the dilute whether it's hidden in the yellow color or if it's just a possible carrier of the dilute from those tainted lines.

My question is, how many of the BYC Labradors will have a z that don't carry the dilute gene? An old timer told me it came from the Sandylands S lines and the Deer Creek lines to the original Dilutes. (They do go to these lines) It has also come from other lines in the show Labrador. How many of us will end up with the letter z even though we don't have the dilute gene?

The color came about as everyone was breeding the chocolate to make money. All of the dilute lines trace back to a famous dog. How far do you go with the Z? You reall need to think this out!

Thank you, Gregg. See, I'm not a "party pooper," just an LRC member who understands how things work (or don't, depending on your point of view).
I'm not renewing my membership. Enough is enough.

I'm not a member but check the LRC constitution .. are you not required to have an AGM? Members at large can put forth a motion at an AGM and it has to be dealt with .. you should also be able to call a Special General Meeting to deal with the issue if a large enough percentage of the voting members wish to ... The Board may be a closed shop but they have to follow the association Bylaws and Constitution .. and if it is not posted on the website, then it should be. Transparency transparency transperancy

I would prefer them to be registered as Silver Labradors and that it be a separate breed from the Labrador Retriever. There are more differences than just coat color. For me, eye color in silvers is very telling about what breed stands behind it.

From the Weimaraner Standard: Eyes--In shades of light amber, gray or blue-gray

I have never seen correct eye color in a "silver" and it is not the yellowish eyes seen in some chocolates, it is the eye color(s) described in the Weimaraner standard.

Eye shape and set are almost always wrong as is ear set. Expression is typically harsh. The head is one of the hallmarks of the breed and "silvers" are altogether a different breed.

It is too bad they picked the Labrador side rather than trying to make it big in "rare" Long-Coated Weimaraners!

Why not just register them as "I've been duped"? I personally wouldn't give any credence to registering them as "Silver" (or Charcoal, Champagne, etc.) for the reasons already stated. It would give the Silver breeders more credence to their claims. Not to mention probably more fodder to raise their already ridiculous prices even higher. Their pet home buyers have no clue that they're being sold a pack of bull hockey. IMO, the best plan is to work on getting the AKC and LRC to disallow these dilutes to even be registered in the first place. Yeah, I know, when pigs fly & easier said than done. But getting the education out there, ie: via Facebook, or whatever tool is handy, can't hurt.

If only registrations under "duped" were possible. At least it's calling a spade a spade.

Seeing Silver in the pedigree may be the least of your worries... It will be the factored dogs that we will never know, as they will appear perfectly chocolate but carry the gene, so even if you never allow or use a Silver etc. the posiblity of the dilute gene ending up in your lines is a real possibility.

AKC: I assume you have something to do with the AKC? Do you have information on how to add silver to the color list for registering Labradors?

Would it not be a good thing going forward to require the actual color of the dog be registered accurately? At least a step in the right direction? (Then if a silver dog is registered as chocolate there can be AKC sanctions.)

Can you help?

AKC, you have stated very valid points. As to "Yup" above, I am serious. The breeders of Silvers, Charcoals, Champaignes, whatever, have become so widespread, it's truly frightening. I can't believe how many of the Silver breeders list "DNA tested" or "AKC registered Silver". We all know they can't be registered as "Silver", but their pet home buyers don't know this.

I don't pretend to have all the answers but do believe just sitting back and allowing it to happen isn't the answer. I personally wouldn't mind submitting my own dogs to DNA testing if that would help. It's obvious the AKC doesn't care. Some have said we need more involvement from our parent club, but will they do so?

I think the problem with registering them as silvers is that if they are silver, they are NOT Labradors. I cannot believe the AKC would allow them to register as a color that does not exist in this breed. The thing that legitimizes them is registering them as chocolates (which they are not). If the AKC were going to impose sanctions, one would think they could already do so by fining people for each dog they registered as chocolate that are obviously NOT chocolate. It is easy enough to report people since their dogs are all up for sale all over the web.

Champagnes, whites, reds etc. are all yellow. The only thing that makes them "rare" is the terminology used, not the color itself. It is interesting how gullible the buying public is that they would spend more money for that, especially since reputable breeders do produce these shades but do not sell them as such. They are paying more money to people producing inferior dogs with better marketing campaigns.

As they say, a fool and their money are soon parted.....

Do some research the dilute gene didn't come from Sandyland's lines nor did it come from or ever show up in any show lines. The lines that have it originate from the field lines that started it. Isn't it amazing that this natural mutation doesn't occur in show lines? Why do you think Simply going in circles now is begging for mentor-ship from show line breeders? What a laugh, let this simply silver person go to the people that created their silver lines for mentor-ship, they started this mess. Why aren't they mentoring you? Why would we want to improve your gene pool at the expense of bringing ours down. As said earlier, color isn't the only conformation difference and we don't need any more health issues.

What can we do to protect our lines? It's simple (lol), before you agree to a breeding, require another clearance, a DNA test for the dilute gene. What's one more clearance? I would gladly do it and the cost is reasonable. How many get a color test anyway, just add to check for the dilute gene. It would be great if the LRC would recommend this clearance because it could get the ball rolling. Stud dog owners, start asking for this without exception. Keep dilute out of show lines!

How would AKC know if they are not chocolate without actually seeing the dog or doing a DNA test? You can say they are any color you want and how would they know the difference? If they enter a conformation ring they will be DQ'd as a judge will see that they are not an allowed color and lack breed type.

Then if the general membership has no say in voting, then what CAN we do. Yes, not renew. Apparently the subject is on the books for discussion the next meeting. GREAT. If they choose to do nothing, then everyone who is a member who thinks this is bull shit needs to NOT renew in January. The National should not be supported. I think we are partly to blame here. We send in our money to belong to the "Parent Club" because it looks good. We support the National show because we want another venue to compete in and SEE national dogs other than at the Potomac. But if the club is run by a group of old-timers with no thought of the future of the club(who's gonna run it when they die???), the general membership CAN make a difference. If there is no membership base anymore because all those that dislike their complacent stand on silvers, there will be a lack of funds to do whatever it is they do with the money. I think the lowly "can do nothing" membership is WATCHING now. If we can't vote, we can affect change some other way.

There was a Dalmatian breeder that introduced another breed to their breeding program to fight one of their genetic deceases. Many generations later this lines were accepted back in the pure breed Dalmatian registration pool. This was done legally with the AKC knowledge and for a good cause.
I would hate to see this happen with Silver Labs just for the sake of money.
No, registering the silvers as silvers is not the solution. Keeping them lying about the color is better. We know our lines and the lines we should work with. Educating the public and exposing Silver as non pure breed breeders is the only thing we can do.

As far as registering them as Silver Labradors? no. They are not really Labradors. They need to have a different catagory.......I would accept Silver Retrievers though. That makes them seperate from labradors and then they can no longer use our beautiful labradors to breed to.

It would take a lot of work finding out though who has the silvers, getting the AKC registered numbers and then having AKC go back and cull out all those that are actually silver and make them silver retrievers,or what ever they decide to call them.

Quote:

Let's repeat the facts YET AGAIN. They already ARE being registered as Labradors. They already ARE being bred to other Labradors. ALREADY HAPPENING. The big problem is that there is no color "silver" on the registration, so they are being registered as color=chocolate. You can't make a new AKC breed. AKC specifically prohibits creating a new breed from an existing AKC breed. Even if they allowed it, it would be up to the SILVER people to make that determination.


AKC's policies are interesting - they won't allow a new breed from an existing breed, but they WILL allow a new mixed breed to falsely register as an existing breed. They KNOW this is happening. It makes no sense (other than for $ motivation) and is in opposition to maintaining the integrity of a purebred registry. AKC is part of the problem then.

There is NO WAY in H*LL I would EVER vote to have silver be brought into the breed standard, me and my army will do whatever we can to MAKE SURE that NEVER happens. The "silver" dogs are complete pieces of crap in temperment, health, conformation and soundness and it makes me EXTREMELY mad that the "breeders" of these monster messes truley believe they are worth big money. Same boat as the labradoodle, a useless mutt!

The "champagnes" have blue pigment! Our local silver breeder was stupid enough to enter one in a dogshow!! As far as I am concerned the "breeders" that produce these designer colors have as little integrity as ones that breed labradoodles. Try to make money off the dogs with no regard for what it is doing for the future of the breed.

nope, no way I will EVER agree to have this color put in our standard!! NEVER will agree to it, heels in the ground on this!

Easy JJ. Nobody's talking about changing the standard. We are talking about changing the AKC registration so that these dogs will be more easily identified in pedigrees. Two different things. The standard remains the same.

If the standard says BLACK, YELLOW, CHOCOLATE then NO OTHER COLOR will or shall be elidgible for registration

Is this an opportunity for us all to do some self-reflecting?

It is not a perfect analogy by any means....but do we all see why a standard is important?

How many people have been ignoring the standard for years, using the arguments that things are open to interpretation and that the standard sucks anyway? This is the imperfect analogy...there is DNA evidence in this case making it more objective. But the standard calls for certain objective proportions, height/weight ranges, types of coat, etc, etc, etc. which are consistently ignored. The silver breeders gained a toe hold using the arguments that silver is a form of chocolate....an interpretation the AKC agreed with....and that nobody breeds to the standard anymore anyway...

Are we being hypocritical?

It is a very good post and spot on .....IF......one is using the argument that the dilute shade is not part of the standard as their position however the fact remains that non-Labradors were introduced into the gene pool AFTER the stud books were closed and should not be granted AKC registration as Labrador Retrievers.

As for the specific color debate at hand, below is the bottom line well articulated by both sides. Not sure I know what to do...

But for the bigger issue... We need a standard that people respect and follow. A standard is the foundation of our effort to maintain the historical integrity of our breed. And similarly for this broader issue, I am not sure I know what to do....

Have the LRC stop future silver registrations thru AKC and revoke those already issued. What does the UKC do?

The AKC can require color dilution gene proof before registering labs, it's not their job to decide what the breed standard is but is just a registry to track the PUREBRED lineage of dogs. The LRC has taken a stand that there is no genetic basis for the silver gene in the labrador. If the gene is present then the dog isn't all labrador and shouldn't be registered.

The AKC can do what it wants to do they just need some pressure.

This dilution gene has more to it than just looks, there are health issues that go with it. I can't think of a better reason to not allow it.

Maybe we should be contacting the LRC to ASK THEM what we can do to further the cause. Is fund raising needed for research or legal representation? I'm sure the LRC knows what needs to be done better than a handful of breeders but funding might be the issue. Your energy will be better spent by composing a single (simple) letter to the LRC that everyone can copy, sign and email showing we support their stand and ASK them what can we do (don't tell them how to proceed) and if funding is needed. Do we need approval for printed material used in fund raising campaigns? Let's get a mass e-mailing started to show the LRC how important this issue is to breeders and see what we can do to help. Money helps almost every cause.

This is a new bylaw passed by the Canadian Kennel Club. We are hoping this will be helpful in the fight against silvers. 27 GENERAL ELIGIBILITY FOR REGISTRATION



27.1 ELIGIBILITY FOR REGISTRATION

Any dog born in Canada of a litter registered with the Club and any dog registered in any of the foreign stud books or records which are

recognized by the Club shall be eligible for registration with the Club, upon application in accordance with these By-laws.



In order to ensure continued conformity with breed characteristics, the owner at birth of a dog of any breed for which registration is

sought shall certify that both parents of the dog conform with the size, coat colour and characteristics, where applicable, of that

breed as set out in the Club's breed standards.

Kay this is wonderful news. I wonder if the dilute breeders will then be unable to register since there is no genetic basis for the gene and since it is no longer considered a shade of the three recognized colors. Will the CKC stand up to them and say no? I am sure they will threaten litigation, but this is exactly what the AKC needs to do too. Thanks for the information.

The executive of the LRCC Inc is optomistic that this By-Law will put an end to the CKC allowing silver breeders to fradulently represent their silver cross-breds as chocolate Labradors.

Yes, sure, you are a silver breeder just out trying to slam our show dogs. I will bite though and will say that when we register a litter and one or both parents are champions, I think that pretty much says that they adhere to the standard. If not then AKC needs to do a better job educating their judges since they were the ones who gave these dogs their points and certified these dogs met the standard.

Excellent news Kay. I hope this solves your problem in Canada and hope the AKC and LRC will take notice.

Not a silver fan

I don't want silvers to be considered labs any more than anyone else, but when I read this I wondered just how many of todays conformation labs can certify that they adhere to the size and other characteristics described in the standards. Coat color, sure, but the rest of it?

Gotta love how you twist my words. My reference to a champion parent was in response to the CKC's proposed by-law change whereas, "In order to ensure continued conformity with breed characteristics, the owner at birth of a dog of any breed for which registration is
sought shall certify that both parents of the dog conform with the size, coat colour and characteristics, where applicable, of that breed as set out in the Club's breed standards."

Whereas if a dog is shown and awarded enough points to finish its championship, that this should be enough to "certify" that this particular dog conforms with the size, coat color, and characteristics. I did not state nor did I imply that at least one parent must be a champion in order to be bred. I simply made a statement that "that when we register a litter and one or both parents are champions, I think that pretty much says that they adhere to the standard." It has nothing to do with saying that one or both parents must to be a champion to register a litter nor did I say that every champion adheres to the standard. Only that to become a champion, the dog had to defeat a number of dogs under the AKC system, against the breed standard, and under "knowledgeable" judges.

You have your preferred style of Labrador and other breeders have theirs. Most still conform to the written standard. What you consider to be "overly large bodied, short-legged dogs with Rottie heads and droopy jowls" is not a dog described in the standard. I did not see this style of Labrador winning at the Potomac this year nor am I seeing this style of dog winning much anywhere anymore. It was a fad and thankfully breeders are swinging the pendulum back to the middle again.

It is just my opinion that the CKC is on the right track to ensure "conformity within breed characteristics."

So by conforming to your rules of conformation for show, our "real" working Labradors will not be registered? Isn't this the "real" purpose of the Labrador?
This is by far the dumbest topic I have ever read about.

Actually I do believe the LRC has a CC (conformation certificate) title in which they can certify that that performance dogs adhere to the standard. The minimum qualifications are fairly easy to pass but it also states the dog has no disqualifications, such as height, color, etc. I believe dogs that have a CC would be able to "certify" per the CKC's by-laws with no problems. I'm also not saying performance dogs shouldn't be bred. In fact, I love the working dogs and admire the training and talent they have to go through to do their job. They have different "characteristics" that define them as Labradors by the way they work. They adhere to a working standard, but still should be in the correct colors, size, etc. They just don't come in dilute colors.

I just feel that this is a step in the right direction to eliminate the dilute dogs, at least in Canada. I hope we can come up with something similar to either identify the lines that produce dilutes by having them honestly register them as a dilute and add a special letter to their registration or track the progress that the CKC has when they adopt their new by-laws.

Read the post again.

No way can one assume that because a lab is a champion that it conforms to the standard. That said, there are a lot of nice champions out there. But that does not change the fact that many, if not most, breeders and judges don't pay attention to the standard. There is not much of a relationship between conforming to the standard and finishing. In fact, conforming to many parts of the standard works against labs in the ring under many judges.

The color silver, and the gene responsible for it, are clearly not correct for Labradors. But there are many other traits not correct for Labradors that are seen in many champions.

A champion should conform to the standard. That should be an obvious fundamental of the sport. Whether or not our standard is worth conforming to is another debate for another day and should not distract from this great thread. However, this idea is clearly on the periphery of the color issue and we can't forget that.

I don't need to read the post again and still completely disagree. There are no PERFECT representatives of the standard and there never will be. All dogs have faults, including Champions. Champions should have no disqualifying faults and this would include any color other than black,chocolate or yellow. I will say that I do not necessarily care for all dogs that are champions, but no one has ever asked me to judge, either. People are human and interpret things differently, which does make room for different styles withing the breed - overall I would assume a champion meets the breed standard because several people who are deemed worthy to make that judgment believed the dog a good representation of the breed. Breeders felt the dog was good enough to be shown and a real champion is one who wins in good competition. If a dog that does not meet the standard is considered the best out here, it does not say much about the competition, does it? It is unlikely breeders everywhere are putting out dogs to be shown that they do not feel are the best they have, so a dog that can consistently win in competition is more than likely a nice representative of the standard.

You do need to read the post again if you want to know what I wrote. Or I guess you can trust me to tell you what I wrote. Or maybe you don't care and just want to argue???

I will try one last time.

If breedings are not planned with the standard in mind, if puppies are not selected with the standard in mind, and if dogs are not judged by the standard, then why would you assume that finishing remotely guarantees meeting the standard?

And I am not talking about the perfect dog which of course does not exist. I am saying that what most judges envision as the perfect dog is not what the standard describes. Therefore, many finished dogs do not meet the standard. In fact, many do not even approximate what the standard describes.

Of course, I am talking generalizations here. Tough to intelligently discuss. And this thread is about coat color which is pretty objective.

It is clear what a silver looks like. It is clear that a silver is not one of the acceptable 3 colors of Labrador. And there is a known gene, that can be tested for, that causes this color.

What is less clear is what to do about it.

Silver dogs are not Labradors.

Ditto..."silver labradors" are not Labradors. I would like to see them prohibited from being registered. I realize that the DNA approach is probably lost to us as the "original" silvers were long before DNA was available.

However, can't anybody else think of another approach to keep these dogs from being registered with the AKC? Isn't there anything the parent club can do? Can the Parent Club simply say...Silver is not a color and then ask the AKC not to allow these "profiteers" to register these dogs?

The easiest way is to require a color coat test for the d gene on all breeding pairs, if a d gene is present then no litter registration is issued. The LRC has taken a stand that purebred labs don't have the d gene.

"Charcoal" is being registered as black, I believe.

A co-worker recently told me that her daughter, who had purchased a "silver" from a "reputable breeder" in Oregon, allowed their 6mo old silver female to be bred. I asked what the breeder thought "Oh she thought it was awesome and wants a puppy". That goes to show you what kind of people they are and I said that person is NOT reputable or responsible if she thought breeding a PUPPY is "awesome". Her daughter also got duped into believing their pup was registered as "silver" on the AKC paper work. I told her that is INCORRECT since Labs only come in 3 colors and there is no option for "silver" on the registration. I keep trying to educate her and her daughter, but they were sold by this "breeder" and their twisted facts and untruths.

A baby 6 mo. old was bred to what? The next door field lab.........Most Labs don't come in until 11 to 14 mo. More proof of mixing although an occasional Lab line will come in earlier but far from common. When are Weims known to come in to heat? Just saying..............and asking..........?

She told me to their black male. This is what she is telling me, of her daughter, since she knows I am a Lab lover/ Lab mommy and I have talked with her about "silvers" before (the time when she told me her daughter got a "silver" pup and then a few days ago, when she told me she was bred). I gave her some credit since she isn't happy with them breeding at all (she told me she yelled at them, which I replied "GOOD, they deserved it") since it sounds like they do not have any idea what they are doing. It's a sad situation and I feel sorry for that poor pup.

Highly unlikely that the said puppies will be eligible for AKC registration due to the young age of the female. Hopefully it was an exaggeration of her young age.

http://www.akc.org/breeders/resp_breeding/steps_8.cfm

Miniature American Shepherds aren't exactly AKC registrable. BUT, the AKC does offer foundation stock service for the breed, which is strange because they state-
"The FSS® is not open to "rare" breeds that are a variation of an AKC-registrable breed or the result of a combination of two AKC-recognized breeds. This includes and is not limited to differences such as size (over and under), coat type, coat colors, and coat colors and/or types that are disqualifications from Conformation Events by AKC breed standards.." http://www.akc.org/reg/fss_details.cfm

So what's up with that? The breed club website clearly states that "The breed was formed by a split of the Australian Shepherd breed in AKC, and the incorporation of dogs previously known as Miniature Australian Shepherds and also known as North American Shepherds." http://www.mascusa.org/

So, in the future could we see the American Silver Retriever as a FSS breed? Something like "The breed was formed by a split of the Labrador Retriever breed in AKC, and the incorporation of dogs previously known as Silver Labrador Retrievers."

or maybe... "The breed was formed by a split of the Labrador Retriever breed in AKC, and the incorporation of Weimaraners."