Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Caryl on June 27, 2011 at 5:31pm

Well said Chris! Fluffies ARE cute (not my cup of tea but still cute). Having seen some people who have fluffies at the horse show grounds I can say I would never consider one around the barn - too much clean up work! While the AKC doen't do a great job of recognizing the changes in breeds, they aren't really in the business of doing so - they WANT the breeds to remain true to the "type" they recognized. I can't ever see fluffs in the herding group - not because they can't herd, but because it isn't a practical coat for the low-slung herding dog (in case someone is going to point out the Aussie or Border Collie coats). Fluffs drag their coat through the mud - cows live in muddy fields - not practical. And many of us do not live the the environment of Wales - wet and muddy much of the time.

Fluffs are becoming more popular - so I don't think they are going away. But show breeders aren't going to be trying to breed them - fortunately there are plenty of good hobby breeeders who are legit and don't mind the gene. Corgi on!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris West on June 27, 2011 at 5:46pm

I know they WANT them to stay the same.  But that's what I like about this documentary.  It shows that the dogs AREN'T staying the same. Look at most any breed picture now and 100 years ago.  Some things in the standard are just taken to extremes.  As in, due to advances in veterinary medicine in the last 100 years, it shows that some breed standard requirements are unnecessary or in some cases, just plain bad for the dogs health.  Of course, I am not referring to anything really regarding corgis, just all breeds in general.

 

I personally don't feel fluffs should be accepted because they don't do what this breed is specifically bred to do.  However, if people were serious about wanting fluffs, they could always determine what fluffy corgis SHOULD be bred for (every breed needs a purpose), and then apply to the AKC for recognition as a separate breed.  I don't mind fluffs, they just can't do what to current corgi breeds are being bred for (I mean they can, but with extra cleaning, yada yada yada)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cindi & Twinkie on June 27, 2011 at 7:57pm

:)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Teresa Gilpin on June 27, 2011 at 5:08pm

I agree 100%!  They are gorgeous!  I don't understand all the AKC rules, I wish they could figure out a way to make the fluffs a seperate category or something!  I would really hate to see them disappear!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gromit, Sparkle, and Doug on June 27, 2011 at 7:14pm

Corgis, both Pembrokes and Cardigans, were not even a recognized breed in the UK until the 1930s.  The breed standards change very slowly, otherwise breeding would become chaotic and the core breed would be lost.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cindi & Twinkie on June 27, 2011 at 8:08pm

This has turned into such a good conversation! Of course I understand having a dog capable of doing what they were originally bred for but what if no one does that anymore? No one bull baits but there are still bulldogs. Maybe that's a topic for another time. Anyway...for fluffs to ever be their own thing, in a different group, they could not come out of standard litters, correct? Seems like they will just be happy accidents for the time being. The thought this puts into the back of mind though is once a person gets a fluff, will they be more likely to ignore the breeders wish and not spay/neuter their fluffy pups? I would never do that but not everyone's mother is a card-carrying AKC judge.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on June 27, 2011 at 9:18pm

Hmm...I wonder if a fluffy puppy is priced the same as a normal puppy from the same litter in the U.S? Maybe it is economics.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Beth on June 27, 2011 at 9:26pm

From my experience, fluffs and mis-marks are the same price as pups with standard coats.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Beth on June 27, 2011 at 9:34pm

Cindi, there will be some fluffs for quite a long time, I imagine.   First of all, even the most careful breeders sometimes have "whoopsee" litters that they did not plan.  

 

Second of all, breeders are not likely to purge their lines of fluff-carriers.  And since coat is less important than, say, health, sometimes breeders will probably decide to go ahead and breed a carrier to a carrier if the other traits are desirable enough.

So, let's say a breeder has a nice line she's been working on, but she's been having some weak pasterns creeping in.  So she keeps a bitch with the firmest pasterns of the bunch, and that bitch is a von Willebrands carrier.  She's also a fluff carrier.

 

She finds a stud who throws pups with nice tight pasterns, no matter what he's bred to.  But ah, that stud is also a vWD carrier, so that stud is out of the running.   She finds another stud, closely related to the first one and with the great pasterns in the family tree.  This one is vWD free but also fluff-factored.

 

That breeder may very well make that breeding and take a chance on fluffs because the other characteristics are so desirable.

 

Similarly, if a breeder is crossing back into a line to fix in a trait she wants to save, and both dogs happen to be fluff-carriers, again she may go ahead and make the match to preserve, say, a fabulous topline. 

Again, I'm not a breeder but that's the impression I get of what sorts of trade-offs breeders make when they are picking a stud for their bitch.  

 

So yes they will be less common, but it will probably be some time before you see no fluffs because while breeders are not going to breed a fluff to a fluff if all else is equal, sometimes all else is not equal, if you see what I mean.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cindi & Twinkie on June 28, 2011 at 7:58am

Thanks so much for breaking it down for me. There is so much that goes into making a breeding pair that coat is just one component. Hmmm...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Melissa and Franklin! on June 27, 2011 at 9:40pm

I'm wondering if by isolating the fluffy gene and selecting against it, breeders will in the long run end up with less desirable traits by also eliminating a lot of good qualities? Seems like its such a minor thing because it causes no ill health effects and that breeders should (and probably will?) stick to breeding more for health and temperament and if you get a few fluffies in the litter oh well just one or two less dogs to choose from for a future show champion but it seems like the breed overall would benefit by having a wider gene pool.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Beth on June 27, 2011 at 9:54pm

Yep, I think plenty of people are still breeding carriers.   Maddie is a carrier and she was bred.  They'll just breed to clears, which will still keep the genes in the gene-pool (a carrier to a clear will likely produce some carriers).

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page