'Purebred' question

[Crumpet]

I would like to pose a genuine question about something that has been bothering me in regards to what constitutes a purebred Chow. I’ve heard people suggest that if a Chow has a merle pattern it must be because there is something else mixed in the bloodline somewhere, hence the dog cannot be 100% purebred. We’ve also heard that any chow with a pink spot on its tongue is probably not purebred, but I understand that to be false (pigmentation may be diluted meaning the dog just doesn’t meet breed or show standards). What I’m struggling with is that knowing that the ‘modern’ closed faced /heavier boned chows do not look like the original chow of centuries past, how can any of the modern chows be really considered purebred when other breeds like mastiffs and shar-peis were added to the chow bloodlines to make them appear the way they do now? It just makes the whole concept of ‘purebred’ seem so arbitrary. Thank you.

[applebear]

I suppose a simple way to look at it is, how do you think we got our 'purebreds' in the first place? All of them, every breed, were created by mixing. I watched an interested show awhile back, I *think* it occurred in the uk, where they bred a pointer with the Dalmatian to get rid of defect, then bred those back to the Dalmatian. The first generation naturally, hardly looked like the Dal, but after they got down a couple/few generations, it looked once again like the Dalmatian. In the show, the breed club had a fit...even though they successfully bred out a genetic defect, they refused to accept them calling them a mutt. Though this wasn't changing the appearance, it's still kind of along the same lines...many breeds have changed over time from their ancestors. Some not always for the best either, just look at the bulldog...and course if breeders push it, chows are heading that direction.

So in the end, it all comes down to what the club of the breed accepts. If they decided to accept merles and brindles [cringe] into the color standard, then that would make them purebred. In the end, they all were mixed with something originally to get to that point. I sometimes think it's a fine line, but that's how I understand it...I am far from an expert, I imagine others will have a lot more wisdom on the subject.

[Rory's Dad]

Just my thoughts, but i think the initial question is flawed. Merles are a genetic flaw. That does not say they are not purebred, but simply the replication of an undesired gene. Same for brindles. And it is also the same for other changes in what are considered acceptable variations in the breed, expect for the defective gene.

All breeds are bred with a desired outcome. That can obviously vary from region to region, and amongst active breeders. In the US, the desireable chow seems to have the heavier set muzzle and shorter, stockier body type. That is not the trend in Europe and Asia, where a more athletic body type and thinner, open faced look is preferable. Both results are obtained by selective breeding, matching types with similar types. That does not mean they are introducing other breeds to obtain that result.

Chows with pink in their mouths can also be purebred, its a question of quality and heritage. Cream chows, while still being completely purebred have difficulty holding the black/blue/purple quality within their mouths and nose. Infact, a cream chow that does maintain proper coloring is very desireable. Being an issue of genetics, the offspring of a cream may not carry that ability. And may not even be cream.

I am not sure of the scientific odds, but think in terms of humans. Blue eyes and blonde hair are not dominant genes. Even with both parents holding those qualities, there is no guarantee their children will follow suit. Since they are recessive genes, its luck of the draw. Both parents will still have a certain quantity of the dominant traits.

A chow litter produced from two cream chows will produce pups of different colors. Same if both are reds, blues, or blacks.

[Andria]

I know a breeder that breeds to produce Merles and sells them at a higher price due to their "rareness". When questioned about standard colors, the breeder's reply is always that AKC will recognize Merles one day as "the sixth Chow color"

[TyChowgirl]

Yea...I'm pretty sure that idiot posted here once and got blasted not only here, but another forum, facebook, and on their business site. That's a prime example of someone trying to make a profit instead of actually caring about what they're doing to harm the breed. The Merle pattern is not just the main issue...usually it's accompanied by either deafness or blindness...I don't remember which.

[Me & Tess]

Probably on the merle side. We had a blue merle Ausie years ago and she had vision problems. It is really sad when physical or behavior come out with improper breeding.

[Rory's Dad]

It actually both with a merle. They are almost guaranteed to have one of those issues, if not both.

And to anyone that thinks merles will ever be considered for AKC recognition, it will not happen. It's very well known that it is a genetic defect with serious consequences. I am one of those that denigrated that breeder here and on facebook and many puppy sites. Straight out it is just irresponsible. There is a 90% chance that those pups will be born blind, deaf, or both. It is downright cruel to breed that trait, and should be illegal.