Sgurr wrote:I've been told that the fashion for mainly white Springers was because Kenine Robb of Rytex - a heavily used stud - threw mainly lighter pups and people felt they were easier to see against dark vegetation such as winter bracken. Newflame in the UK started to breed what they called the old fashioned type, very dark, around 2000. I've got an old dog, five generation Rytex free, and he is not heavily marked at all, liver ears and a couple of patches. His younger half brother (Rytex breeding in there) is very dark though. I've used both of them on the same bitch (light bitch) and they both throw a mixture of light and dark pups. My personal preference is for the darker ones but what I notice most is the depth and length of coat which is much heavier in the older breeding.
Kenine Rob is a pretty recent animal, I still consider him "modern"!!! There were mainly where springers long long long before him, look at the white faced and bodied springers in Peter Moxons booked, pictures taken in the 50's, mainly white Springers are nothing new and nothing to do with Rob. Mainly white bodied cockers were the norm not so long ago either with solid black/liver/red being a rarity.
James wrote:I can't believe that nobody has touch on the fact that all the dogs in question were bred by someone who is know longer with us so there's nobody to prosecute
Maybe so but the ones that are accused of being the first generation were in the name of said person, you can't prosecute those breeding from those dogs as it would mean half the cocker trialing community in this country.
Call me a thicko but I don't quite get it. If ess and cockers were originally differentiated purely by size and then selectively bred hence now effectively two different breeds then how is the dna going to be different between the two. Dna for big and dna for little ??? I don't get it.
Muddling along in the hope that one day it starts to make sense.
ips wrote:Call me a thicko but I don't quite get it. If ess and cockers were originally differentiated purely by size and then selectively bred hence now effectively two different breeds then how is the dna going to be different between the two. Dna for big and dna for little ??? I don't get it.
This is exactly the problem, DNA doesn't differ by much, if anything. The only way to put a stop to any potential cheating is to DNA profile any dog used for breeding from here on and check chips before competition. We can't change the past but we can make the future better.
In life, it is important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Again I am confused. Historically same dog, just big ones and little ones. At what point and who decided that the big ones from now on are going to be classed as a different breed than the small ones. ????
I understand that the breeds now have a different hunting style etc BUT I have seen big cockers and I have seen small springers that look more like a cocker.
Muddling along in the hope that one day it starts to make sense.
James wrote:Maybe so but the ones that are accused of being the first generation were in the name of said person, you can't prosecute those breeding from those dogs as it would mean half the cocker trialing community in this country.
Maybe not, but you can prosecute someone knowingly selling dogs with fake registration papers, this seems to be the way things are going. If people have been breeding from sprockers unknowingly thier legal claim is with whom ever sold them the mongrel in the first place, it may not be the fault of the deceased man if he was not in possession of the dogs, which he wasn't. I've no argument with anyone involved but something stinks!!!
doh! You mean Jim!
keep up at the back!!!