What do you think: Are breed standards static or gradually changing? Should they be static or gradually changing? 

I see the horrific battle between the "do's" and the "do nots" of 'rare' coloured bulldogs out there and have stayed on the sidelines for years. I do my own thing - do it well and with confidence, and by staying quiet I procure some ability to stay low and out of musket range. Have I been asked why? Yes. So, to take my chances of coming into the melee combat and getting bludgeoned: This is my reasoning: 

I do it because we had the same bias in Danes for years. But good breeders with amazing ethics produced some serious quality in colours like blue and merle and the standards changed. The quality, health and conformation of those once DQ'd colours is indisputable - and there are many multiple champions now of both colours.  

 

AND Because there is now much more technology to back this up: colour and disease are not the same genetics.

I believe that with the right ethics and determination the same changes that have been seen in other breeds can be done for French Bulldogs.  We need not be stilted just because we are much like the dogs we breed: stubborn and opposed to change.

 

Blue has forever been my favourite in any breed... or species for that matter. I try my very best to help further the breed by creating unbelievable quality in 'alternative colours' right along side those standard colours that have been the staple all this time. Please note, though, that there is a major cost involved with doing this. The investment of the level of quality in a dog of the highest caliber French Bulldog breeding dog in a 'regular colour' can be daunting. Then track down recessive genes. Not just 'rare' colours but say, maskless, or bright red. Each of those are more difficult to produce and the prices match the fact that you may try through four litters and get one specimen in each (if you're lucky) and THEN you need the rest of the package (in conformation, health soundness) in order for that dog to be considered worthy of breeding. It must be an absolutely remarkable specimen of a dog. This is not an easy feat.  Now look for MORE recessive traits for that remarkable specimen.... you get the picture. 

 

And then there is the personal and emotional cost... we will deal with that momentarily.

Note, first, that not all of us charge 'designer prices' for alternative colours... do I charge more for some dogs than others? Yes.  Absolutely.  Is some of that based on colour?  Indirectly: yes.  If I have paid $8500 for a stud, plus another $1500 to get him here to me, and the spent $3000 on health testing, and add in care, food, and so on, you will absolutely see that price reflected in the price assigned the puppies.  I determine the price of puppies based on the investment of the parents.  An interesting tidbit: my most expensive purchase for a breeding dog is not a rare colour!  

 

Bad breeders that look for the almighty dollar are not a question of colour, in my humble opinion, but of ethics. Unfortunately, as we all know, there is a magnetic draw to anything that unethical people might possibly make a buck with. But please keep in mind that there are those of us who ARE investing sizable amount of money.... more than I care to admit to even myself... to ensure that if this is done - the introduction of colours not presently within the standard of the breed - some of us will do it wisely. By NOT charging those designer prices you will find online when you google it, I can (and do) take big hits, financially, yes, but also professional and personal attacks at times.

 

An important note: Do I blame the ones that price twice the amount for their blues than I do? No. The breeders who work with the cutting edge of new colours and patterns (some of the absolute cutting edge breeding dogs are $25000 plus to purchase!)? Not at all. We all have to try our best not to lose the battle while we lose our shirts, and we all have differing view points of how much colour and pattern inclusion to the breed is too much, if there is too much for some.  Personal ideals of what to create are not my rant... and do not mistake it: the decisions we make as breeders can and do change the breed with each generation.

 

My rant is this: a few of us do choose to take hits financially, professionally, personally, to work toward killing the 'designer pet price' that tattoos the rare coloured world with such a nasty face: Greed. Am I taking the wiser course by pricing based on investment rather than market? - I'll let you know if I make it through. ;)) 

The bare truth of the matter is that there are many out there that are led by greed. They cut the corners and lie about what wonderful genes their dogs 'carry'. They have created an terrible and disgusting underbelly (one that even I, who will say to most: 'you don't know, though you think you do, and you don't want to'...I don't even fully know, as I haven't the stomach to look for it) to one of life's simple and most beautiful joys: animal companionship.

 

But don't believe that every dog out there with a $5000, $10000, $25000 price tag is being sold by a hack. It is absolutely viable that the breeder has spent that amount (or will) in the generations, testing, and additions to breeding stock that got that litter here (Note that I was once told by the owner of Westminster contenders that it took $40000 investment to get that dog there).  Is it possible to tell the difference? ..... I'm still finding that out myself.

 

It's a tough world out there and we all have hungry mouths to feed. I have seen too many that have done unbelievable things to get by. And been dupped by some of them myself.  By the grace of God may we all learn to stand more firm.

 

Truth be told even breeders, who have so much more experience than the 'average Joe', try so hard to sort them out and still get taken advantage of, shocked, and dismayed along the way. Money and the magnetism thereof is another topic for another philosophic heart. One that is stronger than mine. I'm the kind that feels the burn of the iron to learn my lessons (as do many others) and do not necessarily judge the intentions of others that well. My being 'honest and trusting' can mean: 'broken-hearted and taken advantage of', yes, but it also makes me VERY proud that I have nothing to hide. And I have great respect for those few that I continue to have great dealings with. It's not easy to do the right thing. But someone has to, and so we try. Oh, I'm not claiming perfection, here, let it be known that my pedestal is as broken and stained as the next guy's. We all make mistakes in life, but I'm also not talking about a group of people that are making typos in ads or (somehow?)do not know the parentage of their dogs. We all know that there are liars and cheats out there. What I am saying is that I am not one.... let me prove it to you. :) 

...To add a thought on 'rare' genes. There is a school of thought that the rare colours do not have a large enough gene pool from which to draw. It important to remember that these are merely 'double recessive' and dogs who are genetically capable of producing blue and chocolate are actually pretty common, they just don't happen to have both sets of the recessive gene so they do not actually BE that coat colour. Although on another gene strain, cream works much the same way; maskless as well as pied, fawn, and a multitude of other factors. There is no issue finding good genetics now when we can so easily look worldwide at pedigrees and communicate across the world via computer in seconds. To add to that, the pool can be filled to the brim with new carriers, if we are willing and able to find the standard champion stock to work with. More expense? Yes. Worth it? I think so, yes. 

I think we need to stop and honestly evaluate how the dogs in those faded black and white photos and the hand drawn likenesses from a century ago would fare in the show ring today! :s

 

In my mind the standards are living and breathing and if we refuse to work toward bettering the breed in a living breathing sense we will not have wonderful healthy purebred dogs of ANY breed.  We have technology now to disprove the wives tales.  Let's use it!!  Test for genetic disease and breed only those that prove healthy, in whateever colour is purebred.  In my opinion it is certainly not unethical to breed healthy, well-bred, well-formed and purebred dogs on a very limited basis - of any colour. Bad ethics are out there in any circle: dog breeding is only one in an uncountable number of ways to express what your ethics and morality are.... or are not. 

To steal a famous quote: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" in dogs as in any other thing. But good health is not.... The good structure of a dog, his pedigree, his good character, his longevity, and the great experiences of those who love them: that is the centre of it all. If I love a colour and can find a way to breed it ethically, lovingly, and with thought for the breed, it's character, it's long-term health, and it's loved filled life, then I believe that the musket has some better targets.