Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 5      1   2   3   4   Next   »
steveoifer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,230
Reply with quote  #1 

The standard states:

"Coat
Outer coat straight, coarse, and of moderately short length. Undercoat dense, short, and close lying. Coat should not be so long as to produce "fringe" on the belly, tail, or hind legs. Fault-Long or wavy coat."

First of all, I could never understand why the word "coarse" is used in the standard. A mastiff's coat is not rough and that word is misleading. The Great Dane standard states: "The coat shall be short, thick and clean with a smooth glossy appearance."

How can hair be "straight" "moderately short" and rough at the same time?

Oh well!

Now for another topic.........

Long haired mastiffs, or "fluffies"!

My view on this won't change and I've heard every argument pro & con.

I don't believe that any long haired mastiff should be an acceptable "alternative", or for that matter, ever be considered for entry into the standard.

The "fault" will be passed on, if it is seen as an acceptable trait, and in time, "pollute" the general gene pool.

Some feel that mastiffs had this recessive gene long before the Saint was even introduced into the crossbreeding. Be that as it may, it is NOT a desirable coat for a present day mastiff.

The long hair was not coming from the Saint in the purest sense, as many seem to believe. In reality long hair came from the Newfoundland, then into the Saint and then into the mastiff.

The gene is not a "Newfoundland" gene for long hair either! It's a gene for long hair....period! The actual long hairs which mastiff's display do not resemble Saints or Newfoundlands, they are "mastiff" hairs, unique to mastiffs alone. Mastiffs won't grow Saint hairs, or Newf hairs, they grow mastiff hairs!

I fully understand the sensitivity of this issue for those who "fancy" the fluff's. Fluff's are great dogs and I'm not knocking the specific owners, or their dogs. No doubt they are loving pets and have many characteristics of the mastiff, because they are mastiffs. But they carry a gene, which in this posters view, should NOT be passed on!

Fluffs DON'T have "better" bone than other mastiffs, nor will they improve bone by breeding to other short haired mastiffs. If a fluff has good bone, or poor bone, it's because of that particular dog's gene for bone and not due to the gene for long hair!

There are plenty of old wives tales to go around!

What say you?


__________________
For the betterment of the breed

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well." Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
0
Nicci

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3,909
Reply with quote  #2 

I think "Fluffies" are beautiful.  And I hate the fact that they have such a stigma attached to them and that some feel the need to hide them.  They happen...we all know this.   Now as to breeding them.... that a touchy subject and it all depends on who you are talking to.


__________________
Nicci
0
giselle

Registered:
Posts: 759
Reply with quote  #3 

If the gene is recessive (and i've read on some boards that there is a dna test for the fluffs--but i don't know which lab does it), then a fluffy bred to a clear would produce no fluffies but all will be carriers.  Carriers can be bred to those known to be clear -- so if you really didn't want fluffs in the next generation, steps can be taken to make sure it's not passed on.

 

 


__________________
Giselle
http://www.everaftermastiffs.com

0
HeartsDesire

Registered:
Posts: 1,000
Reply with quote  #4 

I also do not agree with the old wives tales of fluffies produce bone and size.  Long hair is a recessive gene both parents must carry it to reproduce it.  You can have two correct coated parents and produce fluffies if they carry the gene.  That being said I feel it is a fault but a fault you can breed out or away from if you know your lines. 

 

I have seen more and more dane like coated Mastiffs in the ring.  A very short tight coat with no undercoat.  Do you think this is just as incorrect or more acceptable?


__________________
Lynda
http://heartsdesiremastiffs.com
0
steveoifer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,230
Reply with quote  #5 

The phenotype may not be passed on, but the genotype would!


__________________
For the betterment of the breed

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well." Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
0
steveoifer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,230
Reply with quote  #6 

Lynda,

 

It's much more acceptable, yet incorrect!


__________________
For the betterment of the breed

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well." Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
0
HeartsDesire

Registered:
Posts: 1,000
Reply with quote  #7 

Steve,

Yes, both are incorrect and if breeding to the standard I don't feel that one should be more acceptable then the other.  Both can be bred away from.  If you breed one parent with the recessive gene to a non carrier you will not have an affected and some carrier's.  You can breed away from it, granted it would take a few generations.


__________________
Lynda
http://heartsdesiremastiffs.com
0
TamK

Registered:
Posts: 609
Reply with quote  #8 
Lynda,
Since the shorter coat does not produce the below faults, then both coat types are not equal
I do agree with your statement that fluffies do not have more bone, etc. I think it's a shame to purposely breed fluffies, again that is only my opinion.

Quote:
Fault-Long or wavy coat.


__________________
Tami
Skamania Mastiffs
http://www.mastiff.cc/board/index.php
"In a perfect world, every dog would have a home and every home would have a dog."
0
TamK

Registered:
Posts: 609
Reply with quote  #9 
Lynda,
Since the shorter coat does not produce the below faults,  then both coat types are not  equal
I do agree with your statement that fluffies do not have more bone, etc. I think it's a shame to purposely breed fluffies, again that is only my opinion. 

Quote:
Fault-Long or wavy coat.


__________________
Tami
Skamania Mastiffs
http://www.mastiff.cc/board/index.php
"In a perfect world, every dog would have a home and every home would have a dog."
0
HeartsDesire

Registered:
Posts: 1,000
Reply with quote  #10 

Tami,

I agree with not breeding fluffies there are too many nice correct Mastiffs out there.  I feel that a tight coat lacking undercoat is just as incorrect.JMO


__________________
Lynda
http://heartsdesiremastiffs.com
0
steveoifer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,230
Reply with quote  #11 

Lynda,

One is more "acceptable" for a number of reasons.

 

First, the "dane like" coat is closer to the mastiff coat aesthetically than any long hair would be. Second, the genetic component is not as troublesome for a breeder compared to finding fluff's in the litter. The dane coat was influenced by the mastiff and the greyhound. The "greyhound" coat is not correct for a mastiff.

 

"While traveling in Denmark, Buffon saw the slimmer variety of the Boar Hound, which shared more similarities with the Greyhound. Buffon remarked that the Danish climate had caused the Greyhound to become a Grand Danois. Thereafter, the dogs became known as the Great Danish Dog, with the heavier dogs sometimes called Danish Mastiffs."


__________________
For the betterment of the breed

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well." Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
0


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #12 

Okay... As an owner of a fluffy, I have to add my 2 cents (for what it's worth)

 

Eliot came from a litter of 4 pups. 2 were fluffy.

 

The breeder which we got him from was very honest and did not in any way try to hide the fact that they were fluffy. She did not expect to have fluffies in that litter and I think it came as a surprise for her ( and a blessing for us). Neither the sire or dam was fluffy.

 

We purchased him on a limited registration and were ecstatic to have him as a pet. So, no surprises there.

 

When Eliot was younger, he was nothing but a fuzzball - you could barely see his skin under the hair. He has since lost almost all of the fuzz except for his ears and tail(which more and more comes out everyday) , otherwise his coat is between short and medium. It isn't wavy and it doesn't make fringe.

 

I do understand what the standard says and I do believe that breeders should breed to that standard and I would never breed my boy anyway but other than the fact that he is a fluffy he seems to me to be very correct in all other aspects. I am not saying that he is perfect at all but from what I know and see, he seems to be fine except for the ears and tail.

 

I haven't had much experience with fluffies at all other than Eliot - but can someone please tell me what all the fuss is about?? It seems to be that soo many people look at it like it is the mastiff plague or something. Is it any different than any other fault... take pigment for example... you have a dog with light ears and a less than black mask .... that is a fault, correct??? So in my mind I see a fluffy as having a fault. Why is it more "serious" than any other faults?  I am not trying to cause an issue , I am trying to understand.

 

While I would not condone breeding to get fluffies , I see no problems if one pops up and it can be placed in a pet home.

 

And in my opinion-I don't see anything wrong with showing fluffies (especially since it can be fun for both the dog and the owner and a great learning experience) since it is merely a fault and all dogs have them to some degree or another. So again, I ask, why is it that serious ? And why do people see the need to bash them and try  to hide the fact that they exist? 

 

 

 

 

0
Monica

Registered:
Posts: 4,089
Reply with quote  #13 

I am not clear on what a "tight coat lacking an undercoat" looks or feels like.  My boy is a silver fawn and much to my liking he has a shorter haired coat which seems a bit less course and thick than some mastiffs I have touched.  He does have what I consider a "thin coat" especially on his belly. 

 

A lot of other mastiffs I have seen at shows, especially brindles, seem have much thicker coats.  I have also touched other mastiffs who's fur does seem more dense and course than my boys. 

 

Can someone or Jann maybe, explain the  "tight coat lacking an undercoat."  Jann you know Monty's fur and his is lighter to the touch, in my opinion, than say Vegas or Quinn - is it still puppy fur - will it get more course with age?  I like it the way it is...


__________________
Monica
http://www.harmonymastiffs.com
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to Everyone~
0
steveoifer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,230
Reply with quote  #14 

What if we had mastiffs born without tails, or without ears, or with all white heads and no pigment etc. etc. etc. You get the idea!

 

We can "rationalize" away any fault into becoming nothing more than a slight cosmetic irregularity, but in that process we'd be doing a disservice to the standard and the mastiff's future genetic strength.

 

I understand your feelings on this matter, but there can be no AKC compromise!


__________________
For the betterment of the breed

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well." Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
0


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #15 

Steve-LOL... I do see what you are saying completely...BUT

 

Why is it that they tend to be looked soo down upon and are the subject of soo much controversy? I really want to know this.

0
Monica

Registered:
Posts: 4,089
Reply with quote  #16 

I had never really taken time to view a fluffy before when I read threads.  So, I went looking.

 

http://www.fluffymastiff.com/MeettheFluffs.html

 

I think they are cute BUT they don't look like a "mastiff" to me or like the standard is written.  I am sure many act like a mastiff and are wonderful, loving animals and pets. They truly do look like a mixed breed and in these pictures the fluffies seem to have an inconsistent look (their own type within the fluffy type..).  I think for the "fluffy" fanciers that they should be set apart in a separate category of mastiffs so that the fanciers can breed within the fluffy gene pool and show their fluffies with their own standard. 

 

That aside, I love all animals and I would never turn away, not love or completely care for a fluffy if it came upon me.  As with all breeding sometimes what you expect to come popping out is not what you get and with that you find some of the most loving creatures on earth. 

 

 


__________________
Monica
http://www.harmonymastiffs.com
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to Everyone~
0
Monica

Registered:
Posts: 4,089
Reply with quote  #17 

Dona, I don't know why they are looked down upon. 

 

After viewing pics of them I like the look of the "standard mastiff" within the perameters of the type that I like.  The fluffs don't look as polished to me.  BUT, I don;t for a minute look down upon them.  I truly think they should have their own category so that they can be more appreciated by those who do like the look.  I can only speculate that they are looked down upon because they are viewed as a "flaw" and most breeders don't want "flaws" in their lines.  So, they are looked down upon most likely as a way for people to be encouraged not to breed them so the incident of a fluff or more surprisinginly coming out of a litter doesn't happen.  This is just my own - non-breeder opinion and I could be way off base.


__________________
Monica
http://www.harmonymastiffs.com
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to Everyone~
0
goldleaf

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 8,058
Reply with quote  #18 
Hi everyone,
I wish computers had voices, because sometimes it's hard to put feelings into a bunch of typed little letters, but here goes...  I'm going to use myself as an example as a breeder.  If one of my dogs had a major cosmetic fault (let's say he had white going up one leg), I would be responsible for passing on those genes if I bred him, so I would not do that.  I don't feel that people have a problem seeing fluffies as great pets (after all, they are mastiffs), but where it seems to get touchy is when they discuss breeding them.  It seems as though most breeders as a general rule, have the best interest in breeding quality mastiffs that fit the standard.  I personally would never breed a fluffy, and if one showed up in my line, it would be sold as a pet.  It's just a trait, such as the white leg, but I feel it's better not to contributute in  passing that along.  I must say, it does make me cringe when I hear someone say that they want to purposely use a fluffy in a breeding program.  I've never had one show up, but if I do somewhere down the line, I'll make sure he's loved just like all the others.  Lastly, if I put a white legged dog in the ring, yes, I would be allowed, but I wouldn't be looked at twice by the judge, so I would have to expect a poor outcome if I wanted to show that dog.  Just my two cents.  Have a good day everyone!


__________________
0


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #19 

Here's my boy...

What do you think? Does he look like a mix as well?

 

You can be honest.. I have tough skin.LOL

http://www.fluffymastiff.com/Eliot.html

0


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #20 

Jann and Monica- Very good points...

 

And as I said, my breeder had no idea she would have 2 fluffies and I have no doubt that she has the best interest of the breed in mind which is why we have him on a limited registration and I would NEVER even think of breaching my contract for the sole purpose of breeding him to get more fluffies at all.

 

He is our pet and a member of our family and we are perfectly okay with that and ask nothing more of him than that.

 

I am, however, working on doing obedience with him and we will see where that goes...but I will be just as pleased with him if he is never anything more than the "cute little fluffy guy".LOL

0
TamK

Registered:
Posts: 609
Reply with quote  #21 
I don' t know that they are looked down upon as much as you believe.  BUT I will say that they can be heartbreakers, for a breeder looking for that special pick or for a family looking for a show dog.  Sometimes you can't tell they are fluffy's as pups. ....

Quote:
Why is it that they tend to be looked soo down upon and are the subject of soo much controversy? I really want to know this.


__________________
Tami
Skamania Mastiffs
http://www.mastiff.cc/board/index.php
"In a perfect world, every dog would have a home and every home would have a dog."
0
goldleaf

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 8,058
Reply with quote  #22 

Hi Dona,

Yes, unexpected surprises do pop up now and then, but we have to deal with those little "surprises" as they're dealt to us.  You're fluffy is very lucky to have found you.  Take care,

Jann


__________________
0


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #23 

Maybe your're right. I do tend to read as much as I possibly can about it so that is probably why it seems like they are always being talked about,LOL

0
steveoifer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,230
Reply with quote  #24 

Dona,

To answer you, the so called "top" breeder's looked "bad" when "their superior lines" threw a fluff!

 

THAT created the "big" stigma. The hobby breeder just laughed it off! 

 

They make excellent pets!


__________________
For the betterment of the breed

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well." Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
0


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #25 

Jann - Not nearly as lucky we were to have found him.

 

 

0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.


THANK YOU FOR VISITING OUR BOARD!!