ARTICLES

WE MUST LOOK BEHIND THE COLLAR
by ALEC WATERS (ASHSTOCK)

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a unique and attractive breed of dog in many ways, in his home, and particularly his reputation as a ‘show’ dog in the show ring, a dog that you cannot trim or titivates to hide any faults or blemishes he might have, you can see everything warts and all. Some, even in 1998, cannot accept that he is a show dog and we often hear people state, quite categorically, that the breed is not really a show dog (and quite extraordinary) openly stating, to all, that the Stafford is still a fighting dog! Not a very wise remark in view of what has happened in Germany and what could happen in Spain!
The breed has become hugely popular (here, and overseas) over the last 25 years or so, and many owners of Stafford’s have become very keen exhibitors, regularly exhibiting their dogs all over the country. In the early days the breed was always considered to be a specialist one, but (sadly) not anymore. This popularity has caused, particularly at Championship Shows, large entries, giving judges quite a daunting task of ‘tackling’ sometimes over 30 dogs (or bitches) in a class! These very large classes can present difficulties to some judges, particularly those whose memories are not their strongest ‘forte.’ Their difficulty is not helped by the manner in which most Stafford exhibitors show their dogs, i.e. ‘front on,’ i.e. head towards the judge, added, is the fact that now many exhibitors are highly skilled in handling their exhibits, easily disguising poor toplines, and other various faults.

This article is about this serious problem in the breed that we, as breeders, and judges, should address very quickly, and I will attempt to explain, ever since I came ‘into’ this breed many years ago, in the early 60’s, the S.B.T. has always been exhibited (or presented) to the judge in this way and. I would assume that this way of presentation has always been the case, long before I arrived on the scene, (this method of exhibition of the Stafford, .is usually used in most of the overseas countries as well).
Now this method of exhibiting a Stafford has certainly given this breed certain improvements, i.e. fronts have improved considerably over the years. One rarely sees the ‘Queen Anne’ fronts (or ‘Duck Fronts’) that us ‘veterans’ used to see quite regularly years ago, the heavily overloaded shoulders, or dogs well down on their pasterns, and other faults associated with the front of the dog, though we can still observe poor feet, splayed or too thin.
In fact, I feel certain that one would not be able to win today, with a Stafford that had such a poor front and weak pasterns, particularly with our method of ‘showing front on.
’
Heads have also improved considerably over the years, the long and snipey foreface, the shallow stop, and skull, and the unattractive foreign expression, usually caused by the eyes set too close together (not forgetting the undershot jaw! Although the misplaced canines, mistakenly described as ‘inverted canines’ seems, these days, to have replaced the popularity of the undershot jaw!) is rarely seen these days, (in the show ring, I am not sure of the extent of this problem in the non show world) a it would certainly be very difficult to win prizes in the ring with these types

Although the Breed Standard clearly asks for a short foreface, I do not believe it meant ‘ultra’ short, because after all, the Stafford is a Terrier breed, and the essential part of a Terrier (and a ‘fighting dog’) is to be able to breath easily and comfortably, particularly when engaged in their Terrier ‘activities’! Often dogs with an, ‘ultra short’ foreface can experience breathing difficulties, particularly in hot weather. Lack of clear breathing ability would be disastrous to a dog involved in a battle for his life.
I am not the only person to have seen dogs breathing very heavily in the show ring, sometimes almost gasping for breath, even in a fairly comfortable temperature. This cannot be the right road for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier to travel down, I firmly believe that the ideal, and correct proportions of skull to foreface, should be two thirds to one third, and I am certain, the majority of Stafford Fanciers would agree with these proportions, and I am also certain that dogs with heads with these proportions would be less likely to suffer such breathing difficulties. Although, of course, we must always remember that it is possible for a S.B.T. with whatever shaped head, to suffer such problems.

However, accepting the fact that fronts and heads have generally improved overall (apart from the ‘ultra’ short forefaces,) this is, I feel, almost certainly mainly due to our unique method of presenting our exhibits ‘front on’ to the judge, and of course, accepting the popular view that we are a ‘head breed’
Unfortunately, we have to seriously consider the resulting disastrous problems that our method of presentation may have encouraged, or be partly responsible for, i.e. far too many exhibits carry poor toplines, which usually are either Roached Backed’ or ‘Sway Backed’. Either condition, in my view, certainly spoils the look of the exhibit, and particularly disappointing when seen on an otherwise excellent specimen. The Breed Standard clearly asks for a level topline, not necessarily a ‘billiard table’ level, but a reasonably level
We have to allow for the very slight rise of muscular development, over the loins, which can give added strength to the back, but we very often see an exaggerated Roached Back, (or an Arched Back) which is caused by vertebral contour of the spine, it looks ugly and it is quite easy to understand why the original authors of our Breed Standard wanted the level topline on their Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

The other unattractive condition, the Sway back, (the back sloping down to the shoulders) which not only totally spoils the outline of the dog, but gives the dog a serious weakness in the back area, the cause of this condition is undue length of the back, and/or an inadequate muscular support, or loose ligmentation. Both of these conditions are highly undesirable, and, in my view, caused by too much attention paid to the front of the dog, and not enough attention paid to the side, and the overall dog.

Another very serious problem that has developed over the years in the breed, again in my view, by this over attention to the front, is the poor and weak hindquarters. We can regularly see, on the modern day, dog an almost complete lack of bend of Stifle (the joint in the hind leg, formed by the articulation of upper and lower thighs), sometimes with hardly any hock showing, and, a complete lack of hind leg muscle, i.e. the Biceps Femoris Muscle and the Gluteal Muscle.
It seems quite obvious to me, that it is essential that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, originally bred as a fighting dog, should have that powerful drive from the hind quarters, which the good bend of stifle, and muscles would give, and again, obvious why the original authors included this essential requirement in the Breed Standard, and we ignore their ‘know how’ and wishes at our peril
.
Many years ago it would have been quite unusual (although it did happen on occasions, but always caused comment) for a dog with very ‘straight stifles’ to win high honors, yet today it is commonplace, as it is with the poor toplines, and very few comment about this matter. I feel quite certain that these serious problems could well have been caused, and developed, over the years, by the common practice of exhibiting our dogs ‘front on’, and, by judging the dogs only from the front, and neglecting the most important, the overall dog.
The only way that we can improve this unsatisfactory situation is to pay much more attention to all of the dog, front, side, rear, and every part of the exhibit, and, even turn the dogs sideways?
So one may well ask, what are the advantages of exhibiting one’s dog ‘sideways on’? If we compare the two methods,’ Front on’ and ‘ Side on,’ there can be no doubt that when examining from the ‘front on ’ we can easily and accurately assess the full face, the eyes, the skull, the ears, the expression and all the details associated with the head. etc.
Then we can observe the front, the width of the front, the feet, etc. after looking at the front, the judge can walk around the dog, which, of course, all judges do, and assess the overall dog then move the dog across the ring, but this is the important point, although the judge has examined the exhibit overall, he/she does not have an clear opportunity to compare the outline of a dog with the all the other dogs in the class, when they are all standing facing the judge.
The situation is entirely different when a judge is presented with a line of dogs ‘ side on’, far more significant details of the dogs can be observed, the topline, the neck, the shoulders, the balance, the tailset, the hindquarters, the hocks, the muscle on the hindquarters, the ‘cut up’ (although this particular point is not included in the current Breed Standard, many people believe that it is a very important part of a dog that is supposed to be Active and Agile, and I fully agree) and of course the outline of the dog, a clean and attractive outline will always give a dog, whatever breed, that extra bit of class.

Unfortunately there are very often good reasons why our dogs are shown in this manner, (‘front on’) how many times have we seen show rings that are far too small for the size of the usual high entry of Stafford’s, particularly at Championship shows, with classes of over 30 or so. So it is quite obvious that on many occasions it would be virtually impossible to show one’s dog ‘side on’, which is, I feel, not beneficial to our breed
Nevertheless we must not use this excuse to attempt to explain the deterioration of Toplines and the Hindquarters; it is a serious problem that affects this wonderful breed, and can only be rectified by the breeder and, indirectly, the judge.


THE HEAD OF THE STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER
by ALEC WATERS (ASHSTOCK)

THE STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER BREED STANDARD IS AS BREED STANDARDS GO, A REASONABLY COMPREHENSIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE ONE. IT WAS COMPOSED AND WRITTEN BY A SMALL GROUP OF GENTLEMEN IN A BLACK COUNTRY PUBLIC HOUSE , THE CROSSED GUNS, AROUND 1935. THESE MEN WERE FAR SIGHTED AND ENTHUSIASTIC TO SEE THE STAFFORD TAKE HIS PLACE IN THE SHOWRING ALONG WITH THE BULL TERRIER AND ALL THE OTHER VARIOUS TERRIERS.
THEY SAW THE POTENTIAL IN A BREED THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BRED FOR AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KIND OF ACTIVITY,AND A SO CALLED SPORT.
ALTHOUGH DOG FIGHTING HAD BEEN MADE ILLEGAL BY PARLIAMENT MANY YEARS BEFORE, THE PRACTICE STILL CONTINUED ALBEIT IN SECRET AND UNDERGROUND.IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE TODAY WHO CLEARLY STATE THAT THE STAFFORD IS NOT A SHOW DOG.
SINCE THE FIRST OR ORIGINAL BREED STANDARD WAS WRITTEN, IT HAS BEEN AMENDED ON 2 SEPARATE OCCASIONS BY THE KENNEL CLUB,(WHO OWN ALL OF THE BREED STANDARDS) FIRSTLY IN 1948 AND AGAIN IN 1986,ALTHOUGH NONE OF THOSE ALTERATIONS AFFECTED THE CLAUSE WHICH DESCRIBES THE HEAD.
ALTHOUGH I HAVE STATED THAT OUR BREED STANDARD IS REASONABLY COMPREHENSIVE, AND DESCRIBES MOST POINTS FAIRLY WELL, IF ONE WAS GIVEN THE TASK OF IMPROVING (?) IT, OR WHATEVER, IT WOULD BE VERY TEMPTING FOR MOST OF US TO MAKE A FEW ALTERATIONS, AMENDMENTS ADDITIONS ETC. ETC.
TO OUR BREED STANDARD!

WITHOUT DOUBT THE MORE DESCRIPTIVE AND LENGTHY A BREED STANDARD BECOMES, THE MORE COMPLICATED IT WILL BE, AND MORE IMPORTANT IT WILL PROVE VERY DIFFICULT (OR EVEN IMPOSSIBLE ) TO FIND A SPECIMEN THAT WOULD FIT THIS MORE DESCRIPTIVE AND LENGTHY BREED STANDARD!
IN MY VIEW, HOWEVER, THERE IS ONE CLAUSE IN OUR BREED STANDARD WHICH I BELIEVE COULD BE IMPROVED, OR MADE CLEARER,AND POSSIBLY AVOID CONFUSION AND UNCERTAINTY, AND I REFER TO THE HEAD CLAUSE WHICH READS THUS……………
short, deep through with broad skull . very pronounced cheek muscles, distinct STOP.….
NOW AS WE HAVE ALL SEEN (THOSE WHO ARE familiar with THE STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER) HEAD TYPES, SHAPES CAN DIFFER VERY CONSIDERABLY IN THIS BREED, WE CAN SEE DIFFERENT STYLES OF SKULLS(DOMED,FLAT, AND ROUNDED ETC.). FOREFACES, EYESHAPES EYE POSITIONS AND SO ON.
THE VARIOUS DESCRIPTIONS OF ALL THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF HEADS COULD FILL A GREAT NUMBER OF PAGES, BUT TO attempt to simplify the matter , i propose to divide the various types of heads into three groups (all based on a 9 inch head length)
one….the head that has a longer than average length of muzzle or foreface, say 5 parts skull to 4 parts foreface, or measuring (approx.)5 inches from occiput to stop, and 4 inches stop to nose.
two….the head , which i believe to be the correct ratio 2/3rd. to 1/3rd. or measuring (approx.) 6 inches occiput to stop and 3 inches stop to nose.
three the head with an extremely short foreface,say 7 parts to 2parts, or 7 inches from occiput to stop and 2 inches stop to nose, this type of head is quite popular with many fanciers. of course all of these measurements are all approx. and will vary a ˝ inch or more either way. taking the first example, 5 parts skull and 4 parts fore face this type of head was a more common sight 25 years ago or so, it usually had a more shallow skull and not such a defined stop as you would see on examples 1 and 2. the eyes were not usually wide enougth apart which often gave the a foreign expression. this type of head still occasionally appears, but of course is not very popular. there can be no doubt that the concentration and improvement(?) on heads over the last 20 or so years has eliminated this longer type of foreface., and of course it is very easy to spot in the whelping box !
the second example, the 2/3rd. skull to 1/3rd. foreface, which to me, and many other people seem to be the ideal balanced head, and generally a head of these proportions can usually breath quite comfortably (except of course where dogs have a soft palet, but that unfortunate condition is a matter for a different article and can only be written by a veterinary surgeon) and we must remember that this condition can appear in any type of head. the 2/3rd. to 1/3rd. would usually have a deep(through?) skull, a distinct stop, and areasonable width between the eyes.
Our third example, the shorter forefaced head , roughly 7 parts skull to 2 parts foreface or 7 inches occiput to stop and only 2 inches stop to nose (approx.) will be almost certain to have a very deep (through ?) skull often rounded. these type of heads with the shorter foreface can experience breathing difficulties (particularly in very hot weather), they also can tend to have smaller teeth than the first two examples. there can be no doubt though ,the shorter foreface can look very impressive, and quite popular amongst many fanciers. the admirers of this type of head will tell you, quite reasonably,that the head clause in our breed standard clearly states , and i quote short deep through, with broad skull, distinct stop and short foreface
this very clear statement raises the old age question,how deep is deep and how short is short?
in my view , and i base my view on a theory in this matter,because i believe that the original authors of our breed standard (our gentlemen in that black country public house),when writing it were comparing the staffordshire bull terrier head with the heads of the most popular terriers of that particular time, and of course i am refering to the airedale terrier and the smooth and wire fox terriers all had (and of course still have) a comparatively shallow and narrow skull,(certainly not deep through!), and most important to my theory, a fairly long foreface, , i feel, therefore, that the terms used deep, throughout were deliberately used to make a clear distinction between those sort terrier heads and the head of the stafford. to attempt to make my point a little clearer,a typical smooth or wire fox terrier would have approx. almost equal proportions of skull and foreface, or 4inches occiput to eye and 4 inches eye to nose. these measurements are based on the proportions of a smooth fox terrier in my kennels.
it would, therefore, be a reasonable assumption to make that the term short foreface would have to mean shorter than a skull and foreface of equal proportions, so that it could be seen how a staffordshire bull
terrier head of, say, 2/3rd. skull and 1/3rd. foreface proportions could quite accurately be described as in our breed standard as a short foreface, and even in the longer foreface of the 5 inch skull to the 4 inch head!
after attempting to describe the three types of stafford heads, there are still a number other syles and shapes of heads in our breed, and it would be impossible to describe the head in every conceivable detail in the breed standard, to attempt to eventually make all the heads in our breed totally similar! we could however, clearly describe the ideal proportions of the head (skull and foreface) so there could be no disagreement or doubts as to what the breed standard required, no arguments as to what the correct proportions should be , it may also settle the question of how short is short!
so, therefore, my own solution in this matter would be to insert the following words the desirable proportions of the head should be……………….in the head clause. i have deliberately left out the key words, to (hopefully!) promote constructive argument!
as i have already, stated my own preference in the matter , i strongly lean towards 2/3rd. skull and 1/3,rd.foreface, and although the very short foreface can look impressive, we must be on our guard against exaggerations most importantly not to lose sight of the oringal concept of the shape and purpose of this breed i.e. a fighting terrier.
unrestricted breathing and stamina are essential , which should be found in the 2/3rd, to 1/3rd. ratio head, but not always found in the very short foreface, also, of course,if forefaces became shorter generally, we would lose,maybe forever, the essential terrier ingredient, and the breed would no longer be the staffordshire bull terrier that was originally conceived.
whatever we agree are the ideal proportions of the skull and foreface, it is of paramount importance that we can easily recognise the true typical stafford expression, which can only be seen if the following essentials are present, the dark medium sized round eye, set in the correct position, looking ahead, a distinct stop, clean lip,and a (reasonably) strong underjaw (strangely the description of the underjaw is not referred to in the head clause,but is included in the mouth clause, and simply states, jaws strong).
this expression is unique, and essential, because without it there can no be true type and the head would carry a foreign expression. i have no wish to make any changes, or wish to see any fundementalchanges in our breed standard but i feel that a description of the ideal proportions of head and skull included in the breed standard would greatly benefit our wonderful breed.

COLOUR CONUNDRUM IN THE U.K.
by ALEC WATERS (ASHSTOCK)

Some while ago I wrote an article about the gradual disappearance, or rarity of the S.B.T. traditional colour of Brindle, that is the Brindle of varying shades, i.e. red, fawn, mahogany, tiger, and all of the different shades of these colours. It seems to me that in time I, or perhaps someone else, will be writing a similar article about the rarity or the decline of the Reds, at least in the show ring.

I will endeavour to explain, at a recent S.B.T. Championship Breed Show, I noticed that only one Red was present in both the Open dog and bitch classes, the rest were black and dark brindles, (in classes of well over 25 exhibits), and most of the main awards were won by Dark Brindles, this situation is becoming common practice at many shows, in fact people now regularly comment on the number of dark and black brindles who seem to win most or many of the prizes, and, at many shows, the line up for the challenge for the Challenge Certificates, consists mainly (sometimes all of them) with dark and black brindles.

The question therefore, has to be asked, why is this, why are dark and black brindles becoming a greatly dominant force in the show ring, and why has the traditional brindle (in the showring) almost disappeared, and now the Reds seemingly losing popularity?

I have discussed this matter for some time, with various people, and a number of reasons and observations are offered, i.e.

1. Breeders of dark or black brindles (and never ever owned or bred Reds) can only see or understand dark or black brindles when they judge this breed.

2. Dark or black brindles are easier to assess (!)

3. The reds are not good enough (!)

4. The brindles are superior.

If the first two solutions are correct, then I can only reach the sad conclusions that this breed is in serious trouble! And exhibitors who exhibit red dogs are being
swindled out of their entry fees! Surely if everyone pays the same entry fees then
everyone is entitled to the same consideration, or perhaps it should be made perfectly clear to all in the schedule, that Mr. Bloggs, (or Mrs. Bloggs) the judge, will only look at,and only place the dark and black brindles, and will ignore or disregard the colours that he (or she) does not like or understand!
At least exhibitors with Reds would not have to waste their time and money in entering under such judges! But there can be no doubt that such judges do exist, but the reason why these judges possess this attitude is beyond my comprehension.

The third reason I cannot except, while agreeing that there are a very large number of excellent quality Dark and Black Brindles being exhibited, but nevertheless we have seen, at times, quality reds standing down the line behind black or dark brindles that do not possess the same qualities as those particular Reds.

The third and fourth I cannot except, but I believe that there is some confusion about quality and quantity, the plain fact is that the Dark and Black Brindles have become extremely popular, and that there are many more Dark and Black Brindles bred, and not nearly so many Reds. In fact I am always being requested for Red bitches, which only proves my point that quality red bitches are becoming hard to find, and in fact people who like Reds often wait months to obtain one.

However, we can continually speculate about the possible reasons, but if this situation continues, our breed could develop problems of coat colour. If breeders continually breed Dark or Black Brindles to other Dark or Black Brindles the more dominate this colour will become. Carried to extreme limits, the main or only colours of the S.B.T., in say 20 years time, will be Dark or Black Brindle.instead of the attractive diversity of colours we have at the present.
As I have written in previous articles (which I hope that my faithful reader found interesting) there are over 30 colours and combinations of colours in this breed, a situation that must be envied by some other breeds.

I have seen litters in the whelping box with various colours, there could be a Red, or two, a Red or Fawn Brindle, and a variety of shades of Dark Brindles, often the result of breeding Reds to Dark Brindles or Brindles.

The most important point here is the fact that Dark Brindles will only produce Dark or Black Brindles, (if there is no red background in either of the Sire and Dam,) and no other colour, except of course when mated to a Red, when then we may see the variety of colours, i.e. Reds, Dark Brindles, and Traditional Brindles!

Therefore, we can clearly see the great importance of the Red colour in breeding, if we are going to keep all the various colours, if we do not appreciate or value this colour, then there can be no doubt about the final outcome.

There are of other vital reasons in keeping our valuable diversity of colour, firstly the Pigmentation factor, (i.e. intensity of colour, and markings, black toenails and eyerims, etc.) There can be no doubt that the mixing of colours considerably helps to keep or improve pigmentation. Continual breeding of Red to Red, or Dark or Black Brindle to Dark or Black Brindle will only result in the eventual deterioration of good pigmentation. I have seen poor pigmentation in all colours, because of such breeding, the signs are all too obvious, grey noses, washed out brindles (often refered to as Blues), grey eyerims, with ‘spectacles’, lack of hair inside the thighs, white or fawn toenails, and so on.

Another obvious reason for the mixing of colours in our breeding, is that it helps to improve or keep the correct texture of coat, dogs from mainly Dark or Black Brindle breeding sometimes have harsh coats, mainly along their backs, whereas dogs from mixed colour breeding usually have close coats of the desired texture

At this juncture I would make it clear that I like and admire the Dark and Black Brindles, and had the fortune to have ‘made up’ 3 Dark Brindle Champions, but I also like and appreciate the Reds!

Colour breeding

The following GENERAL ( or GUIDE LINES) rules of colour breeding are as follows:

- Red to red produce only reds;

- Red to Dark Brindle, produce reds, traditional brindles of various shades, dark brindles;

- Dark brindle to Dark Brindle (if one or more of the parents of the pair is red) produce,
reds and dark brindles, and possibly red or fawn brindles.

- Black brindle to black brindle, produce only black brindles

- Traditional brindle (any brindle carrying red) to any kind of brindle, produce reds, various shades of brindle

- White to white, produce all whites with various small markings.

It is important to note that the colour of the parents of the mating pair, play an important part in the colour of the puppies.

White to any solid colour often produces solid colours and/or pieds

COLOURS IN BULLTERRIERS
by...

Bullterriers can be almost any colour and these colours with white markings. Whites can have coloured markings in their head. The standard disqualifies two colours: blue & liver.
Whites can be carrying any of the colours (brindle, red, black brindle, tricolor). Genetically they are also coloured, they just have a factor witch prevents the colour to show other than small markings on the head.
Basic genetic rules for breeding coloured bullterriers have been known a long time.

Here comes some basics:
* white to white gives only white puppies
* for a dog to be coloured, at least one parent must be coloured
* brindle is dominant (and its most wanted colour, also recording to breed standart)
* for a dog to be brindle, at least one parent must be brindle

For some reason, still unknown to us, some key characteristics seem to follow certain colours. Brindle colour is important because substance and good bones seems to come with this colour. Coloured dogs have often round eyes when they should be triangular and wicked, as many of the good white animals have. On the other hand the coloured excel in pigmentation whereas you can often see partly pink noses on whites.

However, the constant use of brindle animals on your breeding will get the colours dull and murky. Dull colours mated together cant produce bright and shiny colours.

Some examples of results when various colours are mated together:
- Brindle & white to brindle & white will give a quite equal proportion of all colours including whites.
- Brindle & white to red & white will give good shades of all colours including whites.
- Tricolor should be mated to white carrying brindle for getting good percentage of brindles and bright reds.
- Blackbrindle & white to blackbrindle & white (or to tricolor) will produce mostly blackbrindle.
- Blackbrindle & white to brindle & white will produce mostly black but you can get some good brindles

An animal that is solid for colour is very usefull for breeding colours. First of all, it will never produce white even when mated with white. Secondly, it will give beautifully marked puppies when you feel that you are getting too much white spots on your coloureds.
When conserned about colours we should never forget that there is more important things to consider first. A dog with bad temperament can be beautifully marked but still totally unsuitable to be a pet or a breeding animal. Having a serious illness is far more fatal than having white spots on a brindle dogs back etc. But, on the other hand, there is and will always be beautifully coloured dogs with correct temperament and good health to use in breeding.

Lets have a quick look at the genetics remembering that whites are actually coloureds with an factor wich prevents their coat to be coloured:

Your bully carries two doses of colour in his genes, these will decide whether he is brindle or red. Now, fawn is just another red and black is inherited separately (making a brindle dog eventually blackbrindle). Brindle is dominant so here comes the alternatives:
1. Dog has two doses of brindle and is brindle on his coat.
2. Dog has one dose of br & one of red and is brindle on his coat.
3. Dog has two doses of red and is red on his coat.
If your dog has two doses of brindle, all of his puppies will be brindle (or white carrying brindle) and then we can say that your dog is pure for brindle.

Brindle & white: has either two doses of brindle or one brindle and one red. In case of two doses, will give one dose of brindle to his puppies and all puppies will be brindle (or white carrying brindle).
Red & white: has two doses of red and will give one dose of red to his puppies.
Mating these two with eachother will give following result:
1. If the brindle has two doses of brindle, all pups will be brindle (or whites carrying brindle)
2. If the brindle has one dose of brindle and one of red, then in the long run the result will be 50% brindles and 50% reds. (In one litter having like 5 puppies they all might be reds or all might be brindles, but if we could get something like 100 puppies they would be about 50-50).