The Merle Pit Bull....what to hear your opinions.....

Breeding merles is selfish and irresponsible. They look beautiful but that doesn't give the okay to breed! They are disqualified from all legit registries for a reason.

the blue color has been selfishly over bred just for color popularity and now often has health, temperment,and skin problems. i dont think a proper solution to that is to banish the color. mostly white also has potential problems, like deafness and skin sensitivity but is still registerable.

i own a merle, not a thing wrong with him, he is 16 weeks, no skin conditions, has blue eyes, no problems with dept perception, or seeing long distances, he also plays well with other animals.

by banishing the color it would do the same thing as trying to ban the dog altogether. i may not be able to get him registered anywhere, which is a crock if you ask me, but you better believe me i am gonna try.

i have a 2 year old merle and she is the healthiest most athletic dog i have ever owned, and very friedly even when meeting other dogs.i also have a young child she is good with. i really dont see the problem. its all about resposible breeding, just like any other dog.

also, believe it or not, blue once had the same problem and were cosidered NOT PURE,as in muts! accuse the popular blues of that these days and it would be met with outrage. same goes for merles.

i think merle's are beautiful. i would love to have one. but it's obvious they're not pures. i still want one

?...did you read any of this? plus you cant have one if people cant breed them. get a merle dane or some other healthy registered merle dog.

the thread says opinions. i gave mine. you have no say in who gets any kind of dog.

dont get mad. it was just a suggestion. if you support eraticating them then how are you going to get one? you are pulling a double standard by saying they shouldnt be bred but you want one and no one can tell you what kind of dog to get...except for the registry aperently. they can make it not exist anymore on a whim.

1. I'm not getting mad, you don't know me so you have no idea what gets me mad.
2. It's spelled eradicating and apparently.
3. I never said they shouldn't be bred, that's you putting words where they weren't.
4. Regardless of whether merle's are accepted by the registry will not keep people from continuing to breed them, that's just a fact. Everyone does not follow the rules and standards that we tend to. If someone wants a merle pit that badly, they will be able to find one. Think of how many people don't even register their pits.

ok,i think you understood what i was saying yet you are now resorting to spell checking me, so i assumed correctly that you are frustrated. much of this chat is about how they shouldnt be bred because they are muts and breeding muts for sale is wrong. if you have lost track, merle people are saying they are not muts and should be bred and registered as pure bred and not muts. non-merle people are saying they are not pure therefore not registerable meaning they are not pitbulls therefore should not be bred. you on the other hand say they shouldnt be allowed but you want one. all i was saying is its odd that you would want a merle "pitbull" and agree they shouldnt be bred. why want something that doesnt exist? its wrong to shake your finger at breeders and tell them what they are doing is wrong and then say ill take two. its a double standard. if you want a merle dog, have at it,get a dane or aussie. dont ask for a merle pit though, because aPParently doesnt exist.

You have a lot of time on your hands! And again putting words in my mouth. I said it's obvious they're not pures. I did not say they shouldn't be bred. People will do as they choose.

I and many others say if they are not pure then they shouldnt be bred. the arguement is:are they pure? breeding muts for sale is without question wrong.

and all the people look past a couple years back it was the same thing with blues, yet you're setting here bashing merles.