Rosemark responds

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

How many times have we heard YTCA breeders here say...that no ethical breeder would breed or show a known carrier? It would appear that this is clearly a "do as I say, not as I do" stance on breeding and showing carriers.

And...just so I understand this correctly...since she is not "purposely" breeding for a parti...it's ok to continue to breed a known carrier and show and breed it's offspring? Correct?

And how would "just not repeat the breeding" do any good to eliminate the chance of producing anymore carriers or parti's from that line? A carrier can pass on the parti gene no matter what color it is bred too. A pup only needs one parent to pass on the gene for it too become a carrier. This is exactly how the parti gene has been passed on through hundreds of generations. Trying to keep it suppressed is not the answer to how we should deal with the parti yorkie. It's still there..waiting for the right combination of genes to express itself again.

And the only reason I keep bringing it up is...I would like to know what the YTCA's stance is on breeders who continue to breed a known parti carrier. Is it alright as long as you pet out the parti's that will pop up every now and then? I would certainly like some clarification on that.

From my understanding, in order to report a complaint against a YTCA member as doing something unethical, it has to affect you personally. That's why many YTCA members say, "Do your research, being a club member is not enough to ensure you are dealing with an ethical breeder.

Here's what it says before going to the breeder referal page:

PLEASE READ THIS INFORMATION CAREFULLY AND COMPLETELY.
.
The Yorkshire Terrier Club of America, Inc. [hereinafter referred to as
"YTCA"] maintains a breeders referral list of YTCA members who have
signed the YTCA's Codes of Ethics and Conduct and have requested to be
listed on this site. This breeders referral list is published for the sole purpose
of reference only.
.
These members are in good standing with the YTCA, but under no circumstances
does the YTCA guarantee the services or dogs of any said member(s) nor does
it assume any responsibility or liability regarding any agreements you may enter
in with any of the breeders listed.
.
The YTCA does not recommend or endorse any one breeder, nor does it
recommend, guarantee, or rate breeders or their stock. Under no circumstances
does the YTCA promote the sale of puppies through businesses or professionals
such as pet shops, wholesalers, commercial dealers, or paid agents.
.
Buyers should check all matters relating to AKC registration, health, and
quality before making any decision to purchase a dog.
.
The YTCA does not and cannot guarantee or accept any responsibility or
liability of any kind for the quality, health, or temperament of any dog; nor
for the warranty, guarantee, integrity, honesty, reliability, expressed or
implied, by any YTCA member who requested to be included on this list.
.
All such warranties, guarantees, promises, or any other aspect of animals a buyer
may purchase from a YTCA member on this listing are between buyer(s) and
seller(s) as individuals.
.
.
By clicking the agree button, you agree to the above disclaimer. Yorkshire Terrier Club of America About The Club

[kpstoybox]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

From my understanding, in order to report a complaint against a YTCA member as doing something unethical, it has to affect you personally. That's why many YTCA members say, "Do your research, being a club member is not enough to ensure you are dealing with an ethical breeder.

Here's what it says before going to the breeder referal page:

Thanks Nancy. I appreciate your attempt at answering my question. However, I have NO issue's with any YTCA breeder, and would certainly NOT report one for breeding a parti carrier. The more well bred carriers out there...the better...I say! LOL Keep em comin!!

I was just hoping someone could post a link or some info on the YTCA's stance, opinion, rule...whatever...on breeding a known disqualifying fault. I guess there really isn't one. It's just expected.

I guess the point I was trying to make is...if a YTCA member can show and breed a known carrier...then so can I!

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

Thanks Nancy. I appreciate your attempt at answering my question. However, I have NO issue's with any YTCA breeder, and would certainly NOT report one for breeding a parti carrier. The more well bred carriers out there...the better...I say! LOL Keep em comin!!

I was just hoping someone could post a link or some info on the YTCA's stance, opinion, rule...whatever...on breeding a known disqualifying fault. I guess there really isn't one. It's just expected.

I guess the point I was trying to make is...if a YTCA member can show and breed a known carrier...then so can I!

Does that mean if a YTCA member wasn't breeding them, you would feel like it's wrong for you to breed them as well?

[Rhetts_mama]

Isn't there an ethical difference between breeding a dog that potentially carries a fault and intentionally breeding to obtain that fault?

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

Isn't there an ethical difference between breeding a dog that potentially carries a fault and intentionally breeding to obtain that fault?

How is there a difference in what she is doing? She is intentionally breeding a line that she knows has produced partis.

The only difference I see is the fact that she is a YTCA member.

[bjh]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

Thanks Nancy. I appreciate your attempt at answering my question. However, I have NO issue's with any YTCA breeder, and would certainly NOT report one for breeding a parti carrier. The more well bred carriers out there...the better...I say! LOL Keep em comin!!

I was just hoping someone could post a link or some info on the YTCA's stance, opinion, rule...whatever...on breeding a known disqualifying fault. I guess there really isn't one. It's just expected.

I guess the point I was trying to make is...if a YTCA member can show and breed a known carrier...then so can I!

A yorkie that is black or one that is a very light silver would also be disqualified. Possibly all yorkies have the 'genes' to produce a faulty color if the right combination is made. The YTCA is not a policing organization and they will not go around telling breeders who to breed and who not to breed.

Paragraph one of the YTCA code of ethics states:

1) A breeder-member shall strive to conform to the Yorkshire Terrier Standard as approved by the American Kennel Club, to improve progeny, and to reduce faults to a minimum.

The YTCA knows that dogs will produce faults but members should strive to avoid them.

Again you mention the YTCA member that used a champion that produced parti pups. This member did not intentional try to produce these pups and she did not intend for them to be sold with full registration. I don't think she was even a member of the YTCA when this incident happened. Do you think because she had a error in judgment several years ago that that entitles everyone else to make the same mistake? I am not a member of the YTCA but I respect the organization and I understand their goals. The YTCA members that post there grievances about parti yorkies on here are speaking from their hearts as to what they feel about parti breeders that are trying to exploit the breed by adding color. That is just their opinion and everyone is entitled to an opinion. The problem is not so much about parti breeders but about the unethical way that some of these breeders came about getting their dogs. Many lessons have been learned, the main lesson is that stricter contracts are needed by those that don't want their lines getting into the hands of breeders that share differing opinions on breeding for the betterment of the breed.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

How is there a difference in what she is doing? She is intentionally breeding a line that she knows has produced partis.

The only difference I see is the fact that she is a YTCA member.

The biggest difference I see is that she isn't TRYING to produce flawed dogs for profit, while parti breeders are.

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

The biggest difference I see is that she isn't TRYING to produce flawed dogs for profit, while parti breeders are.

How can you say that?? She's knows that her line is producing partis and that she is producing carriers. So what is she trying to do then? She is, in deed, breeding this line so are you saying her actions are justified? Do you really know her intentions any more than you do parti breeders? Your statement above about parti breeders is pretty bold, considering I was a breeder and know that I didn't do it for a profit.

[Rhetts_mama]

Nope, I don't know the breeder in question. But I do know that both the YTCA and the AKC consider parti colored dogs a disqualifying fault. Since parti's aren't going to be allowed to be shown any time in the near future, then the only reason for producing parti's is to supply market demand. They certainly aren't improving the breed any more than breeding for tinies is improving the breed.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

How is there a difference in what she is doing? She is intentionally breeding a line that she knows has produced partis.

The only difference I see is the fact that she is a YTCA member.

I personally think she should spay and neuter the dogs that produced this fault, YTCA members are individuals and apparently she doesn't think this is necessary. It seems that the YTCA believes that a parti should be spayed or neutered and placed in a pet home, and not sold for profit, but no official stance on carriers.

Using the excuse that YTCA members do this, so therefore I can do it, really bothers me. I mean in every organization there are a few bad apples, look at the Catholic Church and the problems with some priests, should a pedophile say, "Well my priest did it, then so can I!"

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

Nope, I don't know the breeder in question. But I do know that both the YTCA and the AKC consider parti colored dogs a disqualifying fault. Since parti's aren't going to be allowed to be shown any time in the near future, then the only reason for producing parti's is to supply market demand. They certainly aren't improving the breed any more than breeding for tinies is improving the breed.

And yet she, as a YTCA member, is showing her carriers. Also, her line has produced partis. So I wouldn't be so quick to say that they aren't doing anything for the breed....obviously, she and the judges felt the opposite.

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I personally think she should spay and neuter the dogs that produced this fault, YTCA members are individuals and apparently she doesn't think this is necessary. It seems that the YTCA believes that a parti should be spayed or neutered and placed in a pet home, and not sold for profit, but no official stance on carriers.

Using the excuse that YTCA members do this, so therefore I can do it, really bothers me. I mean in every organization there are a few bad apples, look at the Catholic Church and the problems with some priests, should a pedophile say, "Well my priest did it, then so can I!"

Why no official stance on carriers? So a litter of Yorkies are born....2 are parti, one is a carrier....you feel adamant about the partis, but you are still up in the air about the carrier? Same lines. If the parti can't be shown, then what is the difference for the carrier...other then coloring. Again, same lines!

It's not an excuse that the parti breeders are trying to use. They want the YTCA to acknowledge that the piebald gene is a part of the Yorkie make-up. If they can't do this, then fine, but don't allow an exception to be made for one of their own.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

Why no official stance on carriers? So a litter of Yorkies are born....2 are parti, one is a carrier....you feel adamant about the partis, but you are still up in the air about the carrier? Same lines. If the parti can't be shown, then what is the difference for the carrier...other then coloring. Again, same lines!

It's not an excuse that the parti breeders are trying to use. They want the YTCA to acknowledge that the piebald gene is a part of the Yorkie make-up. If they can't do this, then fine, but don't allow an exception to be made for one of their own.

Did you read my first paragraph?

I personally think she should spay and neuter the dogs that produced this fault, YTCA members are individuals and apparently she doesn't think this is necessary. It seems that the YTCA believes that a parti should be spayed or neutered and placed in a pet home, and not sold for profit, but no official stance on carriers.

Is they all parti breeders want, that the YTCA say the piebald gene is a part of the Yorkie make-up? No question it seems to be part of some lines, and people seem to be trying to get it in every line, but it's still a fault. Also, I don't feel any differently about the parti trait, then any other fault, I feel strongly that breeders should breed to standard, and if they don't like standard, they should find a breed that suits them more.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

And yet she, as a YTCA member, is showing her carriers. Also, her line has produced partis. So I wouldn't be so quick to say that they aren't doing anything for the breed....obviously, she and the judges felt the opposite.

You are right, it's doing something to the breed. It's tainting the gene pool.

I see a lot of justifying behavior on what someone else is doing. Since when is ethics on a sliding scale?

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Did you read my first paragraph?

Yes, and I was responding in generlized terms...didn't mean to direct it at you.


Is they all parti breeders want, that the YTCA say the piebald gene is a part of the Yorkie make-up? No question it seems to be part of some lines, and people seem to be trying to get it in every line, but it's still a fault. Also, I don't feel any differently about the parti trait, then any other fault, I feel strongly that breeders should breed to standard, and if they don't like standard, they should find a breed that suits them more.

It is written as a fault, but is it really if they are allowing their own members to breed parti carriers? Are breeders suppose to go by the YTCA code of ethics or by what they allow of their own members? Other members are aware of this particular line producing partis and yet there are still breeders buying and showing her lines.

Maybe it's time (past time) for them to take another look at what should be allowed as part of the standard...that or remove certain members and spay/neuter their dogs and the dogs that they have produced and the dogs that they have produced, etc. You get the point...