Quote:
Originally Posted by JeanieK  yes the biewers are a breed of their own, because the Biewer efamily developed them from T wo pure bred yorkshire terriers. and no matter what you or Gayle say. that fact will no changge. so call them what you want. it makes no difference.
Gayle is the one that is claiming they are not yorkshires, she has yet to explain what they are. so if you have a problem with the fact that they are not purebreds, take it up with her.
You cannot just take a breed and change the name and claim that you have a different breed. Yopu have to know where it came from, which dog were used to create this new breed, when was it created?
If you can ot answer those questions and prove it, then you have Biewer yorkshire terrier a la pon pon.
What on earth do I have to be jealous about.
The Biewer is a beautiful dog, and if i wanted one, i would have one. But for me a dog that is not AKC registered is just a dog. My partis are registered as yorkshire terriers. There is such a variety of looks, some being marked very much like the Biewer. Some like more white, some like more black. I like them all. |
What does it matter if it's AKC or not??
I wouldn't pay $4000-$5000 for a yorkie that could not be shown or really shouldn't be bred, when it's a fault. To me, there is no difference in a parti than there is a chocolate. Yeah, all dogs are cute, but, AKC to me, doesn't mean a hill of beans. I've seen a lot of dogs that were AKC registered, that I know for a fact weren't even purebred