Quote:
Originally Posted by TammyJM  Nancy, I'm sorry but your very last sentence has me on the floor laughing!! Seriously, should we then go back to how the Yorkie looked in the very beginning?! Are you really going to say that you feel like the Yorkie was bred down to a much smaller size and with a silky coat for any other reason than making it a more beautiful dog???! Come on, Nancy...... |
Glad I could give you a good laugh, but I'm serious about this. I don't know how the Yorkie standard changed and evolved, but I certainly don't think the length of hair is related to any genetic problems, is it? It seems that short hair breeds share many of the same genetic problems as longer haired breeds. Also the term "beauty" is very arbitrary in the dog world, what some breeders have done with their breeds in the name of beauty is anything but.
My point is that there are about 5 different breeds have serious problems because of their standard, not just poor breeders, but because of
how their "standard" has evolved. Now that some breed clubs have finally learned that changing the standard or how the ideal dog should look can cause serious problems, we should be very careful about changing the standard. Ten years down the line, we will know much more about safety, what's the rush? If you are breeding for the right reasons, why should it bother you? Think of it this way, many people love a tiny little button nose on a yorkie, should the standard change to include this? I believe a breeder would be wise to wait and see if there are any health concerns associated with a super short muzzle, but I have nothing against tiny button noses, or for that matter, the parti color. No matter which breed I have, I would support the mother club, unless there were known or suspected heath risks to their written standard.