Quote:
Originally Posted by kpstoybox  Just because a few find the color undesirable...doesn't mean everyone does.If my parti carrier is a good example of the breed and meets the standard in terms of color and conforamtion...he has just as much right to be shown regardless of the fact that he can produce a parti. |
This is exactly why I stated the following:
Looking past whether or not breeding partis is "ethical", and strictly for hypothetical purposes...On an argument based on what may or may not be considered a 'fault',
The point I was trying to make, didn't have anything to do with whether or not the dogs were parti carriers or whether or not it's a desireable trait. I tried to word it in a way that would make that clear, but should have known any attempt to do so would be futile. I could have just as easily substituted that for size, ear set, bite, etc to try to make the same point==> Yes, I believe that your dog would have just as much right to be shown and CH--a dog deemed as a quality representation of the breed, per the breed standard. But I don't see how it would really "validate" one's breeding program if the dogs produced by that CH were something different.
What would it matter if you have a 4 lb CH sire if bred to a 10 lb female that resulted in 8 lb pups? How would that CH be validating one's program? I mentioned that I saw it done with people breeding the standard colored Yorkies all the time....so it cleary, as far as I concerned, was not about the Partis. It was about misrepresenting one's program by using the "CH lines" marketing ploy.