Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy1999  The purpose of purebred breeding is not to introduce new variety into the breed, but elimination of the variety. Mutts have lots of variety, purebreds don't. Past breeders have worked very hard to eliminate what they saw as undesirable qualities. The parti recessive gene wasn't found in most lines, in fact, it seems like it can be traced to just a few, and there are still questions on how it got there, but the founders of the YTCA decided that is not what they wanted to breed for. Whether it was a natural ingredient to the original yorkie isn't the point, early breeders decided that this shouldn't be included in the coat type. You have to remember that the yorkie coat is one of the most difficult to obtain, for those who like a challenge, the yorkie is a fascinating breed to breed, because just because you have two blue and gold yorkies, it's doesn't mean you will always get two and blue and gold yorkies, but this is the goal. Now if almost every breeder could achieve getting the proper blue and gold, time after time, I would see no problem with adding more variety into the line, but this coat is still very difficult to achieve. Adding the white often eliminates the blue, and I can understand why breeders would be hesitant to add this. Many breeders believe that instead of adding more variety to the yorkie, that other things should be stressed, structure/health/temperament and things of this nature. The yorkie is a relatively young breed, it like designing a fine piece of equipment you want to get the prototype right before you start offering it in more and more colors. Also, once you get the recessive gene in a line, how do you take it out, if you decide the white isn't for you? It's impossible; the white is easily added, but impossible to thoroughly eliminate because there are no tests that show if your dog is a carrier. It's a free country and breeders are free to breed whatever they see fit, and people are free to choose which breeders they feel like supporting, however, supporting breeders who breed to standard, is the best way to support the breed, for you are helping to insure a yorkie who looks like a yorkie, will be around in the future.
By the way, culling doesn't always mean killing, it means simply not breeding some of the offspring, it selective breeding. Every breeder culls their dogs when they sell a dog as a pet. |
I agree with much of what Nancy said, particularly the parts I put in bold. You could take all the arguments from the Parti breeders and insert the fault of your choice (oversize, wiry coat, flop ears,. etc.) instead of the word 'parti' and the true weight of the argument becomes apparent. No one is beating on the door of the YTCA to create a variety and allow these faults into the ring. Why not? These traits are all naturally occuring in the breed and have been there from the beginning and still pop up to this day on a regular basis.
My own opinion is that the Yorkie is a relatively young breed and is still difficult to breed true to type. Regardless of their origin, it makes no sense to introduce back into the gene pool traits that will only muddy the water and make it even more difficult to breed true to type. It shouldn't make a difference if a trait has fanciers or not.
People are free to breed what they wish to, but I'd like to know how is it bettering the breed? To me, a Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan (gold), silky coated terrier...period. It has always been the intention since the founding of the breed for the Yorkie to be just that, regardless of other traits that have shown up.
There are some beautiful partis, but there are also beautiful Yorkies that exhibit other faults. Until the Yorkie can, in most cases, breed true to type, introducing varieties/faults back into them can only be seen as detrimental to the breed.