Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinehaven  Why is it doubtful that the Maltese was used? Book after book written in the early days of the breed, reference the Maltese as thought to have been used in the make up of the breed? It wasn't until much later, that the Maltese was said to not be in the make up of the YT, this view is seen on the YTCA site (but the KC kennel club says maltese were in the YT makeup).
Also, the YTCA says the waterside terrier was used in the makeup of the breed ... otterhounds were used in the makeup of the waterside and otterhounds come in parti colors. So one way or the other, whether through the unpedigreed foundation dogs, or the maltese or the waterside (who were by the otther hound), there are genes for parti color and other off colors in the breed. |
Regardless of the foundation dogs used in creating the Yorkshire Terrier, the dog became a separate, distinct breed of its own, with its own standard. Of course there are traits still being expressed from these early dogs, but those dogs expressing those traits should not be bred and those traits certainly should not be bred
for. Since the beginning, the Yorkshire Terrier has always been a blue and tan dog and today is a blue and tan dog. No amount of wordplay will change that. If parti breeders were accomodated, what's next? Do we breed for flop eared dogs? Teapots? Wiry coats? Roach backs? Why not? The logic for doing so is the same as yours. Try applying that logic for all these traits and see what you come up with. It sure won't be a Yorkshire terrier, I can tell you that.
I can't understand why someone would want to breed for a fault and then have the audacity to demand they be given the same status as correct dogs in the show ring. It makes one wonder if the term 'pure bred' is really understood.