Quote:
Originally Posted by Woogie Man  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. |
The term purebred is clearly understood....
Purebred:Of or belonging to a recognized strain established by breeding individuals of unmixed lineage over many generations.
Our Parti yorkies are of unmixed lineage and are AKC registered and DNA'd. Purebred does not mean color.