It's nice to hear that the Terrier is alive and well in the Yorkshire. I posted the 2 standards to get opinions on which one better defines a Yorkshire Terrier. Even though we may not have a problem with the dogs now (some may disagree), the standard is the guidepost for what will be produced in the future.
What I see is the vagueness of the American standard can lead to too much interpretation by breeders and judges. I don't want to see the future of our breed being driven by this as it could lead to 'just another pretty dog' and the Yorkshire is so much more than that.
While the Yorkie is shown in the toy class, its terrier roots should be maintained. There are some clubs of working breeds that have bemoaned what has happened to their breed after its getting into the AKC conformation ring. Some breeds have been replaced in the field due to their natural instincts and abilities being bred out of them in favor of looks. I think one of the best protections against this is a clear, well defined standard that addresses all critical points of the dog.
If appearance is placed above function, somewhere along the way something will be sacrificed. If form becomes the main criteria, then it's an open question what the dog's function will be. You may have a gorgeous dog, but what can it do? The Yorkie is a 'fancy' terrier, but just how fancy can it be and still be a Terrier?
I suppose I'm more concerned about what is to come rather than what is today. We are all supposed to be stewards of the breed and I wonder if having a vague standard is offering the best stewardship we can to this wonderful breed. |