Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama  Actually, I beg to differ. The term "hybrid dog" has nothing to do with a 50/50 mixture and everything to do with marketing by less than reputable breeders. In the past, the term mixed breed was used to describe these litters, as they were almost always a "whoops" and not planned for profit.
I would suggest that you take a look at the history of how the yorkie breed came in to being. It wasn't done willy nilly to fuel a marketing craze. The breed came in to being after the careful selection of the "parent" breeds for specific traits. And then, only the best examples of the breeds were used to create the Yorkie. Careful records were kept by selected breeders and the crosses were bred to crosses to create the Yorkie as we know it today.
That's a far cry from what's being done with this "hybrid" craze. Anyone with an off-standard yorkie will breed it to another off-standard dog to make it the latest trend. There is no "end goal" in sight, other than the almighty buck.
I do love Yorkies. Badly bred ones included. In fact, I have two badly bred ones that came from rescues. But the badly bred ones have helped create the many problems we see in the population today. The breed standard is set for a reason, and it's to maintain the integrity of the lines.
As for Biewers (which I think are gorgeous), there is a lot of controversy depending on who you talk to about their origin. There is a reason the AKC doesn't recognize them here, yet. I have no idea if they ever will. Same goes for Parti's. Chesapeake retrievers were recognized by the AKC in 1878. They trace their origins to Newfoundlands that were then bred to a multiple variety of dogs to attain the breed known today. No one tossed two dogs in to a room and, low and behold, a new breed was born. |
First, Thanks for opening up your post OP!...
hopefully there will be a constructive conversation on this topic since it is so often debated.
Rhetts_mama:
1.You don't need to beg I'm always open to someone's
opinion, as long as you aren't rude. You are differing with what, the meaning of a term? Yes I do read-I also use a dictionary-look up the term hybrid as it applies to animals...hmm I have read extensively on the history of Yorkies...on multiple sides of the arguments over their beginnings and accepted history, controversial, from both YTCA, AKC, EKC etc. But I'm no expert (genetics are an interest of mine so are Yorkies, thus I've read specifically on the origins) I continue reading, and learning if you have some reference you'd like to share I actually do spend the time looking at what people post...FYI look up Chessie history again, three breeds mixed due to an accident-and Yorkie history is debated because historically records weren't kept in even close to the detailed manner they are today, records exist they are good, but not as detailed as needed thus there's great debates on the origins.
2. My exact point was on breeding standards, not just freaking out saying an animal is badly bred because it is a mix of any form (a mix being a hybrid if 50/50 or generational the crossing of only two, or mix being a "mut" "designer dogs" which are of the general term a mix-exactly what I said before). Badly bred Yorkies-who doesn't love one for being an dog anyways right? Its a shame they were badly bred though-wish there was more accountability to breeding methods (i.e. required genetic testing, paternity maternity verification prior to registration, OFA {chic} certifications required, let alone the proper methods of breeding age appropriate dogs and proper care prior, during , after breeding with adequate times between litters etc).
3. I will add my personal opinion here on this I think poorly bred purebred is far more detrimental to any breed than any hybrid or mix could ever be. Again that's my opinion, I know many would say mixes are often snuck in and that's horrible but poor breeding vs mixing in controlled responsible breeding lines-well I'm sure everyone can see my position weather you agree with it or not.