Quote:
Originally Posted by Woogie Man  Beyond some old historical mentions of off-colored dogs and generic explanations of the piebald gene, there's not really much to say about partis that doesn't get into opinions. One curious thing...there's mentions of off colored dogs early on, then no mention at all for many years, and then they pop up again in recent years. I'm pretty sure what parti fanciers would say to this, but the re-emergence of these dogs after so many years makes me wonder.
The thing about the pure bred dog world is that there are standards for each breed and, IMO, those standards should be followed.
This was posted earlier from Webster's.....
"Definition of PUREBRED according to the merriam-webster definition is:
bred from members of a recognized breed, strain, or kind without a mixture of other blood over many generations".
I would just say that the 'recognized strain', as pertains to the Yorkshire Terrier, has always been that of a blue and tan dog. There has never been a standard for this breed that included any other colors. My belief is that, when in doubt, always refer back to the standard.
One other thing about this subject is the decision by the AKC to allow a parti designation in registering Yorkies. It goes against the parent club, which sets the standard. To me, this only fuels the debate and muddies the water on what the average person should make of this. |
I have tried and tried to find substantiated information about the "white" showing up early in the breeding of our Yorkies. You are right -- everything comes back to something they think happened or heard happened. But then I was reminded....does it really matter? If it was in there early, why indeed did it sort of "go away and re-emerge" so long after? Could it be that ethical breeders only bred the yorkies that MET the standard? The rare occasional white color went to a pet home and if they were not bred, they rarely reoccur. Makes sense to me. Parti's did not really start showing up with frequency until Mr. Biewer made his dogs "famous" and they were also being sold for much higher prices than standard yorkies. The question to me is even if some did suddenly reappear in the Yorkshire lines..... should the trait be bred for? Where would it stop if we decided to adjust the Yorkshire Terrier Standard to accomodate the people who like parti-colors?
Let's take some of the other Yorkshire standards -- how about ears? Do we really need to adhere to upright, pointed ears? Some love their floppy eared dogs! Some yorkies are born with thicker ears that stay floppy no matter what a breeder does. Some aren't even pointed, but more rounded. Maybe we could okay those too. If we start only breeding the floppy eared dogs to each other, pretty soon they will all be floppy ears in our lines! Would it be fair to okay a change to standard for the color and not the ears?
How about body structure? Is it necessary to have a compact "square" body? Why not start breeding those with the longest bodies with each other? Might be able to get a dachshund-shaped yorkie eventually! And is a straight topline really that important? How about size? Should we change that too -- maybe increase the maximum to 25 pounds? See where this is going? Pretty soon, there is little of the traditional yorkie so many great breeders spent so many years perfecting. Lifetimes have been devoted to our blue and tan beauties. I just want to see that future generations get to enjoy them.