The reason that I used the Nazi analogy, it is one group of people telling another group of people that only WE are fit to do this. As the Nazis told the Jews that they were not fit to procreate, so does the YTCA tell us non show breeders that we are not fit to breed dogs, eventhough they know nothing about us, they lump us all into a sub standard category.

That is why I use the Nazi example.

I really think it would be nice if instead of seeking acceptance to be included in the standard, which is quite impossible since YTCA is for the yorkshire terrier standard representative of the true yorkshire terrier breed, parti breeders can have their own group. In this way they can seek to protect their breeding against those who simply breed for money and for puppy milling since parti yorkie breeders would just want to share their nice experience for those who want something unique. They can also further any studies about parti specific concerns if there's any on top of the general yorkie breed concern. It won't be an official club as compared to the YTCA, but it would definitely be a nice move against puppymillers and such. At least, they can educate well that partis are not of standard coloring and be able to choose to which hands these parti carriers (those with full registration and breeding rights) and promote responsible breeding without threatening the existence of the true and standard yorkies. In this way, the parti lines will be controlled and they can improve other aspects aside from the color. JMO.

I hope so, but if it wasn't for the small handfull fighting the opposition, for the right to do that we would never accomplish our goals.

I'm really not sure how much clearer I can make my opinion. I have no problem with people charging for a dog what it takes to justfify REASONABLE costs incurred. The issue is when the price being charge far exceeds what they are putting in to their programs. When the money they are profiting takes on the "I'm charging this because I know I can get it" vs "I'm charging this because I have to cover the costs of xyz," that is where the issues come into play and were people worry about the $$$ they can profit vs what is right by the dogs. Generally speaking, I would never "pay whatever it costs" for ANY dog if I didn't think there was just reason for a breeder charging that amount.

In short, I think it's "OK to pay" what a breeder can justify with costs they've put in. And again, there are so many many many factors that I think placement of dogs hinge on--I don't think it's really as black and white as you are trying to make it seem.

Your comments about it being a "free market economy" and all the talk of "supply and demand" give the impression that of these dogs as "marketable comodoties" as "items and property" rather than living things that should be cared for as such. It's really a bit unsettling, if I'm being honest. Yes, I took economics in college, but I don't recall discussing breeding dogs in class...that was more of a Comtenporary and Moral Issues type subject. :(

No I did not take it personally, I just added to what you had said. i am very excited about the future of the parti and all the other colors.

The money issue was over the wording of their reason for disqualifying. the non recognition is that they state that the piebald gene was never a part of the yorkie make up. two different statements.

I made that same comment a few months ago.

What I can't understand is that you can see this is unscrupulous marketing, yet can't see that's it's unscrupulous marketing to breed a fault, and call it "rare and unique."


No the Nazis, told the Jews they were not fit to live. No one is suggesting that these dogs be put to death. Some of us believe that if a dog doesn't meet standard he shouldn't be breed. There is a huge difference.

No offense meant to anyone, but if the talk of "Nazis" and implications of similarities could stop...it would be really apprecitated. The comparisons are being tossed around rather freely and I don't think people realize how truly offensive the implications of being "like the Nazis" really is. :(

No one has asked anything of the YTCA, and if i were personally to ask anything of them it would be to leave us alone and not to make unproven negative statements about them.

this is not going to be accomplished in a month or a year, perhaps not even a decade or in my lifetime. But we have to start somewhere.


As I have said, the YTCA did not create the yorkie, why do they think that they are the only ones that have an interest in their well being and that they are the only ones fit to say who can breed what. takes us back to the Nazi mentality.

Yes if it were up to the YTCA they would all spayed/neutered and woulod cease to exist. Brings us right back to the N word.

I was answering the post by Golden Parti who asked why the YTCA didn't just make up and regulate a Parti standard--I'm not sure what the issue with my comment is...

So should Parti advocates be referred to as Klan members? :mad: Really, I think there is probably a better, less offensive way to get the point across.

So you would be fine with parti breeders producing an itemized cost to justify the cost of the puppy. So the first litter should cost $10,000 per puppy and following litters about 250 a pup. Somehow I don't think this is going to work very well. I think I will stick to spreading the cost out over several litters and then lowering the price with time as it is currently working.

And we paid a higher price to make sure that we got a good one from a good breeder and a good line, not something that might or might not be a yorkie.

Those people with the cheap ones had no idea where the partis even came from or what line the dog came from. so and so told them it was a parti colored yorkie and they were registered with the XYZ registry.

I second that