Wow, I have to say I had no idea that Alopecia was a problem in yorkies or any other breed of dogs. There do seem to be a huge number of websites listing Alopecia as a problem with yorkies. Back to the original post about improving the breed. Here is a list of things to watch for in Yorkies that I found on several different websites. If any of these are found in your dogs they should not be bred.

Breeders should note of the following health issues:

• Alopecia, or losing hair • Cataract, or loss of transparency of one or both lenses of the eyes • Cryptorchidism, wherein testicles do not descend into the scrotum • Dwarfism • Entropion, a disorder with the eyelid; lashes on the eyelid that irritate the eyeballs could lead to other complications • Glaucoma, a condition that causes an increase pressure within the eye • Hydrocephalus • Keratoconjunctivitis sicca, or the reduction of tear production • Low blood sugar • Patellar luxation, a disorder in the kneecap • Portosystemic shunt, or the accumulation of blood toxins in the liver • Urolithiasis, an infection of the urinary tract leading to the formation of bladder stones


Here is a photo of a yorkie suffering from Alopecia.

That is a great list of things to consider that you would want to eliminate in regards to improving the HEALTH of the breed. :thumbup:

The word you used in your post that I replied to was "cannot".

And just because they YTCA has set standards does not mean that those standards are the best that the breed can be. For Example, there are some breeds that the "standards" set by the breed club are such that they are breeding dogs with major health issues. The closer to the standard, the worse the problem.

Boston Terriers. Peekinese, Bull dogs, Those funny looked crested little dogs. All have huge health problems from breeding to the standards. It would definitely be an improvement if some "rebel" decided to breed bull dogs with longer noses so they could at least breathe.

[QUOTE=iLuv Reeses;2246987]--------

As of the moment, I think the recessive genes poppin out might bring out something more serious. Being yorkies, off colored ones are already carrying the problems of the standard yorkies and striving to breed for colors is a bigger gamble.
---
QUOTE]

You are merely making assumptions here. There is also the belief that adding back in a few of the genes that the off colors carry, improves the coat quality.

Looks like Bamafan and Golden Parti were both up late doing thier homework. Good job guys. We all learn from information like this.

Yes, it CANNOT improve the STANDARD because the STANDARD is BLUE/TAN.

But that does not mean you cannot improve the dogs/line....but it would to your own individual determined standard.

I see no difference between breeding for greater variation colors, and a breeder deciding to breed for greater variation in any other quality such as ear structure. Yorkies are suppose the have small erect ears. However, some breeders would probably prefer if standard were changed to accommodate their own lines. They decide that large floppy ears are just what the Yorkie needs, and with that in mind, they come up with the Dumbo Yorkie, with huge floppy ears, and try to sell it for huge amounts of money because it's rare and unique. They convince other byb's that the Dumbo yorkie is just what their line needs to make more money, and stand out among breeders. They are angry with the YTCA for not allowing them to show their special Dumbo Yorkies, and bad mouth the YTCA every chance they get. They're angry; because others don't show them the respect they feel they deserve and argue that they are improving the breed by bring greater variation and more choices. Some people will fall for it, and others won't. Any breeder who takes a fault and breeds for it, and claims that he is improving the breed is shamefully ignorant.

:thumbup:Nice post!

There are problems in every "man-made" breed and even in mutts and wild canines, such as HP in coyotes. I dont think that introducing puppy-mill or byb quality dogs will do any breed any favors. And its the breed clubs that are doing the most to eliminate faults and health problems as they are the ones funding the studies on these problems and breeding correctly, not the bybrs or mills. I see more problems in poorly bred specimens of the breed than I do in correctly bred, to the standard, dogs.

OK let's rephrase that and say that we can improve upon the standard.

NO Lynn, You are wrong, not all breed clubs do make the breed healthier. As I just pointed out, the standards set for some breeds are the very thing that causes the health issues. And not all those who breed against the club standards breed unhealthy dogs.

Too many years of close breeding in any breed is going to create problems. That is why the wise old show breeders occasionally used the off colors to add some of the genes back into the mix that were removed when they removed the color gene.

And those of us who are breeding for the colors are no more "bybs" or "puppy mills" than those who are breeding for the standard. We have a purpose, we are selective, we are conscientious. we are not just putting any two dogs together to produce puppies to sell.

We just don't happen to believe that the YTCA created the yorkie, and we believe that our opinions are just as valid as theirs. Just because they are not the same does not mean that they are WRONG.

Health and temperament are our first concerns.

For those of you who are interested, the YTCA has spent over $84,000, on research, I think they are very much interested in approving the breed. http://yorkiefoundation.org/SupportedGrants.pdf

I still do not see the difference. How can you "improve" upon the standard if you are not breeding to it? You are "changing" the standard (or trying to) to "improve" it according to your own preferences.

And for the record, I agree with you--I do not thing that breeding an off-color variation automatically makes you a puppy mill nor to I think that breeding dogs that conform to the standard automatically deems you as reputable.

I prefer the term"I disagree" to your term"you are wrong". Nor did I call you a mill, but you are not breeding to theYTCA standard, therefore, I my opinion, the parti breeders are pet quality breeders. Health issues can still be a priority to pet breeders also.(not bybrs or mills) That being said, what exactly would be the genetic purpose of breeding off colors? What would it improve in the Yorkie? It wouldnt improve health, structure, temperment, movement, patellas, hips, ears, conformation, hair color and texture. So I dont understand what "wise old breeders" you are referring to. And, again, it is not the mills, bybrs or most of the pet breeders that foot the bill for health research. It is the dyed in the wool reputable Yorkie breeders, be it hobby or exhibitor that fund most of the research. And again, most of all the other breed clubs fund there own health research also. Its not the mills or bybrs of those breeds either.

So, the only thing that we agree on is that we agree to disagree.

Yes by breeding some of the off colors back into the line it can improve any or all of the above. show breeder dogs can have health issues also, due to the close line breeding. And it has been discussed on here before that many of the old breeders kept a redleg in their program to improve the coat.

When you are trying to eliminate a gene from a breed, there can be adverse effects.

When any special interest group supports any research the results tend to be skewed. You don't really believe all the ads that these drug companies put out about their research do you?

Over the years standards have been changed. these off colors are part of the general make up of the yorkie and if they were to be eliminated entirely, people might find out that it was not such a good idea. As I pointed out, with other breed standards gone awry.

The YTCA may someday decide that they need to add those colors back in, in an effort to bring the yorkie back to where it is today. When you mess with nature it doesn't always turn out the way you planned.

I dont believe you can improve anything with pet quality and color doesnt improve structure, conformation, etc. Please tell me how color alone can do this. I doubt if the YTCA will want to add any colors that were never there to begin with. Why would they add non standard colors? Human drug company analogies have nothing to do with breeding sound dogs. They are not only "in it" to make money(hand over fist I might add), but hopefully to heal or treat disease, etc in people. And what other "special interest group" would you have do the research and why would they do it? Who better to be involved in the research than the breed club that promotes the breed and knows the breed better than anyone else? I wouldnt have the Saint Bernard breed club, the Skye Terrier club, the Girl Scouts, or FFA doing the research, would you? Just as I wouldnt have the YTCA be involved in the research of Pug Dog Encephalitus. And not all show breeders have tightly line bred dogs. Yes, show breeders have some health issues now and then, but far less than the mill, bybr breeders as they never care what they produce. So that tells me that the linebred and well bred show dogs are actually healthier. What I dont understand is why you seem to have such a chip on your shoulder reguarding the YTCA. You bash them and their members frequently. I would think that you would be happy that this group and its members are footing the bill for health research. I guess it must be that parti thing.

Good morning everyone.
I did miss alot in just one day.

Anyway, I really think the breed standard is really essential because it gives the breed its identity. If all breeders have their own standard then in the long run, people of the next generations to come will all be confused to what a yorkie really is and what a yorkie really looks like and it threatens the breed's existence.

Parti-colored/biewers are indeed beautiful. I can't blame those breeders who keep breeding them because the world would be a less wonderful place when they're gone. The white coloring of their coat gives off a joyful radiance and very welcoming to whoever sees one. While the dark steel blue and shaded golden tan color of the standard yorkshire terrier gives a seriously elegant look which captivates anyone who gets to see it. (ok I'm one captivated YOYO) However, coat color is just an aspect of the yorkshire terrier. Even the perfect dark steel blue coat color of a standard yorkshire terrier with unsound structure (which already affects its balance and movement) can be just a pet as its coat color alone will not improve the breed (I agree with yorkiekist). The total dog has to be considered (including the health and temperament of course).

IMO, I think one of the reasons why YTCA (and other YT breed clubs in the world) is really committed in keeping the blue/tan or blue/gold(golden tan) is the history of the breed. It has always been the same color a century back. Breeders have become obsessed in bringing out the true silky texture which gives the breed "type." In the 80's, when there's no dna testing for correct parentage, it was easy to make short-cuts as the pedigrees are registered with "trust policy" and a champion european import produced parti-colored yorkies.
Biewers, on the other hand, are another story. I wonder why Biewers considered another breed of yorkshire terrier and different from American-bred partis. Must be a different source of white coloring gene.
It's really hard to figure out what really happened in the past, was there really parti colored yorkies born before the 80's but just culled? Was there an introduction of a white colored dog? Safest is too keep the blue/tan color and keep out from lines who carry the parti genes.
Because "IF" a late introduction of another breed is true, then it won't be a YT anymore.

:thumbup:Great thoughts on the YT!! The Biewer has already been determened not 100% Yorkie. they are thinking that the white/parti color came from, possibly the Shih-tzu. If I remembe rcorrectly, this is why they are dropping the YT out of the name and calling them Biewer Terriers.

Wow, I have never seen anybody selling Dumbo Yorkies for huge money...lol Did you just make that up?

HMMM, I thought this post was about improving the breed, not improving the standard. I do not ever want to show a Parti color against a standard color. If they are ever to be shown it would have to be against each other.

Holy cow $84,000 for the whole YTCA that is pretty sad if that figure is accurate. I have spent almost half that by myself on my dogs and researching to find out if there really are problems with parti's and Goldens.

I think the problem the Parti breeders have is when websites post misinformation about health issues that they do not have scientific evidence to back. The $84000 that is supposed to be spent on research is a joke. If you take the money that has been spent by two or three of the breeders of parti colored dogs it exceeds this number. By raising these dogs we are indeed doing research to see if they have problems. If I ever find any I will be the first to come on here and tell everyone. So far I have not seen these problems in any greater number in the off colored breeds. I have actually seen fewer problems. Maybe that is because the high price prevents just anybody from breeding them.

[QUOTE=JeanieK;2247594]Yes by breeding some of the off colors back into the line it can improve any or all of the above. show breeder dogs can have health issues also, due to the close line breeding. And it has been discussed on here before that many of the old breeders kept a redleg in their program to improve the coat.
QUOTE]

Hey, I have a redleg yorkie. He is perfect size and shape to standard. I am going to have to do a search on here about this.

Yes, and the BREED is defined by it's STANDARD, which at this point does not include Parti Yorkies.

Compared to who? Have any other organizations attempted to match that or even a fraction of it? I doubt it.

No offense, but the Yorkie in the picture does not appear to be a 'red leg.'

4 red legs, Oh and he is a Parti Sired Parti Carrier too.

I am only one person and I have spent almost half that. So I do not really think that is something to brag about. Now if that had spent millions on their research I might be impressed. Is that $84000 this month? this year? or since the beginning of the YTCA. $84000 these days really doesn't cover very much research.

You have spent half of that on your own breeding stock. How on Earth do you figure that equates to an organization that has raised money for research? :confused: You have spent money essentially on stock to benefit your own program--that is not at all comprable to a breed club raising money to benefit research and promotion of the breed.:rolleyes:

Like I said, the dog in the picture is not a "red leg".

Where can I find a picture of a redleg? So I can see what exactly you are calling a redleg.

Search here on YT--there have been several threads in the past that discussed them, some with pictures, I believe.