Originally Posted by iLuv Reeses (Post 2249327)

I have read that part as well. As silky reds (wired coated ones which changed their coat texture while breaking their colors) can bring out the color when bred with a cottony/wooly (but not silky) in its immediate progenies. However, it also comes back down in the succeeding generation of the line.

"Years ago Mrs. Annie Swan, of the Invincia Yorkies, told us to keep one in our breeding program. She said everyone kept a so called "Red". They occasionally appeared from silky coated parents. No one ever showed them, but since they had the ability to return color pattern to it's proper boundaries and the ability to darken the color of a lighter dog when bred to them, they were on occasion bred in. Bred to cottony or wooly texture they usually have little effect. Bred to silk texture they improve color. Bred together they usually produce themselves and occasionally a lovely colored silk dog - but this is the exception."

paragraph lifted from:
Color & Texture article of Joan Gordon
to read more...
Color & Texture by Joan Gordon

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2249397)

Th only thing that the DNA proved is that the dogs were the parents of the puppies. You dont know what went on generations before the DNA test.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2248135)

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.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2249399)

If the Maltese was used, which is doubtful, wouldnt it stand to reason that the Silkies would have the white proble also as the Yorkie is one of the 3 breeds that made up that breed?

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2249405)

Im sorry, exactly WHERE is it that you have "backed me into a corner"? It just seems to me that if anybldy is not on the same page as your AGENDA you feel the need to bash that person. Do you tink that YOU are the only person to do any research? Think again!! Dont assume that you know anything about me or what I have or have not researched. As for re-iterating the same thing over and over, you need to look in the mirror. The standar color Yorkie is doing just fine and dandy without the addition of the parti clors which will do absolutley nothing to improve the breed.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2249407)

As to this thread getting closed, it was very peaceful until you chimed in. So, go ahead and close the thread.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2249429)

OK, point me in the direction of those historical articles, other than the extremely biased YTCA articals. I want a good read or good laugh, which ever it may be. Got any unbiased web-sites? Please post them for me.

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s (Post 2249508)

I'm sure they'd help you out with that info if you contacted them. :) Much better than making assumptions, IMO.

Originally Posted by wildcard (Post 2249670)

The YTCA Foundation, Inc. was created in 1991 as an arm of the YTCA to collect and disperse donations for research into health issues related to the YT. It collects and donates $ to the AKC CHF (Canine Health Foundation) and is allowed to direct where its donations are spent within the AKC CHF. The AKC CHF in turns provides the funds to actual research scientists (generally at universities) that use it to pay for particular projects, for example, studies of liver shunt, liver disease and endocrine disease in breeds (sometimes just YT, sometimes in combination with other breeds who have similar disorders). You can visit the AKC CHF site to learn what programs are related to what breeds and who has donated funds-- here is the YT page AKC Canine Health Foundation Grants Listings

As you can see, there is a whole lot more to it that having a breeding program and recording results. I am not a YTCA member but I highly doubt that the YTCA funds its own breeding program and calls it research.

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 2249753)

We have already establuished that they lie and mislead the public, so no use contacting them. Besides like I said it was not an unbiased study, so the results are skewed.

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 2249742)

As I have told you in other threads, I am not going to do your research for you, if you refuse to dig deeper than the YTCA website that is not my problem.

there have been many books and articles noted on here, go loook them up.

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s (Post 2249736)

Perhaps the OP could start another thread and get her question answered there and be able to get the info she was actually looking for. This has clearly become another debate about the ethics of breeding Partis.
I cringed when I saw the topic changed to that back on the first page....

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s (Post 2249772)

No, "we" have not established anything. If you are under the impression that they "lie and mislead" then that is your right, but it is YOUR OPINION only...not a proven, established fact.
Unless one was there and part of any study they conducted, I don't see how anyone can proclaim with any certainty that any results were skewed or biased.
As for "not contacting them" for that reason or any other...that seems like a very convenient route. ;)

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 2249781)

As I said it would do me no good to contact them because they are deliberately misleading the public, therefore I wouldn't believe anything they have to say.