Breeding for Improvement?

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by iLuv Reeses

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

Thank you. yes that is where I read it, I have their book.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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.

You are very right. Like about a thousand generations back when the yorkie was developed.

But they went back as many generations as they could with the testing which disproves the theory that they hac come about recently. So until someone can prove otherwise that is the way it stands.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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.

Universities do unbiased independent studies all the time. Perhaps a school of Veterinary medicine could be persuaded to do one.

But they would do it the same way we are doing it, breeding the dogs and recording the results. there is no other way.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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?

Different breeders used different dogs, perhaps the line that the silkie came from did not have the maltese mixed in. Not all of those early breeders used the same dogs. But eventually as they breed developed the breeders sought out other dogs that had the same traits as their own dogs and mated them.

the develoopment of the yorkie was not a scientific endeavor. it was done mainly by poor people who couldn't even read or write and their breeding records were kept in their heads.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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.

I know that in every one of these threads, when you ran out of things to say you resort to name calling. Let see Bybs, puppy millers, ignorant, unethical, irresponsible, does any of that ring a bell.

And everytime the thread gets closed.

Everyone can go back and see for themselves. And I have never once called you names.

And yes I have to reiterate because you keep repeating the same false statements over and over and I feel it is my responsibility to give the people the correct information.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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

I've never closed a thread, and I have never reported you. And it might have been peaceful but people were being given false information, and directed to the YTCA website, which is full of false statements.

The YTCA has the same information that is out there for everyone to read. but they refuse to believe it. Yorkies were around long before the YTCA, the YTCA does not have an exclusive on them. But they refuse to know anything that is contrary to what they want to believe. To me that makes everything they say or do suspect. Once I have found that someone is deliberately trying to mislead me, from then on I am suspicious of everything they say.

[BamaFan121s]

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....

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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.

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.

And meanwhile , ask the YTCA where they got their information from.

The question of the maltese being in the original make up was in a book written by one of the oldest authorities on the Yorkie and that persons name has been brought up in this thread. But if you only want to believe what the YTCA says, then don't waste your time.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

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

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.

You do realize, that in any of these large organizations, it is all politics don't you. Or do you really believe the tobacco companies then they say they are not targeting children, and their cigarettes don't contain added ingredients to get people addicted and they willingly contribute to the non smoking programs.

You want to buy a bridge?

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by wildcard

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.

And did the results show that parti colored or any off color other than the blue born were any more suscepitable to any of the known health issues?

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

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.

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.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

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.

This is funny and very sad, IMO.

Generally speaking, if you are truly want to promote understanding and acceptance, this is not the way to go about doing it.
There seems to be a pattern of people claiming one thing or another was "proven" and "researched" but when asked for more detailed info, the response given mirrors the one above.
Again, a very 'convenient.' What was the phrase used earlier..."painted into a corner?"

This kind of ambiance is what causes threads to deteriorate to the point of being non-productive and insulting. It is clear the thread took two clear turns--one from being changed to being all about breeding partis, the other where it just became nothing but a continuation of arguments from previously locked threads...

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

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....

I am really sorry for this; I thought it was important for the average person to understand that improving the breed did not mean bringing in more variety. There is lots of misinformation printed, and sometimes he who posts most is believed. Here's a good link on the difference between a responsible breeder and a back yard breeder. I agree with the conclusion that a responsible breeder improves the breed and a backyard breeder damages the breed. I'm not name calling, but if the shoe fits . . . Responsible Breeder or Backyard Breeder?

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

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.

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.

They have access to the same information that the rest of us do and all other avenues lead to "there is a good possibility that the maltese were in the original make up", yet they state otherwise. So if there is no proof then the least they should do is say that it is not proven rather than to state it as fact.

They also refuse to accept the research that the AKC has done. why is that?

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

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.

And it has nothing at all to do with them taking a stance against your breeding program, right? Yeah, sure, I'll buy that bridge.