Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 3013174)

First of all, I am glad you do not sell your dogs with breeding rights; this is one of the qualities in a breeder that I think is good. I am surprised so many of you are surprised about this though; you do realize that there are breeders who breed for profit? I'm not saying that you will ever make a dime breeding Parti's, in fact, it could turn out to be a very poor investment. I'm only saying that is the motivation factor for many. It is a fad among many breeds, not just yorkies. Not just puppy millers breed for profit. I don't think most breeders breed for the right reasons, not just parti breeders, so I'm not singling parti breeders out.

I never said that the people who breed Parti's were not nice people, their qualities as a human being has very little to do with how they breed. We all know examples of very religious wonderful people, being bad breeders. I'm concerned because so many of you seem to be in denial about the problem, you act like the only people who sell Parti's are your friends and members of Yorkietalk. I have not attacked anyone on a personal level. I wish I didn't feel so strongly about breeding to standard, and why it's important, many of you parti breeders do seem like wonderful people, I wish you wouldn't take my opinions personally. There does seem to be a conscientious group of parti breeders on this forum, however, am I supposed to change my viewpoints because I like you? I do not believe we know enough about the recessive gene yet to breed for it, many maladies attach themselves to the recessive gene, instead of denying this, I hope you keep in contact with puppy buyers, and let others know if something starts cropping up. I also don't think that the Yorkshire terrier has not been a breed long enough to introduce new colors. As a breed, it's only been around about 100 years, and not that many yorkies are being bred with a proper coat. The yorkie standard is a very difficult one to obtain, genetics wise, you need so many things working together. On the other hand, the parti color is NOT a difficult one to obtain. Once you have a parti colored dog, it cannot produce a dog without the parti gene. I guess I could see a time in the future, where it was easy to get a great healthy example of the breed, and at that point I could see why we might like to introduce more variety. I really don't see this now, I wish all breeders were more interested in health, but I don't think more variety in looks should be introduced until we get the health factor under control.

Originally Posted by TammyJM (Post 3013195)

First of all, my dogs were not ever an "investment"....they are part of our family! This statement of yours confuses me, "I never said that the people who breed Parti's were not nice people, their qualities as a human being has very little to do with how they breed.". It's the last part of it that bothers me. Do you honestly think that a person's moral make-up has NOTHING to do with their breeding practices??? How in the world can you really believe that?! I am someone that believes that a person's heart shines through their actions. I firmly believe that my "qualities as a human being" has EVERYTHING to do with how I have bred!! I can respect your opinion on certain things but feel you are way off base on this one, though.

As for parti breeders....no, a person should not trust all of them....no more than one should put full faith in a show breeder. You keep saying that we are introducing more variety into the breed, but the tri-color has been there....we are not adding some new gene. It's the YTCA that created what they desired the standard to be...they are the ones that formed the "look" of the Yorkshire Terrier. However, just because it is in writing does not mean that the genetics of the parti just disappear.

Originally Posted by TammyJM (Post 3013195)

First of all, my dogs were not ever an "investment"....they are part of our family! This statement of yours confuses me, "I never said that the people who breed Parti's were not nice people, their qualities as a human being has very little to do with how they breed.". It's the last part of it that bothers me. Do you honestly think that a person's moral make-up has NOTHING to do with their breeding practices??? How in the world can you really believe that?! I am someone that believes that a person's heart shines through their actions. I firmly believe that my "qualities as a human being" has EVERYTHING to do with how I have bred!! I can respect your opinion on certain things but feel you are way off base on this one, though.

As for parti breeders....no, a person should not trust all of them....no more than one should put full faith in a show breeder. You keep saying that we are introducing more variety into the breed, but the tri-color has been there....we are not adding some new gene. It's the YTCA that created what they desired the standard to be...they are the ones that formed the "look" of the Yorkshire Terrier. However, just because it is in writing does not mean that the genetics of the parti just disappear.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 3013237)

I didn't say "NOTHING", I said "very little", details are very important. Look at the Amish, I think they are very moral wonderful people, but I think they are very poor breeders of dogs. There are a lot more parti breeders on this forum, than those who speak up for importance of breeding to standard. I'm the one that feels bullied.

Floppy ears have been there too, should we start breeding for it because they are cute? I happen to love floppy ears, but I would not support a breeder who bred for them. I think a breeder should find a breed they love, and breed for a great representative of it, I don't think they should try to change standard. Yes, the YTCA is the mother club, and they are there to protect the club standard, if no one did that, the yorkie wouldn't have any identity. Don't you try to choose other qualities of standard that you think are important, If you can see that breeding other qualities of standard is important, than you could see why breeding all qualities of standard is important. If you don't think breeding any qualities of standard is important, than I wonder why you choose a particular breed to breed? For me, it really is an all or nothing thing, you can't just pick and choose the qualities you like. Some breeders love curly haired yorkies, do you think they should breed them even if they love the look? I realize it's a free country, and people can do what they want, but I don't think this is really protecting the breed. So they may be a wonderful person, but they are not a good breeder in my opinion.

Originally Posted by TammyJM (Post 3013259)

So you have your opinion....those of us that breed the parti are, in your words, "not a good breeder". What I find so ironic is the fact that you seem do your research and like to learn, but yet are so close-minded on this. You have written about the studies that you have done about genetics but again, close-minded on the parti.

I am a GREAT breeder....one that just happens to love the tri-color Yorkie. I go back to what I have said in the past. The standard was created by a group of people that wanted the Yorkie to look they way that they preferred. If they had said that the parti was acceptable, you would then say it was okay. But since this particular group decided that they like a steel blue and tan, straight haired, toy sized Yorkie....all of a sudden, we are suppose to forget about how the Yorkie began. Why is that the YTCA gets to say what they prefer, but those of us that love the parti are wrong. Double standard, indeed!

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 3013269)

I wish you would address my other questions, instead of just focusing on my opinion of those who don't breed to standard.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 3013237)

For me, it really is an all or nothing thing, you can't just pick and choose the qualities you like.

Originally Posted by TammyJM (Post 3013297)

This is kind of funny to me because it is EXACTLY what a the members of the YTCA have done.

Originally Posted by TammyJM (Post 3013290)

And what questions are those? Whatever they are, it all goes back to how you dislike the breeding of partis and how you like to compare the beautiful tri-color to other traits that you consider poor. Does this sum it up? I mean really, whatelse do you need for me to answer? You can CLEARLY see what I am saying and how I feel...what did I miss? How you compared the floppy ears or a curly coat to the parti?? You don't think that I answered you already? I'm pretty sure I did in my last post.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 3013379)

Tammy, it has nothing to do with my dislikes for the the tri/color, or parti, where did you get that idea? I think some are very beautiful. I really have tried to explain why a breeder shouldn't pick what part of standard he accepts. Who says, floppy ears can't be compared, lots of people love floppy ears. I read of many members saying they love their yorkies permed like coat, personally, I don't like curly hair, but this is not the reason I'm against breeding for it. A good breeder, in my opinion, should work within standard, and put their touch on those things that are still within standard. You seem to be saying that I should be in favor of supporting all breeders, or all breeders who breed to standard, except for the parti color. :confused:

Unlike the AKC, the YTCA is not a business, its a group of breeders who love the breed, and want to do what's right for it. I'm not saying that every YTCA breeder is wonderful, just in case I have to add that. Are you against all breed clubs? What's the purpose of breeding a purebred, do you think you can take a purebred, and breed for whatever qualities you personally like? Obviously, you seem to think that, but I think it's wrong.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 3013379)

Unlike the AKC, the YTCA is not a business, its a group of breeders who love the breed, and want to do what's right for it. I'm not saying that every YTCA breeder is wonderful, just in case I have to add that. Are you against all breed clubs? What's the purpose of breeding a purebred, do you think you can take a purebred, and breed for whatever qualities you personally like? Obviously, you seem to think that, but I think it's wrong.

Originally Posted by Pinehaven (Post 3013453)

I am not fond of "breed clubs" who only allow into the club, a selected group of people - though there are a lot of AKC "breed clubs" that only allow invited and approved members not just YTCA. I feel that if you want to join a "breed club", it should be open to all who want to join (in the horse world that's how it works, at least with the breeds that I've owned).

Since the YTCA is a "Breed Club," I feel that offspring who are born from purebred parents, should have as much of a right to their breed heritage, as those who are "correctly colored" (according to the standards).

A purebred is a purebred ... period! Or maybe I'm wrong ... is a purebred only a purebred if they meet the breed clubs standards?

Originally Posted by Pinehaven (Post 3013453)

I am not fond of "breed clubs" who only allow into the club, a selected group of people - though there are a lot of AKC "breed clubs" that only allow invited and approved members not just YTCA. I feel that if you want to join a "breed club", it should be open to all who want to join (in the horse world that's how it works, at least with the breeds that I've owned).

Since the YTCA is a "Breed Club," I feel that offspring who are born from purebred parents, should have as much of a right to their breed heritage, as those who are "correctly colored" (according to the standards).

A purebred is a purebred ... period! Or maybe I'm wrong ... is a purebred only a purebred if they meet the breed clubs standards?

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 3013500)

If a breed club were to accept anyone who wanted to join, the millers would be in charge of the breed clubs. The mother club, should be just like a good mother, and protect the breed, of course they have to be careful who they let in, they want to know you for several years and what your ethics are before accepting you. It's not just about being nice or knowledgeable. I'm really surprised; some of you seem to fail to understand the importance of having a good breed club whose primary interest is the future of the breed. Not all breeds have had good breed clubs that have been protective, and purebreds have gotten a bad rap because of it, many breeds are in serious trouble because clubs picked up on the latest fad, without knowing the long-term health impacts. Unfortunately, the term purebred may have no real meaning in the future, it no longer means a quality dog that is suppose to look and act a certain way. Don't blame the mother club for that.