I want a Biewer/parti yorkie

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

Personally, I had always belonged to and supported the local Morgan club in addition to being a member of the American Morgan Horse Assoc. In addition to doing fund raisers, silent auctions and volunteering my time at shows, I also wrote articles for the breed magazine and for other morgan club newsletters ... I enjoyed helping out were I could.

But this ain't a perfect world so even if I could join the YTCA (or local club), I'm sure no one would talk to me anyway!

While you gave me some information on what you contributed in the Morgan Club. You still didn't answer my question.

Why do you want to be a member of the YTCA?

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

And I think you’ve proven my point ... There is a difference between the breed clubs and coat color clubs. In the equine world, you’re able to show different colored horses of that breed, in the same show ring. In a coat color club like pinto, horses that meet the clubs color requirements, can be shown but they can come from many different breeds.

15-20 years ago, showing a palomino morgan or even a morgan with 4 white socks, was highly discouraged in the Morgan world. The color standard then called for bay, black, brown and chestnut with little white but because other colors were being produced by registered morgans, these other colors were “allowed” to show. They may not have pinned as high due to prejudices or the color preferences of the judge but the horses were allowed to show because they were registered with that BREED.

The YTCA is a “breed club” and not a coat color club isn’t it? Just because a yorkie doesn’t achieve a certain color, does not change them from being a member of the Yorkshire terrier “breed?”

I just feel that an AKC breed club should be open to all who own or love that particular breed and in a perfect world, it would also be nice if all could show in conformation if they choose to, regardless of color.

Well I do know you can dual register a paint, palamio and appy's as an American Quarter Horse which is a "breed club" with all those colors but I wouldn't take an american quarter horse that is a bay or sorrell in color and show it in the Paint Horse Assoc show even tho they are both considered an American Quarter horse or take a white horse with a very small black spot and show it in the Pinto class or take and show a Palamino with a brown tail knowing full well it's not correct thats like taking a Parti, flopped eared or a chocolate and showing it in the "standard" yorkie ring....
Each Association has a standard whether it be horses or dogs and even in human life there are standards that one should adhere too correct? If you know 55 is the speed limit does it give you the right to go 70? If caught most will get a ticket. As in life there are rules to go by and the breed clubs set certain rules "standards" for all to follow so that is pretty plain if you ask me..

Donna

[Woogie Man]

This discussion always seems to bring up the same points with no real resolution. Parti breeders say that the parti is a Yorkie, and have dna results to prove it. Those adhering to the breed standard say, yes, but the color is a fault that shouldn't be bred for. Parti breeders will say something like it's denying the breed's history and make-up to not include the parti.

I don't have a strong opinion about this but have looked at what is written about it. It seems like this debate is as old as the breed. There really are things written to support both sides of the argument. Having an interest in history and genealogy, I've gotten used to connecting the dots when there is no conclusive evidence. It's not as good as cold, hard facts, but sometimes it just has to do.

My belief about the parti is that, yes, they have been around since the inception of the breed. I also believe that breed purists have discounted them since the beginning and have not considered them a true Yorkshire Terrier.

I base my belief on a few points. It may well be flawed but here goes.

1. Parti breeders point to the Maltese being bred into the Yorkshire Terrier since the beginning.

2. The breed that contributed the most to the Yorkshire Terrier is the Clydesdale Terrier.

3. The Clydesdale is the silky coated blue and tan version of the Skye Terrier.

4. In the early days, the broken haired Scotch Terrier class was a mish-mash of quite different dogs, which is a situation ripe for doodling around with.

There are some things written in the Skye Terrier's history about the Maltese being bred into them. This would support the parti position. That, taken with the amalgam of dogs being shown as broken haired Scotch Terriers, and you can see how there might have been white in the dogs very early on.

There have been some things posted by parti breeders here before of white Yorkies being mentioned (and discounted) as far back as 1904. It does seem that breed purists, even then, acknowledged their existence but discounted them.

I have found a reference dating back to 1876 where it is mentioned in a rebuttal about Maltese being used by Skye breeders to enhance the coat and win a ribbon. Here's the link...The country - Google Books

So, it does seem like the Maltese was used from the beginning, at least by some breeders of the Skye. With the Clydesdale being a type of Skye, it's not much of a leap to conclude that the Maltese influence would have been present in some Clydesdales, thereby getting into the make-up of the Yorkshire Terrier.

That being said, it does seem like the standard bearers of the Yorkshire have always been adamant about it being a blue and tan dog. It was never the intent for there being any other color and that the blue and tan is a distinguishing feature of the Yorkshire Terrier. It seems that any other color was discounted form the beginning and that any dog exhibiting other colors was the result of a breeding not within the breed standard. As they were trying to distinguish a Yorkie from the other, very similar breeds, this (the color) would have been very important in setting the type and determining what was and wasn't a Yorkshire Terrier. Of course, once the genetic influence of the piebald gene was there in some specimens, it is easy to see how it carried forward.

After connecting the dots, my conclusion is that there have always been dogs with white in them, but they have always been discounted.The YTCA considers the parti Yorkie a fault, but I imagine the early breeders considered them not a Yorkie at all. They were the ones that were looking at all these dogs at that time in their class and they are the ones that determined what was and what was not a given breed.

Through that shake out, determined a lot by what was winning in the ring, several breeds were lost to history. The Yorkie was very similar to other breeds, but its features were determined to be the best, and those others breeds soon began to disappear. The piebald gene in the Yorkie, to me, is a carry over from all those years ago. It has always been in some lines, but not in the breed in general, and the Yorkshire Terrier purists would say that the Yorkie has always been a blue and tan dog and any other color should have been bred out long ago.

This is all my rambling opinion and could well be completely off base. I can see how dna tests would show the Parti to be a Yorkie due to the influence going so far back. I do think you have to look back to see what the breed's developers intended a Yorkie to be and then it is more clear that the piebald gene was never intended to be a part of the breed's make-up.

I do think the Parti is a beautiful dog and mean no offense to Parti lovers. I've had the opportunity to get to know some of you here and consider you my friends. I don't question your ethics or motives and wish you all the best. It's obvious that some of you take your breedings seriously and do have long-term goals, all commendable things.

It's just that the subject has come up so often that I began to look for answers and this is what I've found. It's kind of murky, but does paint somewhat of a picture.

[livingdustmops]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

This discussion always seems to bring up the same points with no real resolution. Parti breeders say that the parti is a Yorkie, and have dna results to prove it. Those adhering to the breed standard say, yes, but the color is a fault that shouldn't be bred for. Parti breeders will say something like it's denying the breed's history and make-up to not include the parti.

I don't have a strong opinion about this but have looked at what is written about it. It seems like this debate is as old as the breed. There really are things written to support both sides of the argument. Having an interest in history and genealogy, I've gotten used to connecting the dots when there is no conclusive evidence. It's not as good as cold, hard facts, but sometimes it just has to do.

My belief about the parti is that, yes, they have been around since the inception of the breed. I also believe that breed purists have discounted them since the beginning and have not considered them a true Yorkshire Terrier.

I base my belief on a few points. It may well be flawed but here goes.

1. Parti breeders point to the Maltese being bred into the Yorkshire Terrier since the beginning.

2. The breed that contributed the most to the Yorkshire Terrier is the Clydesdale Terrier.

3. The Clydesdale is the silky coated blue and tan version of the Skye Terrier.

4. In the early days, the broken haired Scotch Terrier class was a mish-mash of quite different dogs, which is a situation ripe for doodling around with.

There are some things written in the Skye Terrier's history about the Maltese being bred into them. This would support the parti position. That, taken with the amalgam of dogs being shown as broken haired Scotch Terriers, and you can see how there might have been white in the dogs very early on.

There have been some things posted by parti breeders here before of white Yorkies being mentioned (and discounted) as far back as 1904. It does seem that breed purists, even then, acknowledged their existence but discounted them.

I have found a reference dating back to 1876 where it is mentioned in a rebuttal about Maltese being used by Skye breeders to enhance the coat and win a ribbon. Here's the link...The country - Google Books

So, it does seem like the Maltese was used from the beginning, at least by some breeders of the Skye. With the Clydesdale being a type of Skye, it's not much of a leap to conclude that the Maltese influence would have been present in some Clydesdales, thereby getting into the make-up of the Yorkshire Terrier.

That being said, it does seem like the standard bearers of the Yorkshire have always been adamant about it being a blue and tan dog. It was never the intent for there being any other color and that the blue and tan is a distinguishing feature of the Yorkshire Terrier. It seems that any other color was discounted form the beginning and that any dog exhibiting other colors was the result of a breeding not within the breed standard. As they were trying to distinguish a Yorkie from the other, very similar breeds, this (the color) would have been very important in setting the type and determining what was and wasn't a Yorkshire Terrier. Of course, once the genetic influence of the piebald gene was there in some specimens, it is easy to see how it carried forward.

After connecting the dots, my conclusion is that there have always been dogs with white in them, but they have always been discounted.The YTCA considers the parti Yorkie a fault, but I imagine the early breeders considered them not a Yorkie at all. They were the ones that were looking at all these dogs at that time in their class and they are the ones that determined what was and what was not a given breed.

Through that shake out, determined a lot by what was winning in the ring, several breeds were lost to history. The Yorkie was very similar to other breeds, but its features were determined to be the best, and those others breeds soon began to disappear. The piebald gene in the Yorkie, to me, is a carry over from all those years ago. It has always been in some lines, but not in the breed in general, and the Yorkshire Terrier purists would say that the Yorkie has always been a blue and tan dog and any other color should have been bred out long ago.

This is all my rambling opinion and could well be completely off base. I can see how dna tests would show the Parti to be a Yorkie due to the influence going so far back. I do think you have to look back to see what the breed's developers intended a Yorkie to be and then it is more clear that the piebald gene was never intended to be a part of the breed's make-up.

I do think the Parti is a beautiful dog and mean no offense to Parti lovers. I've had the opportunity to get to know some of you here and consider you my friends. I don't question your ethics or motives and wish you all the best. It's obvious that some of you take your breedings seriously and do have long-term goals, all commendable things.

It's just that the subject has come up so often that I began to look for answers and this is what I've found. It's kind of murky, but does paint somewhat of a picture.

Here is some more reading you might find interesting (scroll down to books):

PARTI YORKSHIRE TERRIER CLUB - Links/Old Books

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

Here is some more reading you might find interesting (scroll down to books):

PARTI YORKSHIRE TERRIER CLUB - Links/Old Books

Thanks, Cindy...I've seen those before but it is interesting. One thing I noticed, while looking at my dogs' pedigrees, is that my Roger has Nikkos Rolls Royce Manhattan a few generations back in his line and I wonder if that dog carried the gene.

I really like Joan Gordon's history of the YT, too. here's the link for it.
History of the Yorkshire Terrier by Joan Gordon

ETA...I haven't read all the old stuff linked there but will. Thanks.

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

While you gave me some information on what you contributed in the Morgan Club. You still didn't answer my question.

Why do you want to be a member of the YTCA?

Why would I like to be a member of the YTCA ... same reasons that I was a member of my equine breed clubs, to promote and share my love for that particular breed.

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

This discussion always seems to bring up the same points with no real resolution. Parti breeders say that the parti is a Yorkie, and have dna results to prove it. Those adhering to the breed standard say, yes, but the color is a fault that shouldn't be bred for. Parti breeders will say something like it's denying the breed's history and make-up to not include the parti.

I don't have a strong opinion about this but have looked at what is written about it. It seems like this debate is as old as the breed. There really are things written to support both sides of the argument. Having an interest in history and genealogy, I've gotten used to connecting the dots when there is no conclusive evidence. It's not as good as cold, hard facts, but sometimes it just has to do.

My belief about the parti is that, yes, they have been around since the inception of the breed. I also believe that breed purists have discounted them since the beginning and have not considered them a true Yorkshire Terrier.

I base my belief on a few points. It may well be flawed but here goes.

1. Parti breeders point to the Maltese being bred into the Yorkshire Terrier since the beginning.

2. The breed that contributed the most to the Yorkshire Terrier is the Clydesdale Terrier.

3. The Clydesdale is the silky coated blue and tan version of the Skye Terrier.

4. In the early days, the broken haired Scotch Terrier class was a mish-mash of quite different dogs, which is a situation ripe for doodling around with.

There are some things written in the Skye Terrier's history about the Maltese being bred into them. This would support the parti position. That, taken with the amalgam of dogs being shown as broken haired Scotch Terriers, and you can see how there might have been white in the dogs very early on.

There have been some things posted by parti breeders here before of white Yorkies being mentioned (and discounted) as far back as 1904. It does seem that breed purists, even then, acknowledged their existence but discounted them.

I have found a reference dating back to 1876 where it is mentioned in a rebuttal about Maltese being used by Skye breeders to enhance the coat and win a ribbon. Here's the link...The country - Google Books

So, it does seem like the Maltese was used from the beginning, at least by some breeders of the Skye. With the Clydesdale being a type of Skye, it's not much of a leap to conclude that the Maltese influence would have been present in some Clydesdales, thereby getting into the make-up of the Yorkshire Terrier.

That being said, it does seem like the standard bearers of the Yorkshire have always been adamant about it being a blue and tan dog. It was never the intent for there being any other color and that the blue and tan is a distinguishing feature of the Yorkshire Terrier. It seems that any other color was discounted form the beginning and that any dog exhibiting other colors was the result of a breeding not within the breed standard. As they were trying to distinguish a Yorkie from the other, very similar breeds, this (the color) would have been very important in setting the type and determining what was and wasn't a Yorkshire Terrier. Of course, once the genetic influence of the piebald gene was there in some specimens, it is easy to see how it carried forward.

After connecting the dots, my conclusion is that there have always been dogs with white in them, but they have always been discounted.The YTCA considers the parti Yorkie a fault, but I imagine the early breeders considered them not a Yorkie at all. They were the ones that were looking at all these dogs at that time in their class and they are the ones that determined what was and what was not a given breed.

Through that shake out, determined a lot by what was winning in the ring, several breeds were lost to history. The Yorkie was very similar to other breeds, but its features were determined to be the best, and those others breeds soon began to disappear. The piebald gene in the Yorkie, to me, is a carry over from all those years ago. It has always been in some lines, but not in the breed in general, and the Yorkshire Terrier purists would say that the Yorkie has always been a blue and tan dog and any other color should have been bred out long ago.

This is all my rambling opinion and could well be completely off base. I can see how dna tests would show the Parti to be a Yorkie due to the influence going so far back. I do think you have to look back to see what the breed's developers intended a Yorkie to be and then it is more clear that the piebald gene was never intended to be a part of the breed's make-up.

I do think the Parti is a beautiful dog and mean no offense to Parti lovers. I've had the opportunity to get to know some of you here and consider you my friends. I don't question your ethics or motives and wish you all the best. It's obvious that some of you take your breedings seriously and do have long-term goals, all commendable things.

It's just that the subject has come up so often that I began to look for answers and this is what I've found. It's kind of murky, but does paint somewhat of a picture.

Thank you Woogie Man, that was very simply and logically said.

[Woogie Man]

I would add that there are breeds that have been identified and separated by the coat alone. One pertinent example would be the Clydesdale and Skye Terrriers, both the same dog distinguished only by their coat, yet different breeds. There were instances, also, of different pups from the same litter being classified as different breeds. With those factors at work at that time, early Parti fanciers (and their dogs) may have been better served by going the separate breed route, rather than being linked to the Yorkshire Terrier, whose clubs rejected them.

[YorkieRose]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

No, I didn't say that "I want my yorkies color to POP ... so adding parti genes is my solution ..." The parti genes are already there in some of our registered yorkies, I didn't add anything. Not quite sure how you read that into the conversation??

I believe you have a good friend who bred parti's up my way ... I got my first parti carrier male from her, out of her beautiful parti stud, so I guess that makes her just as unethical and breed ruining as the rest of the parti breeders (unless I misunderstand what you're saying)?

No, Sue you did not say that...the OP did..

I do not believe in mixing any thing with a standard but a standard from standards..what my friend does is her business..I have no problem with Biewers and respect the breed and many breeders...is it unethical to mix partis and standards..yes IMO it is and my friend knwos this, but we are adults and set this aside to be good friends...

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by YorkieRose

No, Sue you did not say that...the OP did...

And I did apologize back on post 58, again I'm sorry Pat for the misunderstanding.

[YorkieRose]

Not a problem at all..
AND, using the term unethical may not be correct..it is not illegal or immortal to mix them..but I must admit to being a purist and want to keep the Yorkie 100 % standard colors as I can...I do not trust so many breeders who are using anything with a long coat and while on it to breed to a standard..we have so cocker looking Parti's here...

[YorkyDiva]

Originally Posted by YorkieRose

Not a problem at all..
AND, using the term unethical may not be correct..it is not illegal or immortal to mix them..but I must admit to being a purist and want to keep the Yorkie 100 % standard colors as I can...I do not trust so many breeders who are using anything with a long coat and while on it to breed to a standard..we have so cocker looking Parti's here...

BRAVO! Thank you for saying unethical may not be correct. This is my problem with persons on YT making these blanket statements that all breeders who breed Chocolate or Parti are either disreputable or unethical. Not ALL are.

AND I also agree with you about the statement that some breeders are using anything with a long coat to get the Parti and is also seems to be true with Chocolate.
Given the scheme of things these days, perhaps it would be great if DNA were required by all registries.

[YorkieRose]

Webster...ethic's...

The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relatonship with others....rules and standards governing the conduct of members of a profession.
Any set of moral principles or values..

Hmmmm...is it unethical to deviate from the standard set by AKC, YTCA etc...

If you are not a member of these clubs, do you have a free pass to do as you please or what you think will improve the breed?

I think it is unethcial for members to follow their own agenda, disregarding the standard and experimenting to improve the breed with non-standard colors...and I see members break rules everyday..so all need to clean up their acts...

Last thought..many breeders I know who are not members of any clubs are very conscience of the standard and adher to it as if it was the Bible...

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by YorkieRose

Webster...ethic's...

The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relatonship with others....rules and standards governing the conduct of members of a profession.
Any set of moral principles or values..

Hmmmm...is it unethical to deviate from the standard set by AKC, YTCA etc...

If you are not a member of these clubs, do you have a free pass to do as you please or what you think will improve the breed?

I think it is unethcial for members to follow their own agenda, disregarding the standard and experimenting to improve the breed with non-standard colors...and I see members break rules everyday..so all need to clean up their acts...

Last thought..many breeders I know who are not members of any clubs are very conscience of the standard and adher to it as if it was the Bible...

Taken from the YTCA Constitution

. To urge members and breeders to accept the standard of the breed as approved by The American Kennel Club as the only standard of excellence by which the Yorkshire Terrier shall be judged.

[YorkieRose]

So if a breeder is AKC, they make an ethical agreement to breed to the standard.