Pretty much because why they listen to what parti breeder want in standard if they deceitful and disrespectful? Set cause back by pissing off wrong people.

You'll develop an eye when you get really involved into showing. But always remember some are kennel blind and everyone will interput coat textures differently. What I think is a modified silk others will see as silk but it's all left to interputation. But once you really feel and see a "TRUE" silk coat you should always recognize it :)

Donna

Can't speak for anyone else..but that is the MAIN reason I found the Dye/enhancement thread so interesting. It clearly shows how the appearance of a dog can be altered for the ring. It has nothing to do with the fact if it's ethical or not. It's because all we hear is our parti's can't be shown because they don't meet the standard.

Well, clearly from the sales of the Pure paws black/silver semi-permanent color...neither do a lot of show yorkies. And you can tell me til your blue in the face that it is not commonly used in the ring...but I know for a fact it is more common then many want to admit.

I always see the argument that Partis don't fit the breed standard and therefore shouldn't be recognized (shown). The YTCA calls it a DQ but I believe the founders of the breed wouldn't have considered them Yorkshire Terriers at all.

There are many 'histories' of the Yorkshire and here is a bit of one from Wikipedia.

"Yorkshire terriers were shown in a dog show category (class) at the time called "Rough and Broken-coated, Broken-haired Scotch and Yorkshire terriers". Hugh Dalziel, writing in 1878, says that "the classification of these dogs at shows and in the Kennel Club Stud Book is confusing and absurd" in lumping together these different types.

In the early days of the breed, "almost anything in the shape of a Terrier having a long coat with blue on the body and fawn or silver coloured head and legs, with tail docked and ears trimmed, was received and admired as a Yorkshire terrier".[16] But in the late 1860s, a popular Paisley type Yorkshire terrier showdog named Huddersfield Ben, owned by a woman living in Yorkshire, Mary Ann Foster, was seen at dog shows throughout Great Britain, and defined the breed type for the Yorkshire terrier."

Now that's not a complete history, but it does show that at one time many types of dogs were shown together. Also, the Maltese was once shown in this class. In 1874 the first Yorkshires were registered in the Kennel Club's stud books. It wasn't until 1886 that Yorkshire Terriers were recognized as an individual breed and there was no breed club formed until 1898. There were many intervening years of 'anything goes' until a true breed standard was set forth to identify the Yorkie for what it was intended to be. My own belief is that is how the Parti gene got into the breed and has carried forward but the Yorkshire Terrier was always intended to be a blue and tan dog.

I have seen many historical mentions of white or silver Yorkies, but never in a positive light. Just as, over time, the Clydsedale and other influences on the breed have been bred out to make a more well-defined dog, the Parti gene has no place in a Yorkshire Terrier.

We still see oversize Yorkies, along with wire coated, flop-eared and Yorkies of other off colors besides the Parti color. While they can be registered, they cannot be shown. What makes the Parti different from those others that they should be shown? All of the above mentioned variations are true aspects of the Yorkies' history, but they are not TRUE Yorkshire Terriers, no matter their parentage.

I know this all sounds very critical, but I truly am not trying to disparage Parti breeders. I don't question your ethics or dedication. I do think the question I posed needs to be answered, though, before there is complete acceptance of the Parti.

I'll be the first one to say that I love ALL Yorkies, no matter what. That are an enchanting breed. I've had a teapot bred from 2 well pedigreed parents. He's a beautiful dog, but not a Yorkshire Terrier in the true sense of the term. He's more like a Clydesdale than a Yorkie and there's a definite resemblance to Huddersfield Ben, but he does not measure up to being a true Yorkshire Terrier as we know it. I wouldn't think of breeding him even though I could say that breeding for his traits could bring back the Clydesdale. It wouldn't be 'unethical' but, if I did, I would not try and call the offspring Yorkshires, as they would be Clydesdales more than anything.

Here's a pic of the boy I mentioned. it's a shame there's no 'place' for this kind of dog in the show world, but that's just the way it is. A breed is a breed because of its adherence to the standard and there's just no way around it.

Yeah, that tell-tell purple gives it away, but as many have said earlier they are only fooling themselves, and of course, a few other unsuspecting breeders.

I'm not blind to those that color or enhance. I've been beaten in the ring by many nicely dyed yorkies BUT I'd rather be beaten by a "nicely" dyed yorkie than ones with bad toplines, bad structure, crippled rears ect.... But I do have to say when I'm beaten by a purple or green dog that's where I draw the line being beaten by a dyed dog....and yes it's happened.

AWWWWWWWWW he has such a sweet face!! So smoochable!!!

Thanks, Donna, he is such a darling. We called him Harry. He's now living a great life with a young lady that adores him. He is a beautiful dog, silky coat...great structure. Wouldn't you agree, though, that he's more Clydesdale (genetically speaking) than a Yorkie?

Okay, so let's see, as far as "we" know the parti has no greater health risks then the blue and tan Yorkie.

Let me ask this; how many of the Parti Breeders have OFA stats on knees hips elbows? And do those stats show the prevalence rate % equal to or less than blue and tan?

On liver shunt; what is the incidence rate in the Parti population - how does that measure up to blue and tan

CERF testing - PRA incidence Partis vs Blue and Tan?

Have you done a population health survey yet? And if not is it in the works?

I see him as a yorkie but oversized hence pet quality :) At least we know the difference from what the standard calls for in breeding and showing vs. what needs to be placed in a loving pet home :)

I think that if the Organization of Parti breeders, start showing lower incidence rates in all health areas, that would be a huge boon.

How expensive is it to get the gene test done to see if your dog / bitch is carrying the recessive gene?

Harry looks eminently lovable to me. :)

I agree with that, but I see the Yorkshire Terrier more as a 'new improved Clydesdale' as that breed had the most influence that has carried forward. The Clydesdale was a most favored dog until the Yorkshire came along and pushed it into extinction. I kept him for some time and marveled at just how great a dog he was but yes, he does not meet the breed standard.

okay, I am a little confused, is the pic a yorkie, if it comes from 2 full yorkie parents, then its a yorkie. as for being unethical to breed him, yes it would, if what I am getting from reading your thread, and please correct me, he isn't standard and that would be unethical to continue to use him. I know your not, but I don't get were you say he isn't a real yorkie. Not trying to get anything going, he is adorable, but don't understand, you know at times I can be slow:rolleyes:

Well he's just adorable and love that face!!!

Well put you got ta be kidding maybe the judge was color blind.

Donna I have a question for you about showing, some yorkies that are puppies & young adults they sometimes have the blue stripe between their eyes, I know some don't turn completely until 2 or 3, do the judges fault that when they are young. :)

Thank you, Gail. One couldn't ask for a sweeter dog.

As a whole, I don't believe you would find it to be any lower.. there is no reason to believe it would be to my knowledge. I think good sound breeding practices in individual programs is the only way to lower these health risks and of course, they would need to be tracked for many generations before one could really start to pound on their chest.

These issues would have to take precedence over steel blue, dark blue, gold, tan or how big a spot is however and it seems people are most concerned about what "shade" a yorkie is over anything else.

Diana :animal-pa

Most judges won't DQ for that because the most seasoned judges know that yorkies will have that. But I have seen some judges DQ for it but it hasn't happened in awhile. I think the judges are judging as they use too knowing it takes sometime for that stripe to clear :)

Donna

nawww the judges aren't color blind they are handler blind LOL

Thanks I was just wondering, a few years ago at a show, one did get DQ for that, and it was about 1.5 years old. I know some take longer to turn.

I can't remember the last time a yorkie has been DQ'ed but I"m sure it will happen again at some point. It does take longer on some :)

Question #1
What is the purpose of showing a dog?
From the AKC website, "Dog shows (conformation events) are intended to evaluate breeding stock. The size of these events ranges from large all-breed shows, with over 3,000 dogs entered, to small local specialty club shows, featuring a specific breed. The dog's conformation (overall appearance and structure), an indication of the dog's ability to produce quality puppies, is judged."
So if I chose to evaluate my breeding stock and he is a parti carrier that I intend to produce quality puppies from, how is that unethical? I am evaluating MY breeding stock...

Question #2?
How do I acquire quality breeding/show stock?
Well, now that is not so clear. There are many lines out there (Durrer, Paquin, Rothby, Nikko, and on and on). Each line with their good traits and bad. Some exhibitors on here may refuse to own a particular line due to the weaknesses but others flock to that line for the overwhelming strengths in that line. So I have done my research and have decided that I can live with this minor fault but not that one. Then I look for exhibitors for that line or lines. I then attempt to gain their trust and hopefully someday will be trusted with one or 2 to begin my lines.
So if I am to improve my parti line and I like certain lines for their strengths and not others for their weaknesses. I have done my research, health testing, etc. But cannot find quality show stock except the carrier male that is winning in the shows with the lines I am looking for, correct? So I applaud the breeder that is showing him to improve my lines.

Question #3?
Was this post not started by Magic Genie to let everyone know about the YTCEHB...so why this huge debate about whether to parti or not? pardon the pun or what the YTCA stands for....
I think it is a great idea. I too have been burned by the show scene years ago . I do not blame Nancy, Brooklyn, Mardelin, etc...however it happened plain and simple and happens every show to many people. Take a look around and ask around what people in general think about the show circuit?
I wish that there had been someone there to coach me and mentor me. Instead I was laughed at, ridiculed, and looked down upon. I was eager to learn and open but was shut down hard and fast. I think that if YTCEHB is there to help lift up and get either the newbie, ethical breeders, or seasoned burned disgruntled breeders into the ring then what is the problem with that?

Question #4?
If I have acquired a quality male puppy that is champion sired and I would like to someday give him a chance in the ring is that wrong? If he is a standard colored from standard colored parents? If his mom is a parti? If his mom is a parti carrier?
If you go by the current set standards then regardless he can be shown if he is structurally sound, healthy, and to standard period. No where does it say that a particarrier cannot be shown. If he meets the breed requirements and is of show quality then he can be shown. If he wins and champions out then I should use him as breeding stock to improve the breed. That is what the show ring is intended for...to evaluate breeding stock.:D

Yes, he's a Yorkie. I'm saying he doesn't have the true Yorkie characteristics expressed. To me, he more resembles a Clydesdale Terrier (a now extinct breed) as I see the genes expressed more closely resembling a Clydesdale.

My point was that we see many variations among Yorkies due to their ancestry. While they are all true expressions in a historical sense, they don't meet the standard as is written and therefore cannot be shown. I was trying to use that as a different variation that can't be shown much like the Parti is a variation. There was a time when 2 dogs from the same litter might have been registered as 2 different breeds. During that time, a dog might be assigned a different breed classification based on appearance, regardless of parentage. That is, of course, no longer true but does illustrate the methods used at times to determine breed back in the early, early days. If that same criteria was used today, he would likely not be considered a Yorkie, based on the modern breed standard.

Your right we did get off topic. I hope that your organization is a huge success. If you can mentor, improve health, teach, conduct educational seminars on genetics, handling, training, that will be a good thing.

I'm going to be blunt about this; my concern with championing a dog with the parti gene, how do you insure transparency and openness when it comes time to breed the dog? This ch wouldn't be registered as a Part colour because he/she is not.

That is correct he is standard colored according to the written standard. But if I am showing him in the ring to evaluate breeding stock then I am doing what I should be doing. That was just my point on that. It is what I do afterwards that will determine ethics. If I use him on my breeding stock to improve my lines then I have done as the AKC lists. If I use him with other quality females that have weaknesses where he has strengths and vice versa then that is good, right? So if I am honest and ethical up to this point I would then, if ever approached by a show/hobby breeder to use him at stud, would disclose his parentage.

Everyone is assuming that just because I have him in the ring I intend to be unethical and stud him if he champions to the "pure blue and tan" line;). Which may have never been my intention in the first place.
But lets look even further. How many show lines out there are "pure BLUE AND TAN" ? How many have the Nikkos lines? or other proven parti producers in their lines? How about black and tans or black and golds? What about the blues? the chocolates? the golds?

The Yorkies have so many serious life threatening conditions and debilitating conditions that are linked to genetics, I for one wish people were as passionate about stopping those as they are about keeping the colors out of their lines or in them for that matter.

How many of the breeders or exhibitors on here have done testing on all their stock? If so, what tests? When you go into a ring with a dog or breed one , have they passed OFA or Penn hip, CERF, bile acids, LFTs, ect? On every dog? Should that not be mandatory? If we preach about health being of utmost importance then put your money in that dog and prove it before showing as part of the evaluation of breeding stock. But alas that is my opinion.

I just wanted to share this because it kept getting mentioned that Particolor was random spotting, and that there was no other definition for the term particolor.

Main Entry: par·ti–col·or
Pronunciation: \ˈpär-tē-ˌkə-lər\
Variant(s): or par·ti–col·ored \-lərd\
Function: adjective
Etymology: obsolete English party parti-color, from Middle English parti, from Anglo-French, of two colors, from past participle of partir to divide
Date: 1530
: showing different colors or tints; especially : having a predominant color broken by patches of one or more other colors <a parti–color cocker spaniel>

Thank you Yorkielady06
 

Thank your for your thoughtful observations and so totally "getting" the message about this club. We're not looking to take anything away from anybody. We want only to help the breed by providing support and encouragement to each other in a gentle, friendly way.