Yorkshire Terrier Club of Ethical Hobby Breeders

[puppylove11]

Originally Posted by bjh

If someone had a exceptional parti carrier then I see nothing wrong with showing it but I would question what the motive is. Some people just want to champion a dog so they can get more money for the pups. If a parti carrier became a champion and that champion parti carrier was bred to a parti to create champion sired parti yorkies then that would not be improving the breed as set forth by the yorkie standard. I really understand the passion some breeders have for the parti yorkies and the biewers. Some of them are very beautiful but I see more poorly bred ones than quality ones but I guess it is the same way with the standard yorkies. I really wish there were some easy answers.

There are no easy answers. But you can bet the ytca is busy coming up with a more strict standard concerning color as we debate, which means they will have to do more enhancing coats to show their own dogs.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by puppylove11

So you are stating you would rather see a yorkie which meets the standard by looks? Looks is only a VERY VERY small piece of the picture!

No, that post was intended to address another issue. Here's what I said on post 220.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

What's your point? Are you saying that you are a better breeder than any member of the YTCA? Good for you, but I still believe that adhering to the breed standard is an important goal as well. Health always comes first in my book, but you are not breeding parti's for health, you are breeding them for looks.

[gemy]

Okay this seems to be a very hot and emotional topic. So I would like to clarify a few points and hope for some education here.

The Yorkshire Terrier has been a breed with a standard for approximately 150 years or more? Is that correct?

At this point in time, there are "purebred" Yorkies with a recessive "parti gene" that if two recessives breed together will produce "faithfully" a certain colour pattern.

These partis have no more health risks associated with them then the traditional Yorkshire Terrier? If so please quote Health Stats and links to a reputable agency such as OFA.

Beyond the answers to these questions; I would like to point out that if you want to support the Yorkshire Terrier breed you should breed to the standard, and then do all the work necessary to get another color approved. After all there are many breeds with different colors off the top of my head, Poodles, Bouviers, Spaniels etc. Is it too early to introduce a different color into the standard and if so, why so?
I'm sorry but I can't agree with any Parti breeder knowingly going into the show ring, to finish a dog, and then go on to again disillusion reputable standard color Yorkie breeders into putting with them a breeding dog. These breeders are trying to protect the Yorkie standard as written and approved.

Should there be health checks mandatory in the breeder code of ethics by YTCA? I'm sure that is a hotly debated topic. I believe ALL breeds should have mandatory breed specific health checks as part of the requirement to be an ethical breeder/member.

I have posted before in different threads on here the ramifications of PureBred Dogs exposed, which aired on BBC about 2years ago, which was a damning although one sided view of purebred dogs, generated a whole rework of the standards at the British Kennel Club. The Kennel club. This rework included mandatory health testing on a breed specific basis. The USA and Canada will not in the long term be immune to this change.

And yes we as breeders of purebred dogs have a huge task ahead of us. Our first and paramount responsibility is to breed healthy dogs, to help fund research to find genetic markers and tests for our breed. We then have the responsibility to breed to type, to temperament, to colour and all the other factors we want to preserve in this wondrous breed.

[bjh]

Originally Posted by puppylove11

Apparently you have not had the pleasure of dealing with the ytca members I have. I have not judged all breeding members of the ytca only the ones who breed anything, produce faults along with health issues and sell them as show or breeding prospects! I also think it is very hypocritical for certain members of the ytca to judge breeders who do not show, but produce excellent examples of the standard, when they have their own issues to deal with in their own narrow minded club.

Again I stated that the half dozen or so YTCA members I know are not like that. They only breed for themselves and they are very very selective who their dogs go to. I think the larger the breeding kennel the more apt you are to find fault in some of the dogs. A show breeder can be producing very nice dogs then suddenly they may develop problems in their lines and they have to start over or go in another direction. When breeders outcross you don't know what you will get. There are no perfect lines and there are no perfect breeders. Again it comes down to ethics and you can't let a few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel.

Again it is not the club that is hypocritical of breeders that do not show, it is some of it's members. The first rule in the YTCA rule of conduct states:

1) Assistance and encouragement shall be willingly offered by members to Show Novices and others needing advice and guidance. The welfare of the breed will be in their hands in the future.

[gardenyorkies]

Originally Posted by Brooklynn

I will post one more time in this thread and then I'm done....Those that tear apart those that "enhance" a dog and claim those are the bad people and then those of you who take a parti carrier in the ring "knowing" it's wrong are no different than those that enhance. Maybe if you stop tearing down people trying to justify breeding outside the standard maybe there wouldn't be any arguments.
Why do some need to find reasons to pick people apart just to try and prove a point when I've seen many posts in this thread saying how enhancing is cheating, lying and getting away with something and then it's ok to bring in a parti carrier so how is that not cheating, lying and getting away with something? I see no difference....
Just saying....

Those that breed Parti's are never going to agree with those of us that stand behind the standard of the Yorkshire Terrier and visa versa but I see no difference in enhancing for show and knowingly taking in a Parti carrier in the ring because we all know what will show up in our breeding program whether or not it has that championship title. This should be for the betterment of the breed and passion for the breed and not profit.

Whether you enhance or show a parti carrier you know you are showing something that will crop up in your breeding program. Can I live with a lighter yorkie in my breeding program? Yes! Can I live with a Parti carrier or Parti in my breeding program? NO! Lighter yorkies are accepted in the show ring but Parti's are not so there ya have it! From my perspective at least.

BRAVO Donna!...Very well stated!...I couldn't agree with you more!

[YorkieRose]

I wonder how the color patterns of poodles, cockers, poms, danes, on and on.. started? Where they only one dominent color, then breeders developed other colors...or did they always have them in a variety of colors..

[peanut]

Hey Pat you want to see something that has surprized us.

[YorkieRose]

I think so...
Is it fit for mixed company...LOL?

[WV~Yorkies]

Originally Posted by YorkieRose

I think so...
Is it fit for mixed company...LOL?

I hope I didn't send the wrong pictures!

[peanut]

These pups are 5 weeks old, Melissa has been really working hard with them. I know you can't tell much at this age, and we weren't expecting it from this litter, but let me know what you think, are we on the right course of action. She has been putting them on the grooming table for a couple of weeks now.

20100722_25 (600 x 451).jpg girl
20100722_26 (600 x 450).jpg girl
20100722_39 (600 x 516).jpg boy

[peanut]

Originally Posted by YorkieRose

I think so...
Is it fit for mixed company...LOL?

I think we will be ok, but who knows

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by gemy

Okay this seems to be a very hot and emotional topic. So I would like to clarify a few points and hope for some education here.

The Yorkshire Terrier has been a breed with a standard for approximately 150 years or more? Is that correct?

At this point in time, there are "purebred" Yorkies with a recessive "parti gene" that if two recessives breed together will produce "faithfully" a certain colour pattern.

These partis have no more health risks associated with them then the traditional Yorkshire Terrier? If so please quote Health Stats and links to a reputable agency such as OFA.

Beyond the answers to these questions; I would like to point out that if you want to support the Yorkshire Terrier breed you should breed to the standard, and then do all the work necessary to get another color approved. After all there are many breeds with different colors off the top of my head, Poodles, Bouviers, Spaniels etc. Is it too early to introduce a different color into the standard and if so, why so?
I'm sorry but I can't agree with any Parti breeder knowingly going into the show ring, to finish a dog, and then go on to again disillusion reputable standard color Yorkie breeders into putting with them a breeding dog. These breeders are trying to protect the Yorkie standard as written and approved.

Should there be health checks mandatory in the breeder code of ethics by YTCA? I'm sure that is a hotly debated topic. I believe ALL breeds should have mandatory breed specific health checks as part of the requirement to be an ethical breeder/member.

I have posted before in different threads on here the ramifications of PureBred Dogs exposed, which aired on BBC about 2years ago, which was a damning although one sided view of purebred dogs, generated a whole rework of the standards at the British Kennel Club. The Kennel club. This rework included mandatory health testing on a breed specific basis. The USA and Canada will not in the long term be immune to this change.

And yes we as breeders of purebred dogs have a huge task ahead of us. Our first and paramount responsibility is to breed healthy dogs, to help fund research to find genetic markers and tests for our breed. We then have the responsibility to breed to type, to temperament, to colour and all the other factors we want to preserve in this wondrous breed.

Right there lies the problem. We cannot get the coloir approved withlout breeding them, we cannot breed quality dogs without quality stock.

The original registered parti colored dog, Nikko's Mickey Spillane, was sired by a champion. I imagine he was a very well built dog, with silk coat and all. But over the years they have been bred to some poor quality dogs.

We would like to try to get them back to the standard, in every way except the color. in order to do that we need some quality dogs to breed to. Silly me I was going about it the hard way, by looking for someone to sell me a nice dog. apparently others are trying to champion their carriers in order to get quality dogs.

We are told over and over to show your dogs, so you know you are breeding quality dogs. Oh but don't show them in our show ring.

So that leaves us in a bit of a pickle. I guess the YTCA will have to figure out a way to identify and DQ the carriers.

[Breny]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

Is your name Chubby Checker? Cause you sure know how to twist!!

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

I took my dancing lessons from the master.

Sorry I know this is a serious thread but these two posts just cracked me up LOL.....ok back to reading...

[YorkieRose]

Originally Posted by peanut

These pups are 5 weeks old, Melissa has been really working hard with them. I know you can't tell much at this age, and we weren't expecting it from this litter, but let me know what you think, are we on the right course of action. She has been putting them on the grooming table for a couple of weeks now.

Attachment 322435 girl
Attachment 322436 girl
Attachment 322437 boy

I will PM you tomorrow...just saw the pic's..I think they have lots of promise..exciting to watch their progress.

[kpstoybox]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

This is exactly why I stated the following:
Looking past whether or not breeding partis is "ethical", and strictly for hypothetical purposes...On an argument based on what may or may not be considered a 'fault',

The point I was trying to make, didn't have anything to do with whether or not the dogs were parti carriers or whether or not it's a desireable trait. I tried to word it in a way that would make that clear, but should have known any attempt to do so would be futile. I could have just as easily substituted that for size, ear set, bite, etc to try to make the same point==> Yes, I believe that your dog would have just as much right to be shown and CH--a dog deemed as a quality representation of the breed, per the breed standard. But I don't see how it would really "validate" one's breeding program if the dogs produced by that CH were something different.
What would it matter if you have a 4 lb CH sire if bred to a 10 lb female that resulted in 8 lb pups? How would that CH be validating one's program? I mentioned that I saw it done with people breeding the standard colored Yorkies all the time....so it cleary, as far as I concerned, was not about the Partis. It was about misrepresenting one's program by using the "CH lines" marketing ploy.

But that is the sole purpose of producing carrier's nice enough to show and finish. To set a foundation capable of producing a parti with the quality and conformation of today's show yorkie. When and if we are given a venue to show our parti's...there will be some parti's with the quality to step into the ring...and go head to head with the traditional's in the group ring.