Yep I guess it is.
There have been partis produced from the lines of
Jentre
Wildweir
Durrers
Hylan
Parquins
Nikkos

And you have proof of this?

Yes mam I do.

Those I sell to a show home cant sell a show dog out of that litter it's in my contract. And my contract states also that before breeding it does have to be championed and anything they sell from that litter has to be sold as a pet only and spayed or neutered upon leaving their home. They can keep a show quality yorkie for themselves and not sell or place a show dog from that breeding into another home. Some show breeders require to only sell to a show home from a second generation breeding. And I have to approve any show home before being sold. I hope that answers your question :)

Donna

If, in some hypothetical court, you could sue the YTCA for recognition, what would you offer as proof to your claim? I see 3 things:

1. Vague historical mentions of 'off colored' Yorkies.

2. Mars DNA profile, with its own disclaimer on the certificate.

3. AKC DNA profile, establishing parentage only.

Do you really think you would prevail? I think not and, IMO, the YTCA has already gone too far in calling the Parti merely a DQ. They should probably have said something like there is not enough evidence to establish the Parti as a pure bred Yorkie at this time.

What's really disturbing is the intention to deliberately put carriers in the ring. This does nothing to better the breed but only serves to corrupt the breed. It's an end-around the DQ.

Maybe the YTCA should make it a DQ for any dog with a Parti in its pedigree. With your stated intentions, which is probably shared by at least some others, the breed is in need of further protection.

Then by all means share it.

Not sure what you are trying to gain, but you are really saying something terrible about a very good friend that is a lie.

The color of the Yorkie is NOT what is stopping it from going BIS at the Garden...
Who else here saw Higgins show at the Garden?..we are talking about a Yorkie who was in the right place at the right time and knew it was his fate..he showed to a Yorkie loving judge, he was a Yorkie who loved to show and was the best at it...would Higgins win the Garden today. no I do not think so...if we want a BIS Yorkie, we better breed one who can all but talk to the judge and ooze that Yorkie personnality to go with impeccable quality and grooming...

All of my info is for the YTCA , I dont have the desire to share it on a forum.

You can not DQ a dog because of bloodlines, not going to happen.

They cant say that because they are AKC registered, so that means they ARE Parti colored Yorkshire Terriers

I'm sure I didnt say any names of people, so how can I be talking about your friend?

Never use the words.."never will"...

There is only one way to achieve this.. NEVER allow a dog or bitch out of your house intact..do not use stud service even from breeders with impeccable reputations...stud owners can be tricked and deceived, then the stud you used is suddenly showing up in a Parti pedigree...and you have Parti's in your line.
I sound like I hate them..not so. I play by the rules until told the rules are changed.

We've had some great yorkies presented over the years. I didn't see him but After this year? :rolleyes:

Well I for one don't go by what is hearsay. I like facts so until that happens I guess I will just have to form my own opinion.

Even if Parti fanciers could prove that Paris are indeed pure bred Yorkies, that shouldn't be assumed to be a great leap forward into the ring.

Take the flop eared Yorkie, for example. No one would deny that they are pure Yorkies, but no one would put them in the ring, either. Funny thing is, there WERE flop eared Yorkies in the ring at one time. A great many early Yorkies had their ears cropped and were not naturally pricked. With the outlawing of ear cropping, those dogs instantly had no place in the ring, due to the breed standard.

So there is a history of dogs once allowed in the ring to no longer be. I'm certain those dogs owners had more of a case than Parti breeders but they had to yield for the betterment of the breed.

Tracing back on pedigrees few other suspected lines.
OZMILLION, CLARKWYN. JU-GENE‘S, DEEBEES, SHADOW MOUNTAIN,

Isnt that all that the Yorkshire Terrier has is DNA for parentage? Do they have other tests to prove that they are indeed Yorkies? Their historical facts aren't so cut and dry on the yorkie.
Do they have proof that there isn't partis.
Do the pedigrees lie?

Yes, that horse has already left the barn. I was saying what 'could' have been done but they chose to go the DQ route.

I personally don't think the AKC has the final say in what a breed club will recognize as one of their own. They have a vested interest in registrations (revenue) and have been shown in the past to not be beyond reproach. I don't know what went on between the AKC and YTCA at that time, but I'm sure there were discussions. The results are pretty clear, though.

Again why would Joan Gordon of Wildweir Kennels write this in her book in 1976 if it were not true,
"It is not unusual to find small white marks on one or more toes or a fine white line in the lower fore jaw. These will not be visible as an adult. A large amount of white marks on the chest, paws, jaws, or skull, places a yorkie into a tri-color classification and it is very wise to guard against this possibility. Yorkshire terrier puppies can be born of colors that automatically deprive them of the necessary qualities to become the proper colors of the breed. They can be born all black: all tan: tan with black points; tri-color: black, white, and tan; all blue; bluish grey with tan points; and so remain or change to another shade of their newly born colors. These mismarked Yorkie puppies are not the result of the mis-alliances or throwbacks but are rather the net product of incorrectly inherited genes which have failed to activate the pigment glandular system to providing what they require to be in accord with the yorkshire terrier standard. Puppies incorrectly colored or marked should not be sold as rare, they should not be registered Yorkshire Terriers but should simply be found a loving home If one cannot bring oneself to having them put down."

And yes I know she says they should not be registered and PUT DOWN.
But what it does say is that there were and are Parti colored yorkies.

I'll refer back to what I said earlier:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Even if Parti fanciers could prove that Paris are indeed pure bred Yorkies, that shouldn't be assumed to be a great leap forward into the ring.

Take the flop eared Yorkie, for example. No one would deny that they are pure Yorkies, but no one would put them in the ring, either. Funny thing is, there WERE flop eared Yorkies in the ring at one time. A great many early Yorkies had their ears cropped and were not naturally pricked. With the outlawing of ear cropping, those dogs instantly had no place in the ring, due to the breed standard.

So there is a history of dogs once allowed in the ring to no longer be. I'm certain those dogs owners had more of a case than Parti breeders but they had to yield for the betterment of the breed."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The point being....so what if it's a Yorkie? It still has no place in the ring, just as the other off-standard variations don't.

I do hope we have learned a few things in 34 yrs...there is never a need to destroy a healthy, non-standard color puppy...

Acknowledgment of existence is a far cry from recognition for breed conformation. Gordon did say that they should not be registered as Yorkshire Terriers. What her personal opinion was is not clear but those words are very telling. I don't see how you can take every scrap of mention to legitimize your desire for recognition in the ring. Off colors, like other deviations from the standard, do not belong in the ring, which is used to confirm breed worthiness as per the breed standard.

One would hope so but sadly not the case.
When a parti showed up in a show line a while back the breeder told the person to destroy the pup.
Luckly the person didn't listen.

Ok, so I am not a breeder or a show person but I have been following this thread with interest.

Forgive my ignorance once again, but why can't they just make a whole new breed for the Parti? Does it have to be a Yorkshire Terrier or why can't you make a whole new terrier called the Parti Terrier or something? Wouldn't that be better than being the backward cousin to the yorkie that no one wants to recognize?

People would still want them; they are still beautiful and unusual, and you could then get in the show ring and do your thing?

I'm sure it's not that simple but from an outsider looking in ~ it seems that there must be some way to solve the problem. :idontknow

You do not know anything about pedigrees or the history of yorkies. If you did, you would know more about Finstal.

What's the difference between one pedigree that goes back to Finstal with mixed breeds in it or another? It's gone on for years. How many people have AKC papers for yorkies that don't look like yorkies?

Thank you for posting that. I had the same question, but was afraid to ask it.

I most certainly know about pedigrees. What more should I know about Finstal.
His pedigree on one side goes back to Streamglen Shaun. Whats so hard about that?

Because the Parti color is not a breed , It is just a color of Yorkshire Terrier. It is already AKC registered as a breed. Color Does not make a new breed. AKC will not allow you to make a new breed when they are already registered as one.

Dont be afraid to ask questions, I would be glad to answer any that I can.

[quote=Mardelin;3212773]I think it will happen in time. Eventually someone without enough clout will push for them to be included. Maybe not in my life time, but in time.

But would it be so bad if they were in a seperate category?

I cannot see how it would have any affect on the traditional yhorkies in any way. they would not need to change the standard, they would not be in the ring together.

Seriously, why would it be a bad thing?