I think you miss point. They breeding to BETTER breed. They breeding OUT fault. Parti breeding FOR fault.

NO they do not breed out the fault, some of the offspring still have it.

We are working to develop the parti color. I imagine with all the other breeds that have different colors, people were bashed for developing those colors also, but eventually they were accepted.

And we are doing the same thing with the parti color, working to better it.

We do not belong to the YTCA, we did not pledge to uphold their rules, we are not mass producing substandard dog, we are not doing anything unethical.

I feel you twisting my word to suit your logic. You intelligent lady, I no you understand what I trying to say.

I won't comment on introduce parti colour because I still research whether they 'natural occurrence' or not. So far, I belief not because believe they have mutt not just yorkie. So until finish research, I leave that to more experience lover of the beautiful standard to debate.

Nice to have civil debate with you Jeanie! :)

I think many many many MANY yorkie lover disagree that parti breeder are not producing poor quality dog.

So why not just NOT breed that dog in the first place? Why not just breed champions that have no faults?

You are not breeding the fault out of that dog, it still has the fault, and so do half of the offspring.

What you are saying is that if you breed a traditional, that meets the standard, to a parti, and you get all carriers, That would be OK?

If you breed two CH carriers together and half of the puppies are traditional and half are partis, is that OK?

You see what I mean about not being all black and white?

But that it is just a color. that does not make them, poor quality, just makes them the wrong color.

A dog with a bad tail set is not good quality either.

I understand the point being made here...II don't understand why the logic is so confusing...:confused: Breeding two dogs that will produce offspring that are a better representation of the breed. Isn't that what breeders are supposed to do...carefully select a pair that will compliment each other and correct any flaws?

The difference, as I see it, would be be the goal in what you are trying to produce as the end result--dogs that meet the standard vs those that don't.

I would think that in that case, any pups that inherited the fault would be placed as pets and not used for breeding--that only quality pups where the fault was corrected as desired would be used to further the line. That wouldnt' really be different from any other breeding, would it? Holding back specific dogs for breeding?

The AKC Dna'd 42 litters of puppies and their ancestors before they were convinced that the color was naturally occuring in the yorkie breed. They are the experts on dogs and genetics. I respect their professional decision

Historical documents that go way back to the beginning, talk of white yorkies.

The leading authorities on the Yorkie breed say they had parti colored yorkies in their line.

These are professionals, they wrote the book on yorkies. maybe you should read their book.

So how is breeding for what is perceived as a fault in color any different than breeding dogs that are too tiny to be healthy? From what I'm reading of the standard, because there is no minimum weight stated, someone with a tiny girl could show and potentially win. - Now I know the breeders here will state that would never happen because the judges all know what is considered a good breed specimen and a 3 lb girl isn't "it". But it's still not listed as a fault when an otherwise healthy dog that meets the standard in every way except being the "wrong" color is considered faulty.

Sorry- I don't mean to be confrontational here, but I truly don't understand the thinking that is going on here with the YTCA.

Here's the thing....no dog is perfect and you'll never achieve the perfect dog it's just not going to happen.
The Parti color is a DQ in the Yorkshire Terrier Standard...so therefore that is not what should be in the show ring and should be in a pet home. Until that changes it's simple breed to the standard. A low tail set is not a DQ and a yorkie can have a level top line with a low tail set but of course you want to improve on that tail set so you breed to a yorkie that has a good tail set. All dogs have faults you breed to improve those faults. A Parti is a DQ so of course you shouldn't be breeding for that. Of course the siblings will inherit what is a fault so there for you place in a pet home and keep and show/breed the better quality one and keep on improving on the one that is the better representation of the breed.

my question is, why breed the dog with the fault in the firxst place. Why not find another correct dog to breed to?

Why not just get another champion and breed that?

You make that sounds so simple. :p This concept would is a prime candidate for what you have referred to as 'not being so black and white.'

Do you follow this logic in your own program? Does anyone?

me either. or those breeders who excuse using dogs that do not meet the standard, in order to better the breed. They didn't better anything. the dog still has the fault and so do half of the offspring. So how did that better the breed.

What it did was to better their line. Not the entire breed.

What we are all dloing is competing with ourselves. trying to make the next generation better than the last. And that is the challenge that keeps us all breeding.

Why if the end result would be the same either way? If you could eliminate the fault from the line, the same thing is achieved. That'a a very broad question in itself. Why does a breeder choose any of the dogs that they decide to implement into their programs?

Does anyone? Maybe some do, but no I do not, but them I am not accusing others, of being unethical, for doing the same thing that I am doing myself.

The entire point of my post to Disney was to show here that it isn't black and white. Something I'm sure she will learn once she gets more involved.

Breeders don't always do the right thing, judges don't always do the right thing, so how is one wrong any more wrong than another wrong?

It's all in the eyes of the beholder. it is not cut and dried, it's all subjective, depending on olnes viewpoint.

I know it is confusing. It has to come down to ethics then. I had a beautiful bitch from champion parents, great line, and won in puppy classes (no points), then she decided not to grow anymore. She got to 4 pounds and I was still new to showing (back in the 1980s). I kept taking her to the shows to gain expereince for me and to learn from my mentors. I just could not see why she was not winning once my girl was an adult and in open classes. My mentor was telling me why, but I just did not want to hear her and was still hoping in my heart my baby would grow and then we would be getting those points. She was so perfect, except in size. Luckily I knew not to breed her and my goal was to get her finished first before finding her the perfect match. Well, I finally got the courage to ask a judge why she did not give the win to my little girl. She was fantastic the way she explained it to me. She stated that showing is proving that your dog is breed worthy and your girl is just too small. It finally clicked with me. She was right and my mentor/breeder was right. It was so hard for me to accept at first because I was emotionally attached to her and had goals I was hoping to meet with her. Sometimes it just doesn't work out.

So we are back to ethics - what is right for the breed. What is the breed standard?

"If most people were asked to close their eyes and asked to visualize a yorkie, what do they see but a standard color yorkie." Yorkies were breed for their standard color.

P.S. The breeders I know use the standard when they decide to breed, since this is what is right.
We do not have the perfect yorkie. There are different degrees of faults. Tri color would be a big fault to me, since the breed is noted for its standard color.

Good question.

you miss the point...there is not going to be one champion that doesn't have a fault...it's what fault one can live with...and the faults I can live with is NOT a DQ in our standard.

Donna

The Black and gold are DQs also, would you breed one with gold in hopes of improving a tan that is too light?

The gold in the face is NOT a DQ and no I don't breed black in my program. I breed Radar who has a very nice gold :)

The breeders I know and that I have seen their dogs they have breed - have never bred to black. Nor I.

Blue and "Gold" or "Tan" is not a DQ.

I haven't seen a yorkie DQ'ed in the yorkie ring for being too dark as an adult in the ring but I have seen a yorkie DQ'ed for being too light as an adult.

I've seen puppies when they haven't been cleared in the head yet being DQ'ed but that's all as far as what I've seen being DQ'ed...

I would come more seeing a judge DQ a yorkie that is over 2 for being too light but not too dark but that is in my humble opinion.

Donna

DNA only proves parentage not color...As said before many times we don't know where the white is coming from...It is thought to be from another breed years ago which would not show up on a DNA test of today...So we really don't know...

The white that may have been there years ago was not desirable and breeders have worked hard to keep the blue/tan yorkie as it is...Not going to just trash years of work because one group of people now want it...Where do we draw the line...all gold, blue borns...blue/tan...gold/tan...I think not...I personally think the line was drawn in the right place...

:thumbup:

This sums it up nicely. Also, the YTCA didn't pick on just Partis for DQ. Chocolates and goldens, among others, are affected by the same DQ. If a group of breeders of these dogs were to make a fuss, they would meet the same argument.

Also, as Topknot pointed out earlier, a too small dog, though not a DQ, will not ever win in the ring. Likewise, a too light adult as Donna pointed out. No one is beating down the door to champion these dogs. While they may be beautiful, they are not the best representations of the breed and shouldn't be championed. So, just because the YTCA doesn't specifically exclude these dogs, the ring has served as the final proving ground for breed-worthiness and most acknowledge that reality.

What not does anyone get as in there is no perfect dog? Of course there are going to be faults in every breed "period"...there will "never" be that perfect speciman. We can only breed to improve what is a fault but not breed what is a DQ or a major devatition from the standard. We all know that the Parti color is a "major" devatiton and a "DQ" within the yorkie standard so why should there be any argument regarding the yorkshire terrier standard?
Oh well...guess one can twist what I say to fit their own needs and I can't change their opinion so from here on out I will concentrate on educating the public on the Yorkshire Terrier Standard and where I stand. :)

I am only going to say this as an observer and this is what is concerning me about alot of the parti breeders.(not all, but most are breeders on the parti web-sites and some are members that post here)

I have looked at your pictures. Granted they are very cute. OK, here comes the BUT!!LOL
It seems to me that most of you are only breeding for color only. The conformation of the dogs is sub-standard, to say the least. I see roached backs, sparse hair, long noses, down faces, bat ears, bad fronts and rears, poor ears sets, loppy ears, low tail sets, etc. And these are your breeding stock! I fail to see how you are going to improve your stock breeding the quality that I have seen. I am not looking at just color either. Its the conformation that, if it were me and these were all blue and tan dogs, I would spay and neuter most of them.
I am not wanting to start any arguments, I am just observing. As is said, people tend to get kennel blindness after a while. And breeding for one triat is not a good idea. The rest of the dogs gets lost.
I know, I know. There are tons of standard breeders that breed sub-standard Yorkies. They are everywhere. But (theres that word again!LOL), you are wanting to show you dogs, hopefully someday, and I cant think of many breeder/exhibitors of Yorkies that would have started with the quaility you advertise.

As I said I dont want to start arguments. These are some serious matters that some of the parti breeders need to think about. Most of those faults I mentioned will takes years and generations to breed out.
Hoepfully you will take this as constructive critisizm.:)

I wonder how parti breeders would even know how to evaluate their dogs for faults since they are never evaluated by a professional