Yorkshire Terrier Club of Ethical Hobby Breeders

[Disney]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

You do not have to be a member of the YTCA or pledge to abide by their rules to show a yorkie in an AKC sanctioned event.

And how would showing set back my cause?

My "cause" is to better my parti's. Showing my carriers is one of many tools to do just that.

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.

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by Disney

Hope one day I can has eagle eye like you!

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

[kpstoybox]

Originally Posted by Brooklynn

Jeannie, She's saying it's unethical taking a known parti carrier to get a CH tile because some, not you, keep harping that enhancing/coloring a standard yorkie is unethical...I don't see it being any different and yes both are unethical because showing a known Parti carrier to get a CH title and breeding for Partis is being just as decietful as enhancing/coloring the standard yorkie...

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.

[Woogie Man]

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.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

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.

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.

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

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'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.

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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.

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

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Brooklynn

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?

[gemy]

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?

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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?

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

[gemy]

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

[gemy]

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

[gemy]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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?

Harry looks eminently lovable to me.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Brooklynn

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 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.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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.

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