Yorkshire Terrier Club of Ethical Hobby Breeders

[Mardelin]

[QUOTE=JeanieK;3211304]Unethical is a pretty strong word. I can understand why people would get upset over it. But I can also understand why it is being done. It really depends on the motive. However if there is nothing in the standard then they really are doing nothing wrong.

How ever "just because you can", does not mean you should.

For example there is nothing in the YT rules against joining and pretending to be someone whom you are not. But just because one can doesn't mean one should.[/QUOTE]

And it is ethically wrong to accuse someone of something you have no proof of.


You've mentioned your suspicions many times and many threads, privately and publically. Give it a rest, it's obvious what your motives. are.

[gardenyorkies]

Originally Posted by Brooklynn

I think there are two Moonlights am I not correct....I'm just shaking my head

Yep you are correct!

[magicgenie]

Originally Posted by YorkieRose

Which Moonlight Kennel may I ask?

Anyone remember how YT got popular? We were all on Moonlights forum and found out it was a puppymiller...forum folded in one day..we all came here.

Moonlight's Two Times Bad is Connie Conn's. She's YTCA and has an impeccable reputation!

[Breezeaway]

This Moonlight is the one I am talking about.
Moonlight Yorkies

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by gardenyorkies

This is quite simple...IMO...The standard is already written for the Yorkshire Terrier and does not allow white...The standard requires it to be blue & tan and that it be in specific locations on the Yorkie...

they can create another category for the parti color.. But they won't if no one pushes for it.

We are told to show and get professiolnal opinions on our dogs, but when someone does it they are told they are unethical, for doing it.

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by magicgenie

Moonlight's Two Times Bad is Connie Conn's. She's YTCA and has an impeccable reputation!

I know who Connie Conn is and yes she's a YTCA member but I don't know her personally, I just wonder if she knows her lines are going to be bred into the Parti lines? I don't know her so I can't commenet on reputation.

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

they can create another category for the parti color.. But they won't if no one pushes for it.

We are told to show and get professiolnal opinions on our dogs, but when someone does it they are told they are unethical, for doing it.

Yes we say get professional opinions but when it's a DQ and not what the standard calls for it's not doing it the right way. Am I not correct?

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

Unethical is a pretty strong word. I can understand why people would get upset over it. But I can also understand why it is being done. It really depends on the motive. However if there is nothing in the standard then they really are doing nothing wrong.

How ever "just because you can", does not mean you should.

For example there is nothing in the YT rules against joining and pretending to be someone whom you are not. But just because one can doesn't mean one should.

Originally Posted by Brooklynn

I know who Connie Conn is and yes she's a YTCA member but I don't know her personally, I just wonder if she knows her lines are going to be bred into the Parti lines? I don't know her so I can't commenet on reputation.

Donna,

I spoke to Parkside a couple of years back and the subject of Lake Buena Vista. Her words were she was highly disappointed and upset in how Lake Buena Vista used her lines. One of the reasons breeders are clamping down with their pedigrees.

[gardenyorkies]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

they can create another category for the parti color.. But they won't if no one pushes for it.

We are told to show and get professiolnal opinions on our dogs, but when someone does it they are told they are unethical, for doing it.

I'm sorry but all the pushing in the world is not going to get the members of the YTCA to accept this as a color variation...At least not in my lifetime...

[gardenyorkies]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

Donna,

I spoke to Parkside a couple of years back and the subject of Lake Buena Vista. Her words were she was highly disappointed and upset in how Lake Buena Vista used her lines. One of the reasons breeders are clamping down with their pedigrees.

This is so sad Mary...Things like this is what makes it so difficult to obtain nice dogs...

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by gardenyorkies

This is so sad Mary...Things like this is what makes it so difficult to obtain nice dogs...

Yes, it does make it very hard to obtain nice dogs. There is this one line I really want but I'm in the process of gaining her trust because of things like this and being betrayed because she trusted and I don't blame her! I will be patient and continue to gain her trust in me and I'll never do her lines injustice! I will protect it like my own child!!! I'm just that type of person.

Donna

[Micah my love]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

Thank you, he is out of Multi Ch. Moonlights Two Times Bad

WOW !!!! I am impressed i think she has some of the greatest all so beautiful

[YorkieRose]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

This Moonlight is the one I am talking about.
Moonlight Yorkies

Connie Conn is not the Moonlight kennel forum we were all on...

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by Brooklynn

But the point still remains...you can't show a Parti in the show ring and it can't obtain a CH title. There is still no way to have a judge evaluate a Parti to see if it's of breeding quality without going in a show ring so what is the objective to have just the carrier to have the approval without having the Parti color being approved. Just because the parti carrier was proved in the ring doesn't mean the parti color being bred and produced is a proved seciman of the breed isn't that correct? Just because a standard yorkie receives a CH title still doesn't mean it's worthy either as we all know some obtain a CH title that shouldn't....so if it's for bettering a line having the CH title isn't going to help if you can't show the Parti color your producing or breeding unless it's to supply the pet market or for money. I'm not saying you do it but I'm just saying you can't have a judge evaluate the Parti because they aren't allowed. Seems to me it's still deceiving or trying to justify the breeding of Parti's. I'm not I'm talking about anyone in particular.

Why is it inconceivable that it is being done to produce better dogs in hopes that in the future they will be allowed in the ring.

We cannot present a very good argument for competing if we don;t have dogs worth of competing.

We hear constantantly that even without considering the color, that they are poor examples of a yorkie. At one time they were produced by champions, then they went comercial and lost a lot. We are trying to bring them back to looking like yorkies of a different color.

Let me ask you this. Are you personally against the YTCA creating a category for the parti color?

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by Brooklynn

Yes we say get professional opinions but when it's a DQ and not what the standard calls for it's not doing it the right way. Am I not correct?

How are we to get another color classification started if we don't first breed the dogs?

Everytime some someone has started a new breed or coloer, no doubt, they have met with opposition. They were not deterred.

In your eyes we are doing wrong, in our eyes we are pioneers. Nothing would change if people didn't go out on a limb and push for it.

Motive is what separates the unethical breeders from the pioneers. our main objective is to produce quality dogs, the only thing we are trying to do is to get another color classification.

the standard for the traditional would not change