Yorkshire Terrier Club of Ethical Hobby Breeders

[yorkiegirl2]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

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

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

[Breezeaway]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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.

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?

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

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

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.

[Breezeaway]

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.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

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?

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.

[YorkieRose]

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...

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

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.

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.

[yorkiegirl2]

Originally Posted by YorkieRose

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...

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.

[Ringo1]

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.

[Elle]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

Of course I dont know what lines your dogs have but I do know some of the big names do have it in their lines.
There were parti pups born from the sire Ch Hylan Acres Ridin the Storm and a daughter of Ch. Durrers Mighty Obsession.
Durrers Ace High goes back to Finstal Icing and Finstal goes back to Streamglen Shaun, the same line some of the partis come from. HMMM

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?

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by Ringo1

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.

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

[Breezeaway]

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?

[Breezeaway]

Originally Posted by Ringo1

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.

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.

[Breezeaway]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

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

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

[JeanieK]

[quote=Mardelin;3212773]

Originally Posted by YorkieRose

Remember Kim King who defended the red leg in her breeding program? She said a number of YTCA breeders told her they are needed...I have no clue. I do not like the look of them from a breeders eye view..I feel you can achieve good color without them..but do know a line can get far too light very easily...it can be the curse of a good silk coat. Some of mine have...and I still see some grandkids too light.

My Kate has held the best blue and gold color at 5 yrs..but her GGF was the color of my "black" girl...it is a constant battle to GET it right and KEEP it right...you never get to the point where they all come out correct...

I think the Yorkie breeders here need to be applauded for caring so much about the standard and protecting it instead of being critized for simply striving to do what we are suppose to do...vote and change the standard to include Parti's and we won't have this debate again...[/QUOTE]

Pat,

We all know that this isn't going to happen. Can it? It is a possibility but, not probable.

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?