Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 3216895)

Yes they can happen.

not wanting to start an argument, but it's not that I disagree with all that you say. I do believe that people should not voice strong opinions on ethics until they thoroughly understand both sides of the controversy.

It's not always so black and white, so unless one is personally involved they do not understand all they grey areas, so they cannot form an opinion based on experience, they are just making judgements based on hearsay.

You have to know a persons motive before you can judge them.

For example, it has been said, right here in this thread, that breeders will sometimes breed dogs, that do not meet the standard, in order to correct a fault in their line.

Breeding a dog with a fault is said to be unethical, unless it is being done for a good reason.

Dogs that carry the parti gene are said to have a fault. But if they are being exhibited in order to find out if they are worthy of being bred, so the breeder can improve their line, that should not be considered unethical.

Wwe are not breeding just to breed, we are trying to develop the parti into a great dog.

Does that make sense?

Also being fairly new on YT, you do not know what parti breeders have been told in the past. We were told, show your dogs, to find out if the are worthy of being bred, and so on. Now that they are showing they are being told they are unethical.

So you see there is a lot here that a new person does not understand, and therefore, in my opinion, are not qualified to make judgements.

That is just my opinion and do not want to start an argument.

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama (Post 3216889)

So how did breeds like Cocker Spaniels and Poodles get their different color classifications and dachshunds get 3 recognized coat textures? I honestly don't see how partis or biewers are excluded when the AKC recognizes color variations in other breeds.

Originally Posted by Disney (Post 3216920)

I like to respond by saying I really admire you respond so politely with no personal attack. :) It mean more than you ever understand to me.

You raise valid point, and I do understand where you coming from. I do not voice opinion on subject I no believe I don't know enough about. If I not qualified, I butt out. I has studied parti gene and drawn own conclusions. Simply, my opinion is that they don't fit standard, therefore should not be breed. Don't know enough about the old debate because as you say, I new to this world and also to be honest, my literary skill not strong enough to properly understand pedigree yet.

I stand by opinion that yorkie should only be bred to standard. To me, it unethical to breed outside of standard. This only my opinion.

So while I agree with you on some point, I believe you need understand that you do not know me well enough to say what I do and not know.

Does make sense?

Originally Posted by Mardelin (Post 3216928)

Disney,

Let me add.....breeding a dog is not as simple as all that....breeding out of standard is.

Let's say you have a dog with a low tail set (a fault), but has all the other attributes that is desired within the standard. As a breeder you would want to correct that fault, so you breed it to a dog that can correct that low tail set faults. There is no perfect dog and a breeder that understands this and canine genetics, knows how to correct faults.....The same with bad ear sets, rears, fronts, laybacks, toplines, etc.

Originally Posted by Disney (Post 3216936)

I learning about this Mary. I rephrase.

Breeding specific for fault, and not to breed out in long run is wrong to me.

Originally Posted by chachi (Post 3216939)

The way I see it all members are equal on here and any member has a right to give their opinion no matter how much experience they have in the matter.

Originally Posted by Mardelin (Post 3216940)

I understand what you're saying and agree. I've learned that you breed to correct faults, not to breed said faults in. But, one needs understand how to do this and understand that some faults may take several generations to breed out, while other's can be done with one or two generations.

Originally Posted by chachi (Post 3216939)

The way I see it all members are equal on here and any member has a right to give their opinion no matter how much experience they have in the matter.

Originally Posted by topknot (Post 3216944)

As I have been stating as well as some others - you have to go by how the standard is written at the time you are breeding. Simple! One should be breeding as the standard is written.

Originally Posted by Disney (Post 3216920)

I like to respond by saying I really admire you respond so politely with no personal attack. :) It mean more than you ever understand to me.

You raise valid point, and I do understand where you coming from. I do not voice opinion on subject I no believe I don't know enough about. If I not qualified, I butt out. I has studied parti gene and drawn own conclusions. Simply, my opinion is that they don't fit standard, therefore should not be breed. Don't know enough about the old debate because as you say, I new to this world and also to be honest, my literary skill not strong enough to properly understand pedigree yet.

I stand by opinion that yorkie should only be bred to standard. To me, it unethical to breed outside of standard. This only my opinion.

So while I agree with you on some point, I believe you need understand that you do not know me well enough to say what I do and not know.

Does make sense?

Originally Posted by Disney (Post 3216947)

I agree and thanks you. :)



I agree. I imagine lot of work and study go into this, it not just choosing two healthy pretty dog and hoping for best. You pick stud and bitch VERY careful for trait you wish carry on, and decide whether weakness worth the great quality, if weakness can be breed out.

On right track?

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 3216957)

But as I pointed out. Exhibitor/breeders do it all the time. They will breed a dog that does not meet the color standard in iorder to improve the color in their line. they will breed bitches over 7 pounds if she is correct in every other way.

So why is it wrong for us, but OK for them.

Also, those who are YTCA members, I think, (I'm sure they will correct me if I'm wrong), I think they pledge to uphold all of the rules and regulations of the YTCA. I also think that one of those rules is to NOT breed outside of the standard.

So they pledged not to do it, yet some do it anyway. We parti breeders did not pledge to do anything, so therefore we are not governed by the rules of the YTCA.

I would not join a group and pledge to abide by their rules and then break the rules. IMO that would be unethical, because they do not have to join the club, they do it by choice. If I did not like the rules, I would't join the club.

Originally Posted by Disney (Post 3216947)

I agree and thanks you. :)



I agree. I imagine lot of work and study go into this, it not just choosing two healthy pretty dog and hoping for best. You pick stud and bitch VERY careful for trait you wish carry on, and decide whether weakness worth the great quality, if weakness can be breed out.

On right track?

Originally Posted by Mardelin (Post 3216958)

So far, so good.......

Originally Posted by Disney (Post 3216947)

I agree and thanks you. :)



I agree. I imagine lot of work and study go into this, it not just choosing two healthy pretty dog and hoping for best. You pick stud and bitch VERY careful for trait you wish carry on, and decide whether weakness worth the great quality, if weakness can be breed out.
On right track?