Breed Standard -- K.C. vs YTCA
 

Below is posted the Yorkshire Terrier breed standard from both the K.C. (U.K.) and the YTCA. They are very similar but do have some differences. I'd like to hear people's thoughts about how the differences translate into the dogs we breed and what we consider 'ideal' and which standard better maintains 'terrier' traits.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From The K.C.

General Appearance
Long-coated, coat hanging quite straight and evenly down each side, a parting extending from nose to end of tail. Very compact and neat, carriage very upright conveying an important air. General outline conveying impression of vigorous and well proportioned body.

Characteristics
Alert, intelligent toy terrier.

Temperament
Spirited with even disposition.

Head and Skull
Rather small and flat, not too prominent or round in skull, nor too long in muzzle; black nose.

Eyes
Medium, dark, sparkling, with sharp intelligent expression and placed to look directly forward. Not prominent. Edge of eyelids dark.

Ears
Small, V-shaped, carried erect, not too far apart, covered with short hair, colour very deep, rich tan.

Mouth
Perfect, regular and complete scissor bite, i.e. upper teeth closely overlapping lower teeth and set square to the jaws. Teeth well placed with even jaws.

Neck
Good reach.

Forequarters
Well laid shoulders, legs straight, well covered with hair of rich golden tan a few shades lighter at ends than at roots, not extending higher on forelegs than elbow.

Body
Compact with moderate spring of rib, good loin. Level back.

Hindquarters
Legs quite straight when viewed from behind, moderate turn of stifle. Well covered with hair of rich golden tan a few shades lighter at ends than at roots, not extending higher on hindlegs than stifles.

Feet
Round; nails black

Tail
Previously customarily docked
Docked: Medium length with plenty of hair, darker blue in colour than rest of body, especially at end of tail. Carried a little higher than level of back.
Undocked: Plenty of hair, darker blue in colour than rest of body, especially at end of tail. Carried a little higher than level of back. As straight as possible. Length to give a well balanced appearance.

Gait/Movement
Free with drive; straight action front and behind, retaining level topline.

Coat
Hair on body moderately long, perfectly straight (not wavy), glossy; fine silky texture, not woolly, must never impede movement. Fall on head long, rich golden tan, deeper in colour at sides of head, about ear roots and on muzzle where it should be very long. Tan on head not to extend on to neck, nor must any sooty or dark hair intermingle with any of tan.

Colour
Dark steel blue (not silver blue), extending from occiput to root of tail, never mingled with fawn, bronze or dark hairs. Hair on chest rich, bright tan. All tan hair darker at the roots than in middle, shading to still lighter at tips.

Size
Weight up to 3.2 kgs (7 lbs).

Faults
Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog.

Note
Male animals should have two apparently normal testicles fully descended into the scrotum.

Last Updated - October 2009

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...and from the YTCA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

General Appearance

That of a long-haired toy terrier whose blue and tan coat is parted on the face and from the base of the skull to the end of the tail and hangs evenly and quite straight down each side of body. The body is neat, compact and well proportioned. The dog's high head carriage and confident manner should give the appearance of vigor and self importance.


Head

Small and rather flat on top, the skull not too prominent or round, the muzzle not too long, with the bite neither undershot nor overshot and teeth sound. Either scissors bite or level bite is acceptable. The nose is black. Eyes are medium in size and not too prominent; dark in color and sparkling with a sharp, intelligent expression. Eye rims are dark. Ears are small, V-shaped, carried erect and set not too far apart.


Body
Well proportioned and very compact. The back is rather short, the back line level, with height at shoulder the same as at the rump.


Legs and Feet

Forelegs should be straight, elbows neither in nor out. Hind legs straight when viewed from behind, but stifles are moderately bent when viewed from the sides. Feet are round with black toenails. Dew claws, if any, are generally removed from the hind legs. Dew claws on the forelegs may be removed.


Tail

Docked to a medium length and carried slightly higher than the level of the back.

Coat

Quality, texture and quantity of coat are of prime importance. Hair is glossy, fine and silky in texture. Coat on the body is moderately long and perfectly straight (not wavy). It may be trimmed to floor length to give ease of movement and a neater appearance, if desired. The fall on the head is long, tied with one bow in center of head or parted in the middle and tied with two bows. Hair on muzzle is very long. Hair should be trimmed short on tips of ears and may be trimmed on feet to give them a neat appearance.


Colors

Puppies are born black and tan and are normally darker in body color, showing an intermingling of black hair in the tan until they are matured. Color of hair on body and richness of tan on head and legs are of prime importance in adult dogs, to which the following color requirements apply: BLUE: Is a dark steel blue, not a silver blue and not mingled with fawn, bronzy or black hairs. TAN: All tan hair is darker at the roots than in the middle, shading to still lighter tan at the tips. There should be no sooty or black hair intermingled with any of the tan.


Color on Body
.
The blue extends over the body from back of neck to root of tail. Hair on tail is a darker blue, especially at end of tail.


Head fall

A rich golden tan, deeper in color at sides of head, at ear roots and on the muzzle, with ears a deep rich tan. Tan color should not extend down on back of neck.


Chest and Legs

A bright, rich tan, not extending above the elbow on the forelegs nor above the stifle on the hind legs.


Weight

Must not exceed seven pounds.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've highlighted a few differences that I noticed

1. The KC calls for a scissor bite while the YTCA calls for level or scissor bite.

2. The KC addresses the neck while the YTCA doesn't.

3.The KC addresses the lay back of the shoulders while the YTCA doesn't.

4. As to the body, the KC calls for 'compact' while the YTCA calls for 'very compact'. The KC calls for 'good loin' while the YTCA calls for 'back rather short'.

5. The KC addresses gait while the YTCA doesn't.

Thoughts, anyone?

on the KC, it says ears covered with short hair. does not give any specifics. does that mean the entire ear is shaved, top part of ear is shaved or are they saying that the yorkie has short hair on ears naturally? kInd of a strange part in their standard. I will look at more differences.......

I note that temperament is addressed by the K>C> and not YTCA. Gait as well is not addressed.

For me two very important parts of a dog's make-up.

Good Loin; would need to be addressed separately; maybe it is in their illustrated standard.

AS an interesting note, the only thing that appeared to have changed in their breed standard after the 2009 amendment to all breed standards was the underlined following:

Yorkshire Terrier
Coat Hair on body moderately long, perfectly straight (not wavy), glossy; fine silky texture, not woolly, must never impede movement. Fall on head long, rich golden tan, deeper in colour at sides of head, about ear roots and on muzzle where it should be very long. Tan on head not to extend on to neck, nor must any sooty or dark hair intermingle with any of tan.

It is probably a good amendment in so far as that go; so that dog's are not stepping on their coat, which could imped reach or drive, or both.

Although I do wonder why no health testing has been added in

I didn't notice that but it would seem to be a grooming issue rather than the physical makeup of the dog.

The temperament thing got by me. Thanks for noticing. I did mention the bite, gait, shoulder layback and loin which, to me, are important physical characteristics and all do differ (at least somewhat) between the two clubs.

The loin length is a critical point as this affects the flexibility of the dog. I have a little girl with a very short back and she is precious, but nowhere near as agile as my others.

Yes; I'd have to look more closely line by line, but every KC breed standard starts off with the following paragraph:

A Breed Standard is the guideline which describes the ideal characteristics, temperament and appearance of a breed and ensures that the breed is fit for function. Absolute soundness is essential. Breeders and judges should at all times be careful to avoid obvious conditions or exaggerations which would be detrimental in any way to the health, welfare or soundness of this breed. From time to time certain conditions or exaggerations may be considered to have the potential to affect dogs in some breeds adversely, and judges and breeders are requested to refer to the Kennel Club website for details of any such current issues. If a feature or quality is desirable it should only be present in the right measure.

Also, both standards call for a 'not too long' muzzle. It seems that the trend is towards a shorter muzzle. With both standards calling for a 'not too long' muzzle, I would think that anything tending towards a 'shorter' appearance would be drifting away from the standard.

What I did was to open up both pages and sized them so I could view them side by side. The standards I posted are just a copy and paste from the KC and YTCA sites. I didn't include the dq's from YTCA, which regards color.

I like the highlighted part which is a central part of the comparison.

Not too long muzzle, is a descriptive which I hope doesn't move us more to the "baby doll faces". Also the shorter the muzzle the less room for the teeth. We already have problems with bite and teeth. Unless as you shorten you widen the muzzle.

I do too! Maybe in the next ten years or so, the club will move more to securing working qualifications, prior to issuance of a conformation championship.

Of course for the toy and or companion breeds, it will be a major kind of sorting out what exactly that would be. Temperament test to me comes to mind. Maybe a basic Canine Good Neighbour/Citizen test.

'Not too long' seems to describe a muzzle that would in no way be considered short. If a shorter muzzle (but not the 'babydoll' look) was desired, you would think it would read, 'muzzle not too short'.

From my reading of old texts, it seems like the old terriermen would regard any soft or silky coated dog not a true working terrier. So it's a given that the Yorkshire is placed in the toy class. However, I don't see why we should, aside from coat texture, do anything that takes away from the dog's true terrier roots. There are other dogs if all one wants is 'pretty', but the Yorkshire has a unique combination of looks, sportiness and attitude that I don't see in any other breed.

Gail, on the thing you mentioned about having to obtain something other than conformation I don't agree with that. I'm not into obediance or agility and it shouldn't have to be in the standard, of course that is JMO. Those that are interested in obtaining the others that's great but shouldn't be a requirement. If that's how I read it LOL...

Donna

It certainly can be a controversial idea. That is why for toy breeds and or companion breeds I suggested something like TT, or Canine Good Neighbour. If we look at dog breeds to evidence a "fitness to function", for our dear Yorkie, well I guess not many are using \yorkies as ratters these days. I think they have evolved to be more companion dogs. And as companion dogs, their temperament should align with that function.

Perhaps for toy and or companion breeds, it will be a long time in coming, where the US and Canada align more with some of what the European countries are doing already today. But in my opinion the conformation ring, is a poor milieu to prove "fitness to function", other than the dog can move around the ring. And the brief physical examination.

I as a passionate lover of Yorkies, I want to keep a great temperament, health, and fitness in this breed. I want to be able to do my part as little as it may be to hand down to the next generation, a beautifull toy dog, that is capable of so much.

The issue of awarding conformation titles not soley on conformation rings, is a pretty big one.

It would affect every breed. I doubt I will be alive to see it.

But for my breed that is a working breed, I would support this idea. Working ability is inherited, along with many other things. If we only breed dogs that never earn any working titles, then over time, we erode their working ability as a breed. Unfortunately it is already starting to happen here in N.A. after only 15-20 yrs of breeding.

Many other working breed, herding, non-sport, etc, already are speaking louding about those concerns.

I would support it for a working or herding breed because they are still functional in that aspect....however, in most toy breeds you don't have them doing that sort of stuff. Yorkies aren't ratters any more. Most toys are just that companion dogs. But I still believe in a good structured dog and totally support that. They need to be fit and healthy. Of course my guys are lazy couch potatoes like their momma LOL...but they are of a healthy weight and they do run outside, run in and out the doggy door.

I beg your pardon but my yorkies are still ratters, long hair and all. They love to go to the barn and hunt vermin. Why would you breed that out of them? Its the terrier in them. That is what we all most love about the terrier, not to be another lapdog. If they are a lapdog they are not terriers anymore.

I don't have a barn so I don't have rats and my yorkies I beg your pardon they are all terrier as well just ask the big dogs that walk by my grooming table at shows and the pitbull next door...but they are my lap dogs as well...right now I have 4 all sleeping in my lap. Just let a big dog step on my property...if I didn't have them behind a gate they'd go after them but they are a companion dog and YES my lap dogs and I love it that way!!

But you said"Yorkies aren't ratters any more" That is not true. They are ratters if given the chance. Sorry you don't have a barn for your dogs to play in, its a shame they are cooped up in a house all day.

If you would have read my other post you'd see that they go in and out a doggy door and run outside :) i'm sorry I just don't let my dogs go outside unless I'm home and I do work and my husband does come home every day for lunch to let them outside so no honey they aren't cooped up in the house all day.
Even if I had a barn they would only be in the barn playing in the hay long hair and all or with each other not chasing rats YUCK...

:)

Exactly I rest my case, the YTCA promotes a lapdog instead of the Terrier it was suppose to be. In and out a doggie door only when the owner is there from 5 to 9 pm other wise you stay in. Some life huh...
I truly feel sorry for the yorkies in these situations not being able to enjoy life and the instinct they have.
Keeping them in wrappers in cages so you can show them off. It is truly sad what you do to your yorkies.

I think Gail has a point about the 'fit to function' quoted from the KC standard. While the Yorkshire is a toy dog, it is a toy Terrier and should be able to perform as one. I'm not sure i would agree that its ability to perform that function should be a requirement for a championship, but it should be capable of it in its physical makeup.

And that brings me back to the difference in the standards. Do any of these differences take away from the Yorkshire's 'fit for function'? I think that shortening the back will make a dog less agile. And how about the differences in bite? Is a scissor bite better for holding prey than a level bite? These differences, and the lack of the YTCA addressing features such as neck, layback, temperament and gait could lead to a dog that is more elegant but less terrier.

The one thing I can say about my dogs whether they are traditional colored or parti colored is that my dogs have a life. They are happy and healthy Terriers that all love to hunt and do the terrier thing. They are not in kennels or wraps for the show world. Not one of my dogs is scared or afraid to hunt mice or rats. They are all Terrier. How many of you show people can say your dogs are that brave? Or how many have ever seen a mouse?
The Yorkie was bred for it and when you take that away, you NO LONGER HAVE A TERRIER

ROFLMFAO....you really don't get it do you! You really made me spit my tea out on that one ROFL!!! I don't live off breeding my dogs so I have to work to pay for a roof over "THEIR" heads, food in their bowls ect...And as far as cages...only when I'm not here to supervise. That's called protection. God forbid something happen to them while not being supervised. I'm glad you don't have to work outside the home but I do and I don't leave my dogs running free unsupervised.
Only one of my dogs have wrappers the others are cut down and the one in wrappers does everything the others do...run, play, get in the mud, go to the beach, rub on the couch, chases the toys, runs, rolls in the tomato plants ect...hmmm not a bad life as I see it :)

Well, any dog can get used to most any lifestyle. But the standard shouldn't change for a dog because of our lifestyles, should it? When I put the two standards (KC and YTCA) side by side, I get a clearer picture of a Terrier in my mind with the KC standard than with the American standard. Our standard seems a bit vague and I wonder why?

Honey, I never said they wouldn't chase them nor catch them. They are not afraid of them...actually each one of mine has caught a bird out of mid air because they landed in "their" yard. Mine keeps the cats out of the yard. My dogs are actually very brave and all terrier even the one in wrappers LOL...My Tucker can do back flips with great patellas, healthy and loves to do his tricks and isn't afraid of trying anything and he's a finished champion, neutered of course now....so please if you only knew what my dogs do...yes I show and darn proud of the accomplishments my dogs have done in the ring :)

I agree Deb the terrier is being bred out of the yorkies.
Mine will chase rabbits, squirrels, dig for moles and have cornered snakes.

If show breeders continue on the present course the dog will be nothing more then lapdogs.

And the trend to breed shorter and shorter noses (extreme doll faces) not only will it effect the bite but the dogs will also start having major breathing problems.

doll faces aren't correct and shouldn't be bred for that...I love the correct nose. I wouldn't show a dog that was afraid of anything...they have to have that "terrier" attitude in the ring...I just sent home a yorkie that loves to growl at the bigger dogs in the next ring...gotta love that attitude so even tho I have a dog in wrappers and protect them in their pens when I'm not home to supervise they are all the way they are suppose to be....I invite Breezeaway to come watch Radar and Drea at a dog show and see how they act. I'd invite you to my home but nahhh dont let anyone in my home that tries and tells me my dogs aren't happy dogs...nothing personal :)

Oh and one more thing...they do sleep on my bed and not in crates all 5 of them and are on alert if any noise out of the norm is heard...they are all pretty good guard dogs with the exception of my 15 year old that is deaf and can't hear but when he could hear he was my other guard alert dog...

I'm not sure we've gotten to the point of breeding the terrier out of a Yorkshire, but maybe it's reached a point where it's been 'improved' enough. Maybe now the focus should be on preserving what we've got....a beautiful, sporty dog with a unique temperament.

I'd like to think that consideration for what the Yorkshire was bred for doesn't take a back seat to its look, but that may be a bit naive. If it becomes an even more 'elegant' dog than now, I think something will be lost in the trade-off.