What can I do?

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by lidarose

How are akc registries compromised by this? When most people get a ckc dog they realize their chances of having a mix are increased, that's why they are less costly, but they know they can trace their dog somewhat. When people pay high dollars for an akc dog they expect a better quality dog and they expect papers to prove it.

AKC (or any registry) compromised by dishonest info being turned in on registrations...not compromised by this particular situation. And why is it exactly that people have an increased chace of having a mix? Oh yeah, because people reg their dogs as purebred willy nilly without any proof of them being such.

[lidarose]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

AKC (or any registry) compromised by dishonest info being turned in on registrations...not compromised by this particular situation. And why is it exactly that people have an increased chace of having a mix? Oh yeah, because people reg their dogs as purebred willy nilly without any proof of them being such.

So, an akc registration is PROOF that your dog is a purebred? Because we all know that akc dogs are just registered as such. If a breeder has an akc yorkie and it gets pregnant by an akc maltese, how many times do you think that litter is registered as pure? They sure look like purebred yorkies and there's a male registered yorkie on the premises and they are worthless without their akc papers. I know there are honest breeders out there, but there are also dishonest ones and there's no way to know that somewhere along the line your akc dog hasn't been prey to this. It's just a peice of paper, talk about your crayons, you can have a breed standard and strive to achieve it, but a PURE breed dog? IMO there's no such animal.

[hha]

I'm sorry, but AKC papers mean NOTHING to me..I had an akc registerd pom..was it a real pom??? NO! Don't think there aren't dishonest people out there registering with AKC...it happens! Then when I got ahold of akc, and sent them pictures of this so called pom, hummm, they lost the pictures..
this is what dna testing is going to prove..and I think a lot of breeders, that have sold akc, ckc, or whatever else they're registered with, are going to find themselves in some trouble..

[yougetthesmiles]

What bloodlines were used to establish the Yorkshire Terrier is subject to much speculation, due to the fact that the breeders of these dogs did not write down who was bred to whom. If they liked the spirit and looks of the dogs, they mated them. It was chancey at best.
It is guessed that the Yorkshire county miners crossed the Black and Tan English Terrier, this dog was rough-coated, and the long-coated, blue-gray Waterside Terrier breeds were infused in the Scottish Terriers. The Maltese and Skye Terrier are also possibilities.

I agree, no dog is pure bred, they were crossed with other breeds to get what breed they wanted.

[roosmom]

Not to be off subject but IMO it would be better if there was more mixing and less pure breeding...pure pred dogs have so many genetic defects it's ridiculous and my pure bred yorkie has had so many health problems! I love her to death but can't help but think that she would be so much better if she had a little maltese or poodle or whatever in her! Healthy dogs are so much more important to me than a "pure" one. (I understand the issue with the unethicality though and that's wrong/dishonest but if they were never mixed would the breed survive ultimately anyway? Haven't yorkie's been bred down from what they were originally?)

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by lidarose

So, an akc registration is PROOF that your dog is a purebred? Because we all know that akc dogs are just registered as such. If a breeder has an akc yorkie and it gets pregnant by an akc maltese, how many times do you think that litter is registered as pure? They sure look like purebred yorkies and there's a male registered yorkie on the premises and they are worthless without their akc papers.

You are missing the point...I AGREE with you. ANY one of ANY registry can lie and therefore the papers are worthless. I have been saying that for a looooonggg time.

Originally Posted by lidarose

I know there are honest breeders out there, but there are also dishonest ones and there's no way to know that somewhere along the line your akc dog hasn't been prey to this. It's just a peice of paper, talk about your crayons, you can have a breed standard and strive to achieve it, but a PURE breed dog? IMO there's no such animal.

You are right...you really have no idea if one of the AKC dogs in the line somewhere wasn't prey to this, but that doesn't justify reg a dog that you have NO background info on right off the bat. I understand you point about there being 'no such animal.' If that is the case, why reg them at all?

[hha]

Originally Posted by yougetthesmiles

What bloodlines were used to establish the Yorkshire Terrier is subject to much speculation, due to the fact that the breeders of these dogs did not write down who was bred to whom. If they liked the spirit and looks of the dogs, they mated them. It was chancey at best.
It is guessed that the Yorkshire county miners crossed the Black and Tan English Terrier, this dog was rough-coated, and the long-coated, blue-gray Waterside Terrier breeds were infused in the Scottish Terriers. The Maltese and Skye Terrier are also possibilities.

I agree, no dog is pure bred, they were crossed with other breeds to get what breed they wanted.

Actually, there is one purebred that was never crossed with anytning(just read up on that awhile back), and it's the maltese...every other dog has been mixed along the way with another breed..

[RandomHeart]

that's a sad story, I have no advice, b/c i have never been in this situation, but i wish you good luck ...

[hha]

Originally Posted by roosmom

Not to be off subject but IMO it would be better if there was more mixing and less pure breeding...pure pred dogs have so many genetic defects it's ridiculous and my pure bred yorkie has had so many health problems! I love her to death but can't help but think that she would be so much better if she had a little maltese or poodle or whatever in her! Healthy dogs are so much more important to me than a "pure" one. (I understand the issue with the unethicality though and that's wrong/dishonest but if they were never mixed would the breed survive ultimately anyway? Haven't yorkie's been bred down from what they were originally?)

I whole heartedly agree with you..this is why my sister used to breed the morkies..of course, she has been cut down by a lot of people for doing this, there was a high demand for them where she is in Illinois, and those babies always went quick!

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by roosmom

Not to be off subject but IMO it would be better if there was more mixing and less pure breeding...pure pred dogs have so many genetic defects it's ridiculous and my pure bred yorkie has had so many health problems!

But at least with a purebred, you know what genetic defects the dog is at risk for. These issues are (ideally) emiminated by very careful breeding--any dogs with this issues are eliminated from breeding stock. Every breed is subject to breed specific ailments. If you combine them, you've done nothing but double the offsprings chance of having them passed on. And just because the illness didn't present itself in the first generation doesn't mean it won't show up down the line. Purebreds with lots of health problems are more commonly the result of irresponsible, poor breeding, not because the dog was a purebred.

[Breny]

hi !!!

Missy, whats Baby's temp this afternoon?

[roosmom]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

But at least with a purebred, you know what genetic defects the dog is at risk for. These issues are (ideally) emiminated by very careful breeding--any dogs with this issues are eliminated from breeding stock. Every breed is subject to breed specific ailments. If you combine them, you've done nothing but double the offsprings chance of having them passed on. And just because the illness didn't present itself in the first generation doesn't mean it won't show up down the line. Purebreds with lots of health problems are more commonly the result of irresponsible, poor breeding, not because the dog was a purebred.

That's not true that it would double the risk because most genetic illnesses are recessive meaning that two dogs that both have the genetic recessive mating would be more likely to get it than one dog that has the recessive and one that doesn't have the gene. Now I'm not saying this is true for all genetic diseases but cross breeding does cut down on the risk for example- my yorkipoo puppy is still at risk for knee displasia so that must be dominant but it is very unlikely that she will get liver shunts. Now if you take my spaniel/rottweiller/??? mutt she has ZERO defects- 100% healthy dog- it's just a fact that pure breds tend to have more genetic problems- whether you try to breed them out or not!

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by roosmom

That's not true that it would double the risk because most genetic illnesses are recessive meaning that two dogs that both have the genetic recessive mating would be more likely to get it than one dog that has the recessive and one that doesn't have the gene. Now I'm not saying this is true for all genetic diseases but cross breeding does cut down on the risk for example- my yorkipoo puppy is still at risk for knee displasia so that must be dominant but it is very unlikely that she will get liver shunts. Now if you take my spaniel/rottweiller/??? mutt she has ZERO defects- 100% healthy dog- it's just a fact that pure breds tend to have more genetic problems- whether you try to breed them out or not!

No, it is not fact, it's an opinion. And let me assure you, I am fully aware of what recessive and dominant are. I didn't study genetics and take cellular and reproductive biology for nothing. :P
Comparing the health of your own dogs does provide enough info for you to claim that to be a 'fact.' Are there additional sources of your claim? I would suggest reading 'Contol of Canine Genetic Diseases' by Dr. George Padgett who has done lots of extensive research on the subject. IMO, it is like the bible for any breeder striving to produce healthy generations. There are some very eye opening, FACTS that are explained. The offspring of cross bred dogs ARE capable of contracting the same diseases. In addition, there is conclusive evidence that there are additional conditions (try 102) likely to occur in the offspring of cross bred dogs that are not prevalent in purebreds. So I guess technically, it doesn't double the risk, it triples it.

[roosmom]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

No, it is not fact, it's an opinion. And let me assure you, I am fully aware of what recessive and dominant are.
Comparing the health of your own dogs does provide enough info for you to claim that to be a 'fact.' I would suggest reading 'Contol of Canine Genetic Diseases' by Dr. George Padgett who has done lots of extensive research on the subject. There are some very eye opening, FACTS that are explained. The offspring of cross bred dogs ARE capable of contracting the same diseases. In addition, there is conclusive evidence that there are additional conditions (try 102) likely to occur in the offspring of cross bred dogs that are not prevalent in purebreds.

That may be true and my yorkipoo that's only been cross bred once may not be a good example however- "purebred" MUTTS who are crossed and crossed and crossed so much you have no idea what they really are do not have the problems pure breds do and while that may not be a "fact" as far as I don't have an article in a veterinarian journal (though if you'd like me to write a term paper about it I'm sure I could- though I may be a little rusty lol) to back it up- they are much less likely to have problems than a pure bred dog (and I think- definitely don't quote me on this one though- that probably the toy pure bred dogs are even worse with having problems but I'm not an expert and I certainly haven't studied up on it enough to know for sure).

[lidarose]

Too bad breeders weren't more concerned with health issues than with breed standards, if that were the case and the majority of breeders actually were more concerned about the health of their 'purebreds' than acheiving some 'standard' or 'smaller size' of the breed, then we would have healthier, if sub-standard yorkies. And if breeders know there is a genetic problem in the family of their akc dog, why are they breeding them and why is it allowed?