Originally Posted by kat1york (Post 2191833)

Theres your answer right in front of you....Why mix 2 dogs that may carry the same disease???
Forget about the color....I love the multi colored babies....My concern is breeding 2 dogs with simular gene that causes, Livershunt, colapsed trachea...etc...
Thats my main concern here.
Kat

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 2191008)

Just wanted to know, this "blue" colored hair of the Yorkie, it's a dark charcoal metallic looking hair, and so beautiful, in my opinion. Does anyone know what other breeds of dogs has this kind of hair?

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2192102)

Silkie Terriers, Skye Terriers and Kerry Blues all have similar blue. The texture on the latter two are different than the Yorkie.

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 2191010)

:rolleyes: This does not even warrent a response.

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 2191033)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. The Biewers are parti colored.

Originally Posted by Pinehaven (Post 2191120)

Man, I have lots of catching up to do ...



The founders never included parti, chocolate, solid colors, goldens OR BLACK and tan in the development of this breed but these colors have been showing up since the beginning of the breed (1800's).



I wonder how many of the yorkies born with white spots on their chest and toes are actually parti carriers? I've had several parti carriers born (parti sires x traditional mothers) that had minimal white markings, so when I see a 1 inch spot of white on a pups chest with white toes, well, it kinda makes me wonder.



Back in the old days prior to DNA and the understanding of genetics that we have today, people were ignorant because they knew no better. But today we do know better and science is more advanced, so what was once thought to be in the mid 1800's, we now know isn't true.



Prior to there being an AKC or Official Yorkshire Terrier breed, during the 1700 - mid 1800's these terrier type dogs were used for hunting. Their owners could have cared less if they bred their bitches to blue and tan studs, they just wanted to produce superior ratters and hunters. If Mr. Smyth had the best hunter male terrier in town and his dog just happened to be rust colored or parti colored, the farmers, millers, and spinners didn't care and bred their bitches to that stud regardless of color. These commoners just wanted to try to improve their own breeding stock in order to help feed their families. For them color wasn't an issue; speed, stamina, accuracy and bringing home the dinner was.

If we still thought the way our fore fathers thought, the world would still be flat! :wink:

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2192139)

Does that mean a small white spot on a black Labradors chest means he is a parti carrier? It means diddly squat. There are alot of breeds that have a small white spot on the chest. Including Skyes. HMM, must have come from a parti carrier in the past. And I will tell you that there has never been a parti Skye. The parent club makes sure that they do not fall into the hands of byb's and those who want to tweek the standard.

Actually, this subject has gotten very worn out and has solved nothing. As I have said before, you will never change my mind and I will never change yours. You evidentally do not respect or breed to the YTCA standard so I doubt very much if I will ever see "off colors" in the show ring, or at least not with the Yorkies. I think that will suit everybody just fine.

Originally Posted by Pinehaven (Post 2192165)

Not all white spots on chests means parti gene, but in our breed, parti coloring is popping out of traditional lines. My point is, some white chests may be normal but some white chests may be a result of the parti gene.

If this were a color registry that only allowed a particular color to be registered (like the pinto horse registry or palomino horse registry) that would be one thing but this is a breed registry and that should mean that any pup born out of two registered parents should have the same rights as their registered parents have, regardless of their color.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2192198)

We can go round and round with this subject for years. So what you are saying is that the parent club of the breed should not have a responsibility to protect the standard as it was written, as the founders of the breed had it written. All of their hard work and research gets thrown out the window. So does that mean that the standard should be changed everytime something off standard comes into the picture? Pretty soon, we would have a dog that doesnt even resemble a Yorkie. Might as well call it another breed. The Yorkie becomes extinct. Just as a chocolate or a no masked Rottweiler(yes, that does happen infrequently) should not be bred or shown, neither should the off colored Yorkies. Why? Because they are not within the written standard of the breed. Its not something the founders of the breed would want to be passed on or bred for. Not only are we showing against each other, we are showing against the written standard. We want our Yorkies, Skyes, Pugs, Rotts, etc to be as close to perfect to the written standard as possible. What happens to the breed if we keep adding and changing standards? It makes everything that you have worked and bred for over the years baseless and obsolete. Might as well start over with new dogs that conform to the "new" written standard and have to change breeding practices everytime something is added or taken away. Kinda pointless isnt it?

Originally Posted by Pinehaven (Post 2192243)

While I do believe that breeding for breed type, conformation, temperament and health are a goal that all should strive for, this is a breed registry and not coat color registry. Many breed registries have multiple coat colors and color combinations in their breeds. Coat color doesn't make their breed any less true to the physical and structural standard just because the dogs are not all the exact same color.

While I applaud those who have extensively researched the early history of the Yorkshire Terrier, much of what their conclusions are based on, are their own opinions and theories because there was little information on the unregistered, non pedigreed founding dogs who were used to begin this breed. Some theories are that the Maltese was used in the breed, others feel they were not. I think what is correct in both thoughts is that terrier type dogs were used to begin this breed. I don't think that anyone can guarantee, that they know what visible or hidden genes were in those terrier type dogs because pedigrees on most were not kept.

The standards were written over 100 years ago, back in the days when an off colored pup in the litter, would be drowned because they were thought to be inferior and unhealthy. We know today, this type of thinking is obsolete and very incorrect; these colors should have a rightful place in the breed, we may not see them in the show ring any time soon but maybe one day we will.

Originally Posted by nudiva37 (Post 2192267)

:animal36:fallen:

While at admire the strenght and the education I am getting here. I uphold all of your comments and the education as mentors and idealist. I am however kind of sad to try to learn and read some things that kriss cross kind of disrespectful... I admired the person who debates and takes the high road.
I am amazed since being a member the wealth of knowledge you guys have bestowed on me.... I read more...I talk to my vet more. I look and observe my stock more and I reasearch more. I would ask that you brillant breeders please continue to teach the underdogs like myself to be able to debate with respect.... No matter how different our opinions we are all ONE>..
DOG LOVERS at the end of the day no matter the standard.... I would be the first to spend all I own to change thier world so that all breeds could have a better life.... just my two cents... trying to follow the thread...but as I read I get disappointed at the people I look up to... hopefully you guys understand what I am trying to say without getting pissed off at me...:eek: