Originally Posted by BamaFan121s (Post 2207676)

Could you please direct me to that info? :) (In this thread...I didn't see it.)

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 2207644)

Lynn, This post has already been addressed and dismissed as being inaccurate and a matter of opinion and not fact.

I find it interesting that the YTCA denies that these are purebred yorkies, yet they specifically address the issue of the parti color as being an off color.

They can't have it both ways.

They also claim that the off colors cause health issues. Which we all know that this is no more true with off colors than it is with traditional colors.

Therefore, since they insist on printing untruths on their site. IMO it discredits anything and everything they have to say. It might be true, but it also might not.

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 2207368)

Ok now I am even more confused.

Since a biewer has been established as a breed of their own, isn't breeding a "splitter" producing a mixed breed?

I now reside in the State of Confusion with Bamafan.

please explain.

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 2207644)

Lynn, This post has already been addressed and dismissed as being inaccurate and a matter of opinion and not fact.

I find it interesting that the YTCA denies that these are purebred yorkies, yet they specifically address the issue of the parti color as being an off color.

They can't have it both ways.

They also claim that the off colors cause health issues. Which we all know that this is no more true with off colors than it is with traditional colors.

Therefore, since they insist on printing untruths on their site. IMO it discredits anything and everything they have to say. It might be true, but it also might not.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2207875)

Well when you come up with factual solid undeniable proof then please feel free to post it. But, we already had that discussion in the other thread.

Originally Posted by cesar49 (Post 2207882)

i can totally help with the confusion...:p

splitters are a name reserved for biewers..half yorkie

carriers are for the partis....:aimeeyork

biewers are a rare breed.... ARBA recognized and shown:)

refer to these splitters as hybrid crosses... PLEASE:cool:

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 2207368)

Ok now I am even more confused.

Since a biewer has been established as a breed of their own, isn't breeding a "splitter" producing a mixed breed?

I now reside in the State of Confusion with Bamafan.

please explain.

Originally Posted by my2boyz (Post 2207910)

Biewers are also recognized and shown under the IABCA and NAKC. There are several registries in the U.S. for Biewers...the BNR, BBCI, BYA, BBIR just to name a few.

May I ask why you call a splitter a 'hybrid cross'? The Biewer isn't a hybrid and neither is a Yorkie. The offspring of a traditional colored Yorkie and a Biewer is called a splitter...not a hybrid cross or designer puppy as referred to in an earlier post by a different poster.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2207891)

And where has this issue been discussed and dismissed as being inacurrate? Is it only inacurrate to the odd ball color breeders or by whom?

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2207890)

Also, the YTCA, as stated, has never had a problem with these odd ball colors before unscupulous breeders came into the picture. And since AKC made the HUGE mistake of registering these, IMO mixed dogs, the YTCA had to do something by stating that these dgs were banned from showing and any ethical breeder would not purposely breed for them, just like T-cups. The YTCA is not having it both ways. Looks to me like its its the YTCA way the hi-way.LOL But we already said all this on the other thread.

Originally Posted by cesar49 (Post 2207882)

i can totally help with the confusion...:p

splitters are a name reserved for biewers..half yorkie

carriers are for the partis....:aimeeyork

biewers are a rare breed.... ARBA recognized and shown:)

refer to these splitters as hybrid crosses... PLEASE:cool:

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2207875)

Well when you come up with factual solid undeniable proof then please feel free to post it. But, we already had that discussion in the other thread.

Originally Posted by my2boyz (Post 2207910)

Biewers are also recognized and shown under the IABCA and NAKC. There are several registries in the U.S. for Biewers...the BNR, BBCI, BYA, BBIR just to name a few.

May I ask why you call a splitter a 'hybrid cross'? The Biewer isn't a hybrid and neither is a Yorkie. The offspring of a traditional colored Yorkie and a Biewer is called a splitter...not a hybrid cross or designer puppy as referred to in an earlier post by a different poster.

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 2208035)

I don't have any issues with the Biewers, and as i stated wsith the partis, you can call them what you want, it doesn't matter, they are what they are. However, I do have an issue with the many different Biewer clubs and registries. The need to come together and take a united stand or i fear they woo never get anywhere.

The AKC is going to look at the Biewer breeders as not knowing what they are or what they are trying to accomplish, if they are not united.

This new claim of having "proven" that they are not yorkies, because of some "alleged' DNA testing, is not going to look too good. The DNA testing that was done on the partis was done by the AKC, not by the parti breeders.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2207890)

Also, the YTCA, as stated, has never had a problem with these odd ball colors before unscupulous breeders came into the picture. And since AKC made the HUGE mistake of registering these, IMO mixed dogs, the YTCA had to do something by stating that these dgs were banned from showing and any ethical breeder would not purposely breed for them, just like T-cups. The YTCA is not having it both ways. Looks to me like its its the YTCA way the hi-way.LOL But we already said all this on the other thread.

Originally Posted by Pinehaven (Post 2208162)

There are tests one by Biovet and one by Mars Labs that the consumer can purchase, that can determine what mix or combination of mixes, a dog is, it is not used to determine if a purebred dog is a purebred though (website didn't say why you can't use it for a purebred, unless maybe it will tell you that there are other breeds in there - kinda like a false positive test result?).

I'd be very interested to learn more about what testing the scientists did on the Biewers and if they tested yorkies as well, to compare the make up of both groups of dogs. I'd love to see the printed lab results and learn more about the test itself - what the test, tests for and what it doesn't test for?
Does it determine that a dog is 10% maltese, 60% yorkshire terrier, 15% beagle and 15% unknown?? Hopefully the Biewer breeders can shed some light on the situation?

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 2208349)

I guess I'm behind the times. I had not heard that they were able to tell the breed of the dog through DNA at this time. I knew that they were working on it.

I also am very interested in seeing the documented results of these tests. If it is proven that they are not purebred yorkies then that takes the YTCA out of the picture.

Originally Posted by Pruett (Post 2208690)

Bama, you say that Jeanne never used my name nor the clubs name so she wasn't talking about us. Then you say I attached her because I corrected the information she was giving the public.

Originally Posted by Pruett (Post 2208690)

We are the only club that refers to the Biewer as a Biewer Terrier

Originally Posted by Pruett (Post 2208690)

Would you also show me where on the BTCA site that it says the Biewer did not originate from the Yorkie?

Originally Posted by Pruett (Post 2205242)

Hi Lorraine and thank you for your support of what we are doing for the breed. I'd like to clarify the reason for our testing almost 100 Biewer TERRIERS to date and that was to prove that they were not Yorkshire TERRIERS. The standard of 4 white legs, feet, belly, chest and tip of tail is the first clue, among many, that something else was in the breed. The si gene is usually responsible for patterned coloring, the sp gene would be responsible for the black and white spotting across the back, and the sw for the predominantly white color dogs. NONE of which the Yorkie possess.
Our Geneticist, said "The chances of such independent mutations bumping into each other are astronomical. A stray chunk of chromosome from a little cross-breeding wandering into the mix is much more probable".

The reason for the name Biewer Terrier is quite simple. Biewer, the man that originated the breed and Terrier, the type of dog we are breeding, thus Biewer Terrier.

We have updated our web site and have not got all the pictures back up. We back up what we say with documented facts. We don't add our own interpretation to the findings as some people do. Any one wanting to see the information proving the Biewer TERRIER a breed of their own may email me and I will provide them with the information.

As far as the parti goes, I can't help think that they are all the sudden looking like our Biewers. A few years back there were only a hand full of parti breeders, with dogs that look nothing like the Biewer. To bad AKC doesn't require DNA on ALL breeding dogs.
I am not saying that all the Parti breeders are mixing Biewers with their Parti's, please don't misunderstand me.

Anyone wanting to work toward the betterment of the breed may contact a BTCA, Inc. representative for more facts.

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 2207989)

Of course they never had an issue with it until us "odd ball color breeders" came into the picture. Heretofore, show breeders were scared to death of the YTCA. Well recently breeders have decided that these odd colored yorkies deserved a chance too. So they snubbed their noses at the YTCA. And being that the YTCA is not used to being snubbed they got their undies all in a bunch and had a little tantrum. And the breeders still said, we don't care what you say we're gonna breed these dogs whether you like it or not.

Some day the fire will die down and the old YTCA members will die off making way for open minds and new opinions,. And perhaps science will progress to the point of being able to distinquish breeds and will put an end to the controversy.

It would be best for us parti breeders if they did prove that they were not yorkies, then we could go on to establish them as a separate breed. But we can't just start making that claim and expect the AKC to go along with it.

I would like to hear the reaction of the YTCA if that were to happen, I suspect that they would not be happy with that either because they want to have control. They did not like being snubbed. and making an issue of it is the only way they can retaliate.

Originally Posted by Pinehaven (Post 2208255)

YTCA never had a problem with these "odd ball colors" (as you call them) because prior to AKC allowing these colors to be registered, people were hiding these colors, giving them away and disposing of them. What motive would an "unscrupulous" breeder have to come into the picture and purposely breed a yorkie to some parti colored dog to produce lines that will produce "parti colored yorkies" in the future, prior to AKC even allowing this future color to be eligible for registration?

If YTCA is worried that unscrupulous breeders will take morkies and breed them together to produce parti look a likes and sell them as the real thing, than require everyone who raises off colored yorkies to have their dogs DNA'd to prove parentage? That will solve one problem?

While I can see the reasons for not purposely breeding T-cups, due to increased health issues, hypoglycemia, broken bones ..., there are no increases in health issues with partis and other off colored yorkies (except blue), than there are with standard colored yorkies so I don't see where the problem lies - other than the color. And as we've discussed in previous threads, only some off colors are chastised by the YTCA while other off colors are not??? :confused:

Originally Posted by JeanieK (Post 2207981)

The post by Lorranie, that claims they have proved that the biewers are not purebred yorkies, is not true. there is no more proof that they are not purebred than there is that they are purebred. No documentation has be shown to prove anything of the sort.

Until someone has documentation to prove that they are not purebreds, it is just someone making an unsubstantiated claim. Hell anyone of us can do that.

I can say that it is proven that yorkies are half pitt bull terriers. I can even post on some website that it has been proven. that is not proof, that would be just me making some unsubstantiated claim.

Until science progresses to the point where they can tell the breed of a dog through it's DNA there is no proof of anything. All we have to go on are the records from the Biewer and parti breeders.

That post was dismissed as being just someones opinion, and as Lorraine never came back with proof it was laid to rest, until you dug it back up and said what a good post it was.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2208834)

I would put my money on Lorraine and Pruitt before believeing any of the scenarios about parti colors that you and pinwehaven have come up with. And who dismissed her post as being an opinion, the parti breeders? Doesnt that mean that you are only spouting "opinions" also? Can blue and tan color breeders dismiss your statements, or is that only for the parti breeders?

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2208834)

Why is it that the only records to go on are Biewer and parti breeders records? I guess that the blue and tan breeders records are all lies? And by the way, it is a good post!

Originally Posted by Pinehaven (Post 2208918)

Jeanie has already replied a few posts back, that when she wrote the post you are now quoting, that she was unaware there were DNA tests that could determine the breed make up of a mixed dog - thus she was assuming the information was opinions that could not be backed up by factual, scientific documentation.



There are no records other than the biewer and parti breeders records to go on because prior to AKC allowing parti colored yorkies to be registered, the off colored pups were destroyed or given away. There was no documentation in AKC pedigrees tracing parti's because they were not eligible for registration, so the parti breeders records are the only records we have to go on.

I'm sure that not all blue and tan breeders records are all lies, but if you're thinking that the parti gene didn't come from the foundation dogs 100 years ago, than some blue and tan breeders records are lying right? And if my parti lines are a lie, than many traditional colored lines may be a lie as well! (JMO)

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2208827)

I am sure you have a huge list of people "hiding" the odd ball colores too. And I bet that they are ALL exhibitors and YTCA members to boot. You know, the only people that lie about their dogs. I think we already discussed the black and tan issue on the othr thread so I dont know why you are confused..

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2208827)

And just because the parents are DNA;d against the puppies does not mean that the puppies or parents are pure-bred. The problem will not be solved. The parents all should have been DNA'd back in the 50's, but the technology wasnt available then. I am sure by the amount of BYBrs back in th 80's that many mixes were produced and sold as "rare" colored AKC dogs.

Originally Posted by Pinehaven (Post 2208980)

I'd be happy if all AKC registered dogs were required to be DNA'd - it helps keep everyone honest. .

Originally Posted by cesar49 (Post 2208972)

what are the visible differences between the biewer and the partis?
is it the color standards? is it also the size? or structures..
or just the arrangement of colors?
there is no standard for the partis.
but the biewer standards are specific..:)

Originally Posted by Pinehaven (Post 2208995)

Since the partis are AKC registered yorkshire terriers, our standards for type, size, conformation would be the same as the standard colored yorkshire terrier.

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s (Post 2208986)

I agree.:thumbup:

Good theory but back in the 80's and 90's (and years prior) off colors were not eligible for AKC registration