Parti-Yorkie VS. Biewer

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

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?

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.

[DvlshAngel985]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

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.

I would guess the kind of testing done would be similar to what has been used to determine an organisms place on the phylogentic tree. At least that's what I'd use!

[Pruett]

Quote from Jeanne.

But now some want to drop the yorkshire from the name and ust call them Biewer Terriers, and are claiming that they are not from yorkshire terriers, but mixed with something, what they are mixed with is unclear. And they are doing this in hopes of being able to have them registered as a new breed by the AKC.

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. When correcting false statements, I do not believe anyone would consider that an attack. Everybody makes mistakes and most people like to be corrected if they have been misinformed, wouldn't you agree?

That being said, I would like to correct a statement made earlier about there being no documentation proving the Biewer a separate breed. We do have DOCUMENTATION proving the Biewer Terrier a distinctly separate breed from the Yorkshire Terrier. This doesn't mean that it didn't get it's beginning with the Yorkie.

We are the only club that refers to the Biewer as a Biewer Terrier, so would you like to tell me who she is talking about in the above paragraph if it's not the BTCA? I would love to talk with other people that believe as we do.

Would you also show me where on the BTCA site that it says the Biewer did not originate from the Yorkie? It would most definitely be a typo and we would correct it immediately. Thank you.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by Pruett

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.

I never said she wasn't talking about you BTCA gals, just that she didn't mention you by name and that your stance on the topics were evident without having to have a one on one conversatin. AND I never said you attacked her.

Originally Posted by Pruett

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

True, the only club...so is it any wonder why people are interested in hearing other claims and information too?

Originally Posted by Pruett

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

Does it say that? Heck if it does, I wouldn't know. I happen to agree with that statement and would assume everyone does....

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Pruett

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.

Thank you for your very informative post!!

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

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.

It looks to me like tha parti breeders are the ones with their underware in a knot, not YTCA. No one has been afraid of the YTCA. What do they have to be afraid of, death? Maybe being ousted for eing an unethical breeder perhaps.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

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???

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.

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.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

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.

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? 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!

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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?

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.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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!

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)

[cesar49]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

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)

it appears the same people from opposing clubs are continuing the same old arguments.
i doubt anyone is lying about the lines
biewers started with yorkies
with 2 piebald genes? by accident
then mr. biewer tried to replicate them
successfully for generations
his records are the beginning of the biewer
hopefully the biewer breeders are keeping his breed going
but, since it will take decades to get akc recognition, maybe the clubs
can agree by then
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..

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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..

Now, you are assuming things incorrectly.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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.

I'd be happy if all AKC registered dogs were required to be DNA'd - it helps keep everyone honest. Most horse registries that I've belonged to do require DNA prior to registration (and bloodtyping prior to DNA being available).

Good theory but back in the 80's and 90's (and years prior) off colors were not eligible for AKC registration, so BYBr's who produced "mixes" couldn't have sold them as Rare colored AKC dogs. They may have advertised them as rare colored yorkies, but they weren't AKC registered.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

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

I agree.

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

Sue, when did AKC change their policy to first begin allowing the off-coloredYorkies to be registered? I'm sure I've been told before, but my brain has abandoned me at the moment.

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by cesar49

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..

Since the partis are AKC registered yorkshire terriers, our standards for type, size, conformation would be the same as the standard colored yorkshire terrier. As for color placement on the parti yorkies, there are different spotting genes that cause different amounts of white. My guess with the biewers - who require black saddles, white legs, white tip of tail - have the gene that is responsible for that white type of pattern, which is the Irish spotting gene but many of our parti lines have a less predictable spotting gene (Piebald) and the placement of pigmented patterns is more random.

See the link below that illustrates these different spotting genes in the Australian Shepherds.

White Aussies and Pattern Whites

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

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

Those standards would be the same for Biewers as well. (Again, depending on who you ask--I *think* that some established organizations have made some changes regarding size, but I'm not 100% sure on that.)
The exception would be that Biewers call for the tail to be left in tact, as they originated in Germany where the practice is prohibited. Are parti breeders leaving the tail, or docking? I know that may not be the same answer for breeders accross the board.
Biewers have a standard for color placement and of course originated from the same German line.

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

I agree.

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

Sue, when did AKC change their policy to first begin allowing the off-coloredYorkies to be registered? I'm sure I've been told before, but my brain has abandoned me at the moment.[/QUOTE]

Sometime in the early 2000's, it's only been 5 or 6 years or so. I plan on calling Summit yorkies (one of the 2 california breeders who fought to get the parti line registered) with a list of questions; that being one of them. I'd like to document the steps that were taken, the generations that were DNA'd, when the parti colors started showing up, who was the first parti to be registered ....