This site also has the "30 lbs" information

Yorkshire Terrier - Information, Pictures, Wallpapers 1280x1024,1024x768,1280x800

And funny that this should be on a site "teacupyorkies.com"

Fairly Odd Yorkies|Teacup Yorkie Dogs

another site mentioning the 30 lbs:

Yorkshire Terrier History

I had never heard of Yorkies being 30 lbs before.

Hmm may need to do a little more digging.

Because it would be changing the breed altogether by integrating a new one. You can't breed a Yorkie to a Maltese and still call them Yorkies...they become something else. You wouldn't be 'making the breed better'--the dogs wouldn't genetically BE that breed anymore, they'd be a mixture of two breeds. If there is a need for change, it can be done without bringing in other breeds.

The "30 lb" weight is referenced numerous times, but where they got it, who knows. I would be more inclined to believe Woogie Man's 10-15 lb range, for the reasons he stated. And given that the there was a weight standard in the larger weight class of *not to exceed 12 lbs,* that tells me that there were some that were larger than 12 lbs, or there would be no need to make that part of the standard.

It sounds like at this point different things are being discussed. Eliminating a major health problem by including one other breed in a 5 generation pedigree seems pretty reasonable to me, especially considering all the health problem doxies suffer through. That seems really different than breeding morkies or yorkie-poos because it's a fad.

:thumbup:

Once you incorporate another breed is no longer a purebed dog. The way you eliminate health issues is weed out those dogs with said issues or those that produce those issues out of a breeding program. Spay/nueter and pet them out. Simple as that.

Ah! The fault lays at the breeders who are perpetuating issues and the breed will be obsolete. Then there are those that are breeding out side the standard, as in the yorkie; breeding tinies, doll faces (yes both creating serious health issues).

Yes, there are those breeds that have had issues, such as the King Charles heart problems. Breeders have banded together and worked together to eliminate/correct the problem. Although it has been a long haul, progress is being made.

All 3 of mine are some form of a rescue or rehome. Pebbles was 5 months old and a rehome, Bogey was around a year from a shelter and Doodlebug was just 4 weeks old when I was approved for his rescue. Bogey and Doodlebug are both Yorkie/Maltese *Morkies. If you really look and take your time there are puppies that can be found in rescues.

Knowing and seeing all of the mixed and pure bred yorkies and yorkie mixes in shelters and rescues. BYBers and pet stores should never be supported for the purchase of a puppy. :(

Agree that alot of purebreds are being messed up.

But how is putting a Maltese, for example, who is subject to an eye disease called retinal atrophy, and combing it with a Yorkie who commonly have liver shunts, making for a better, healthier dog? You're just giving a puppy the chance to acquire ALL the health problems of BOTH breeds.

I believe all the statistics stating that "mutts" are healthier comes from true mutts, or mongrels I believe, where you have no idea what your dog is mixed with, they could have 5-10 different breeds mixed in there somewhere down the line. They are the ones that are considered 'healthier' not 'hybrids'.

I think Woogie's examples a few pages back on how certain health problems were eliminated with judicious cross breeding make a lot of sense.

Dog breeds are essentially artificial. Part of the reason there are appearance standards at all is because there really isn't another way to determine what breed a dog belongs to. When the registries started, it seems pretty clear it was, "if it looks like a [duck] and quacks like a [duck], then it's registered as a [duck]." And that point when the registeries started is also arbitrary. Fifty years earlier or fifty years later, a somewhat different set of dogs would have qualified.

It seems to me that that judicious use of all tools available should be used to perpetuate strong, healthy breeds. This may not apply to yorkies, but maybe it applies to some other breed types.

Mardelin, I know you are extremely experienced in this area. So you know that getting health issues out of the gene pool is generally not that simple. Otherwise, liver shunt wouldn't exist.

Totally, OT, but I've been wondering: what does "wrapping" entail for yorkie coats before they are shown?

My kids science teacher breeds yorkie and maltese hoping to eventually breed a white yorkie. She uses it as a genetics project. Her dogs always sell at a premium price.

Wouldn't a white yorkie just be a maltese? :)

I don't know? That's her goal. My daughter's Maltese looks nothing like a yorkie.

That makes no sense at all. They won't be "white yorkies"...because they won't be Yorkies at all anymore. Then she sells her "experiment" for a premium price. Lovely. Just goes to show there's a sucker born every minute.

Does not make any sense at all. Breeding a Yorkie to a Maltes is definately cross breeding no matter how you look at it. Still backyard breeding, still finding justification for what is done. Bottom line it's still about money (premium price).

To get a "white yorkie" would it not make more sense to breed Biewers and keep the ones that have less color spots and add them to your breeding program? This way the less color they have on them the more likely they will throw an offspring that will be less multi-colored...right? Eventually you'll get a white one, just after years and years of breeding carefully, do it wrong and you wind up with really unhealthy pups...breeding is entirely too difficult, I could ever do it...

Am I completely off field here?

Liver shunt is a whole different ball of wax. As well as Leggs Perthes, PLE, etc. Dr. Tobia's studies did not provide any concrete information on LS on how it is passed on. All that is known is that at any given moment it can rear it's ugly head; even 9 generations down the road. And until genetic markers are found for any or all inherited diseases we are shooting in the dark.

While it is always recommended to test our breeding dogs, it only informs us that the breeders that are being tested do not have said afflictions, however it doesn't guarantee that they aren't carriers.

Bottom line is that if one is embarking on breeding, it should be done responsibly. Breeding for health/structure/temprement should always be at the forefront.

No, you aren't. But, it still wouldn't be a yorkie. Still a cross breed.

Biewers are cross breeds?

I can't answer that with any intelligence. It's a breed I haven't really studied. However, they're two trains of thought and dependent on what clubs you talk to. Some believe they are one in the same as a parti yorkie and others say they are breed unto itself. I'm not going to argue that point because I have no expertise in the subject matter. What I was saying is that if you put a yorkie with a Biewer you still would be cross breeding.

Makes sense, I wasn't meaning crossing the yorkie with the biewer, but I hear them referred to as biewer yorkies, so figured the logical thing to do would be to try to breed out the color from the biewer to get a "white yorkie"

I have no expertise on either of the breeds either, always learning new things. Thank you though, I just got confused. :)

No, they're not. At least, their not supposed to be. Some believe they are essentially Parti Yorkies, some believe that somewhere, way back when, there was another breed introduced. It really depends on who you ask.

(I understand the reasoning behind your statement, BTW.)

As I stated above, there are two different beliefs. Two trains of thoughts.

The one thing is that breeding yorkies is very difficult. It isn't a matter of breeding pheno type to pheno type and whala, you got what you bred for. I wish it could be that easy. Better yet, I like my analogy of having all these little pods on a shelf. I want a Best In Show Dog....It's on the shelf and I just water and I've got it.

There are different things being discussed and that's partly my fault. The examples I gave, along with breeding a 'designer' dog are all considered cross breeding. I was just trying to illustrate how the same tool (cross breeding) can be used either for profit or to achieve other goals. And yes, all pure breeds were cross bred at some point. The difference between a pure breed and a cross breed is the stewardship of breeders in getting a breed to breed pure. Cross breeding, out-crossing, inbreeding and line breeding are all just tools....tools that have all been used in the creation of all dog breeds. It's in how these tools are used (or mis-used) that the difference lies.

One really striking example is with Gail's (Gemy) breed, the Black Russian Terrier. It's an impressive dog but had such a weird start. Beginning as a cross between upwards of 20 different breeds, you could say this dog, at the beginning, was the mother of all mongrel breeds. It was bred solely by one kennel (the state owned Red Star Kennel) until 1957, when some were allowed out to hobby breeders. In the relatively short time since then, this dog has been accepted as a pure breed by both FCI (1984) and AKC (2004).

The above is not a knock against the BRT, but an example of how intelligent breeding can set type in a dog in a short period of time, even with all those breeds thrown into the mix. The only health concerns I've seen listed are hip and elbow dysplasia and PRA, a shorter list than many pure breeds that have been around much longer. Here's a link to a history of the breed... Russian Guard

I'm sorry but regardless if this woman is a science teacher she should not be doing science projects in genetics on dogs. That is just wrong and she is a BYBer. :eek:

If she is a science teacher, then she ought to know that what she is breeding is a morkie and not a yorkie. No matter how many generations she goes, she will never have a white yorkie. She may have something that resembles one, but it's not.

I could be wrong here... but I think even breeding a simple cross like a maltese/yorkie might be likelier to be healthy than its two parents. I think that because these undesirable traits are driven by recessive genes, breeding to another breed without them makes it more likely that the dominant, healthy expression will cover. I also think this would only be true in the first generation.

I don't think this is what's driving the designer dog market, but I saw on APL some crosses that seemed sensible to me. There was a ... puggle? I think, that was a pug with a less extreme face. And I do like cockapoos, though I'm not sure there's a real program behind that or just indiscriminate crossing.

Anyway, I agree with Mardelin's bottom line, and would also add anyone breeding should carefully consider if what they are offering the breed is worth it, considering the horrendous dog overpopulation problem. It's not something anyone with a dog and a dream should embark upon.