Reputable cross breeder?

[Beamers Mom]

Originally Posted by FlDebra

That site is INCORRECT. I do not know where in the world they came up with that 30 pound statement. This is how so much dis-information gets spread online. Another site will pick this up and use it as their source reference and before you know it they are trying to rewrite history. Have to be careful wht you use as a reference.

The Yorkshire Terrier Standard of 1890 divided the weight into two classes, one under 5 pounds and the other over 5 pounds but not to exceed 12 pounds.

Best to read respected experts on Yorkshire Terrier history like Joan Gordon. The link I listed earlier in this thread to the YTCA.org will give a nice history synopsis. For more, you can check out Joan's books.

I have one that has a picture of a 3 pound show winner from the 1800's. I have not found a definitive weight for Huddersfield Ben. He did not live long, but was very prolific and had a lot of winners among his pups. But to be fair there were not very many registered to compete at that time! Huddersfield Ben's owner, Mrs. Foster showed Yorkshire Terriers in both of the classes of the time: Toy Terrier under 5 pounds and Class XXXII Broken Haired Scotch. Ben was shown in the latter so we can assume he was over 5 pounds but I m guessing no where near 30!

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.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by CJxDanielle

I mean if the goal of breeders is to make the breed better, I don't see how crossbreeding could be considered such a crime. Especially if things could improve.

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.

[OwnedByJezebel]

Originally Posted by Beamers Mom

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.

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.

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

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.

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.

[CJxDanielle]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

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.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

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.

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.

[CJxDanielle]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

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.

Again, what if as a breed there are no more healthy dogs because they have been so "deformed" by the standard. Then what?

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by CJxDanielle

Again, what if as a breed there are no more healthy dogs because they have been so "deformed" by the standard. Then what?

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.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

There are puppies galore in rescues and pounds, as well as older dogs. Sometimes you have to spend sometime looking (it took me a few months to find Rhett- he was 10 weeks). Other times they just fall in to your lap (Scarlett was 6-8 weeks and I wasn't even really looking). My Mom's rescues were 3 months and 10 weeks old, too. Not all rescue pups come with issues, either. Scarlett, her mom and littermates, were surrendered due to the flooding in TN. Oliver was picked up by the rescue he came from because he was too small to survive being shipped off to a pet store- so the rescue drove 10 hours to bring him back to Atlanta to keep him from being put down.

It just comes down to the fact that there really is zero reason for supporting a BYB when you are looking for either a purebred or a mix.

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.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by CJxDanielle

Again, what if as a breed there are no more healthy dogs because they have been so "deformed" by the standard. Then what?

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'.

[QuickSilver]

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.

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.

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.

[QuickSilver]

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

[Cooper2010]

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.

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Cooper2010

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?

[Cooper2010]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

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.