Feeling A Little Guilty.

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by concretegurl

I've no quams over hijacking this thread and getting off topic since then Op and several others seem to have been banned and suspended...
Partis by nature of genetics are a rarity-recessive gerontology-the throw back gene Debra refers to-it was the intentional crossing of Partis and Parti carriers and "bringing out of the gene" that caused the dominance of the gene and the recent popularity, also the recent proliferation of 'white" being a predominant color displayed on Parti's ect-I'm not standing up for Debra's position on Parti's here, it's one of the things she and I are total opposites on Parti's I see them as a genetic reminder of the creation of Yorkies and "special" -in rarity, which they aren't so much anymore (you can ask her her beliefs on them that's not for me to state here) but... she is right when she refers that Partis are often faked-especially while the AKC refused to recognize them, even after they were given I believe it is only "limited registration based on color variation" am I stating that correctly? Hope so Debra will be all over me! People like to bring out the extreme and if you think you have to screen a breeder-Oh my you really have to scrutinize a Parti breeder! Which is sad, it's such a double standard many reputable Parti breeders believe in their history and breed inclusion as a form of Standard in AKC Yorkie recognition, they work at the perfection and standard adherence the same as any other Yorkie breeder just with a different color variety, yet they catch more flack...
Debra and anyone else,-again I wasn't trying to well anything to Mardelin other than take issue with her wording...Debra...I understand all too well your stance on hybrid dogs-I completely agree with all you said about the issues with irresponsible breeding, but its generalized to me, to any breeding period. I see where the mixing of breeds is overly problematic and now truly understand why even those whom take more precautions in the genetic research and development along with health and temperament certification (like OFA certifying your breeding dogs) of their dogs aren't openly talking about their work with hybrids, breed creation etc-they get crucified and put into a bad breeder category when they may very well do more than most purebred breeders...again I just really don't like double standards, I understand why but I think many don't many just red flag some breeders due to misconception and then assume any purebred breeder to be on the up and up and automatically a "better" breeder...as I've always said before I could easily be seen as the anti-AKC posterchild with my Schnorkie, my Parti Yorkie and my (pure blond EKC) white Miniature Schnauzer, however I believe in the AKC and I truly wish they had more power and more authority to regulate breeding when it comes to encouraging responsible breeding practices associated with those they allow to certify litters etc (you knwo that dog DNA we disagree on-the AKC uses them to test paternity and maturity to verify some dogs in question of linage-just sayin'). also these fly-by-night registries they're money based solely-and as far as vets who vouch for this or that-again all about the mighty dollar I assume-that's especially sad though, then again how many vets work for pup mills etc
' It should not be a hobby breeders lark or worse a puppy mills greed like most every mixed breeding I have read about"-Debra, same is easily said about "purebreds" it is the irresponsible breeding of purebreds that dilute the gene pool more in my mind, but I do see your point-then again look at Briewers, I thought they were exclusively guarded...they getting pretty darn popular with BYB and pup mills here in CA now too..Wow I think I've written a little novel here-oh well it's not like this thread was going in a direction it could have been side tracked form at least it has a more positive sharing of opinions going on now...and well it's still semi on topic of breeding practices right?

Wow -- don't think I have ever had my name thrown around in one post as many times as this one!!!! I was going to skip but how can I not respond if only to reiterate what I have said before.

I have read just as many scientific explanations that show there is NO "parti" gene in the actual Yorkshire Terrier's past. Where is the white-coated breed in the ACTUAL breed background that would somehow materialize over 100 years later????? No one comes up with a believable origin -- just that there is some gene! I don't buy it. I had to read carefully on both sides and come to my own conclusion. But I do not believe for a minute that there was a white gene in there. Others do and they have just as much right to their opinion as I do. However, the proof is on the side of the parti's. And I have not read anything that convinces me after careful dissection.

The Yorkshire Terrier is a beautiful breed. Many, many years by so many yorkie enthusiasts have gone into improving this magnificent breed. It would be such a shame in my mind, to try to dilute it, suggest these modern day parti's are all natural Yorkie anomalies and now breed FOR the fault.

To use poor purebred breeders as some excuse for me not to have a stance against "partis" is ridiculous. That is like saying there is only one bad breeding practice and you can't say anything against all others???? Does that make any sense at all? No! I am against purebred breeders who use poor breeding practices, those breeding tinies, those breeding off standard (which includes COLOR by the way), those not selecting the best examples of the breed, those not humanely breeding, those who sell to pet shops, brokers, the list goes on......but I am still against "parti's" as they are a FAULT, a DISQUALIFICATION according to the only two governing breed organizations -- AKC and YTCA.

The "parti" people go out and start their own breed club, try to come up with their own rules, standards, etc..... but then they want to be yorkies too!!! Can't have it both wys. You want to be a yorkie then you go by the rules of the YTCA and AKC (or other country's equivalent -- I don't mean to make this like the US is the end-all but I am not familiar enough with other countries' breed clubs). Now they want to SHOW their dogs at AKC shows when the AKC has said that the color white is going to be an immediate disqualification.

It is sort of like this site -- if you don't like the rules, then you are free to go elsewhere! Don't try to change the WHOLE Yorkshire Terrier world, just because you want to breed off-color dogs. (Speaking of a metaphorical "you" -- not the author of the quoted material).

[concretegurl]

Originally Posted by EmGo11

Just wanted to clarify...I'm neither banned or suspended

EmGo11, I won't post off topic on your thread again I'm really sorry I thought I did read you had been (I did wonder about why considering what you said and what not) I won't post off topic on your thread again I did replay just to present my point on the issue-and also to ask that if anyone else wants to post off topic they can feel free to PM me with anything about me so your thread doesn't get interrupted anymore-especially with stuff just about me.

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

I'm failing to see how concretgurl can take a statement about not paying a penny for a hyrid (or mixed breed) and turn it in to being against animals.

Just doesn't compute.

But for the record, I won't pay a dime to anyone who breeds poorly whether they are breeding "pure" or "mixed". And by it's very definition, mixed breeding is breeding done poorly.

Hybrid is a mixed breed, it implies a 50/50 cross mixed breeds can be far more generalized though designer dogs, all the way to well Yorkies... Devaluing an animal just because it isn't purebred-I actually asked about the meaning more so than "turned a statement into something" inquiring weather it was about them being hybrids or not-please reread what I said. I didn't ask especially nicely though, I feel it's a very harsh statement to make for a generalized prejudice in breeding, saying I wouldn't pay a penny they've always been free and well i thought someone else said $3...there is a reason the pounds even charge an adoption fee-to say that mix breeding by (a) definition is breeding done poorly-I'm sorry I thought you liked Yorkies...how old is their breed, hmm how did they start-bad breeding? No really I'm asking? Yorkies (and so many others) came about how, are their starts all considered bad breeding to you? Beiwers, Chessies, more recently, now AKC recognised breeds...they are all the result of "bad breeding" too? I really don't understand how people can apply general standards to and overlook the important parts of issues and not say what the real issue is..at least you feel the same way about poorly bred purebreds...so you have a breed standard you apply yourself to that's my point...

Originally Posted by capt_noonie

A lot of her posts lately have been contradictory to herself.

But to what I've bolded, I agree.

They are? Pm me any questions you have about something being contradictory-unless you just want to continue making comments about me and not the issue. A lot huh? I like how you hijacked another thread to address me personally off topic, instead of having PM-ed to not cause disruption but I appreciated you asked me for a clarification and I answered you maybe you should go back and read it before you post again directly about me and not the topic...

[RachelandSadie]

Originally Posted by jencar98

I agree with everything you've posted above Debra with the exception of including partis in with mixed breeds. AKC does recognize partis as a color variation of yorkshire terriers. One may or may not agree with breeding them, but they are yorkies. I don't agree with marketing them as rare, any more than I think tiny yorkies should be exploited and marketed for their size.

i think she was making a statement not that parti's are not considered the rare off coloring of the breed that does happen, but that over time a mix that looks like one or the other of a breed can be registered as a breed and bred as say a yorkie even though there is maltese lines in it and then all of a sudden the offspring down the road have white in them and it wasn't a parti yorkie it was actually a maltese bloodline coming back through

[Breezeaway]

Originally Posted by FlDebra

Wow -- don't think I have ever had my name thrown around in one post as many times as this one!!!! I was going to skip but how can I not respond if only to reiterate what I have said before.

I have read just as many scientific explanations that show there is NO "parti" gene in the actual Yorkshire Terrier's past. Where is the white-coated breed in the ACTUAL breed background that would somehow materialize over 100 years later????? No one comes up with a believable origin -- just that there is some gene! I don't buy it. I had to read carefully on both sides and come to my own conclusion. But I do not believe for a minute that there was a white gene in there. Others do and they have just as much right to their opinion as I do. However, the proof is on the side of the parti's. And I have not read anything that convinces me after careful dissection.

The Yorkshire Terrier is a beautiful breed. Many, many years by so many yorkie enthusiasts have gone into improving this magnificent breed. It would be such a shame in my mind, to try to dilute it, suggest these modern day parti's are all natural Yorkie anomalies and now breed FOR the fault.

To use poor purebred breeders as some excuse for me not to have a stance against "partis" is ridiculous. That is like saying there is only one bad breeding practice and you can't say anything against all others???? Does that make any sense at all? No! I am against purebred breeders who use poor breeding practices, those breeding tinies, those breeding off standard (which includes COLOR by the way), those not selecting the best examples of the breed, those not humanely breeding, those who sell to pet shops, brokers, the list goes on......but I am still against "parti's" as they are a FAULT, a DISQUALIFICATION according to the only two governing breed organizations -- AKC and YTCA.

The "parti" people go out and start their own breed club, try to come up with their own rules, standards, etc..... but then they want to be yorkies too!!! Can't have it both wys. You want to be a yorkie then you go by the rules of the YTCA and AKC (or other country's equivalent -- I don't mean to make this like the US is the end-all but I am not familiar enough with other countries' breed clubs). Now they want to SHOW their dogs at AKC shows when the AKC has said that the color white is going to be an immediate disqualification.

It is sort of like this site -- if you don't like the rules, then you are free to go elsewhere! Don't try to change the WHOLE Yorkshire Terrier world, just because you want to breed off-color dogs. (Speaking of a metaphorical "you" -- not the author of the quoted material).

Maybe you need to read some more, there are plenty of books and research that have said the maltese was mixed in earlier years.
By saying that there just is no parti color in the yorkshire terrier then how do you explain the parti yorkie that Wildweir kennels had come from their 6 generations of champion yorkies? I assure you Joan Gordon and Janet Bennett did not mix a dog into their line.
Other colors have always turned up here and there, they were just done away with.

[RachelandSadie]

NVM on my post. i thought i was reading something debra was trying to say and i must have read it wrong myself...sorry.

[capt_noonie]

Originally Posted by concretegurl

They are? Pm me any questions you have about something being contradictory-unless you just want to continue making comments about me and not the issue. A lot huh? I like how you hijacked another thread to address me personally off topic, instead of having PM-ed to not cause disruption but I appreciated you asked me for a clarification and I answered you maybe you should go back and read it before you post again directly about me and not the topic...

Like I posted here: http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/3365354-post33.html
You hate google ads for advertising hybrids, then you call me and mary hybrid haters.

Then you get upset I went OT when your own words were: "I've no quams over hijacking this thread and getting off topic since then Op and several others seem to have been banned and suspended..."http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/3366301-post36.html

You can go OT but I can't? why? The original issue the OP had with this thread was about a bad breeder who is now banned. That part of the thread is now history. It's evolved into this now. I'm not the only one who find your posts confusing and hard to read. http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/3366462-post105.html So it's fair to say that my questions and posts are not completely useless.

[EmGo11]

Originally Posted by concretegurl

EmGo11, I won't post off topic on your thread again I'm really sorry I thought I did read you had been (I did wonder about why considering what you said and what not) I won't post off topic on your thread again I did replay just to present my point on the issue-and also to ask that if anyone else wants to post off topic they can feel free to PM me with anything about me so your thread doesn't get interrupted anymore-especially with stuff just about me.

Concretegurl, I wasn't asking you to not post anymore I was just clarifying that I wasn't suspended or banned. You have the right to your own opinions and you can post them where you want and that goes to everyone else as well. I don't really mind that it's gone off topic, I think this is a topic that's been debated once or twice (or maybe even more) on yorkietalk before and I know that there are people from both sides who have strong beliefs about this. As long as it doesn't become insulting to the persons themselves, I find no fault in having this debate.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by capt_noonie

I've always wondered this. You send in the papers when they are puppies right? How will you know what their adult color will be? At that point they would still be black and tan puppy colors. Do you go off the parents?

When pups are born. You send in a litter registration, nothing on the registration identifies color. The final registration is when you register the individual dog. On the Registration Paper there are boxes than you fill in to identify the color of the dog. If the color of your dog does not coinside with the colors that are provided on that form you are instructed to such and such form. Per the Parti Breeders on YT; you are then to submit all the forms and provide AKC with a picture of the dog.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by concretegurl

Hybrid is a mixed breed, it implies a 50/50 cross mixed breeds can be far more generalized though designer dogs, all the way to well Yorkies... Devaluing an animal just because it isn't purebred-I actually asked about the meaning more so than "turned a statement into something" inquiring weather it was about them being hybrids or not-please reread what I said. I didn't ask especially nicely though, I feel it's a very harsh statement to make for a generalized prejudice in breeding, saying I wouldn't pay a penny they've always been free and well i thought someone else said $3...there is a reason the pounds even charge an adoption fee-to say that mix breeding by (a) definition is breeding done poorly-I'm sorry I thought you liked Yorkies...how old is their breed, hmm how did they start-bad breeding? No really I'm asking? Yorkies (and so many others) came about how, are their starts all considered bad breeding to you? Beiwers, Chessies, more recently, now AKC recognised breeds...they are all the result of "bad breeding" too? I really don't understand how people can apply general standards to and overlook the important parts of issues and not say what the real issue is..at least you feel the same way about poorly bred purebreds...so you have a breed standard you apply yourself to that's my point...

.

Actually, I beg to differ. The term "hybrid dog" has nothing to do with a 50/50 mixture and everything to do with marketing by less than reputable breeders. In the past, the term mixed breed was used to describe these litters, as they were almost always a "whoops" and not planned for profit.

I would suggest that you take a look at the history of how the yorkie breed came in to being. It wasn't done willy nilly to fuel a marketing craze. The breed came in to being after the careful selection of the "parent" breeds for specific traits. And then, only the best examples of the breeds were used to create the Yorkie. Careful records were kept by selected breeders and the crosses were bred to crosses to create the Yorkie as we know it today.

That's a far cry from what's being done with this "hybrid" craze. Anyone with an off-standard yorkie will breed it to another off-standard dog to make it the latest trend. There is no "end goal" in sight, other than the almighty buck.

I do love Yorkies. Badly bred ones included. In fact, I have two badly bred ones that came from rescues. But the badly bred ones have helped create the many problems we see in the population today. The breed standard is set for a reason, and it's to maintain the integrity of the lines.

As for Biewers (which I think are gorgeous), there is a lot of controversy depending on who you talk to about their origin. There is a reason the AKC doesn't recognize them here, yet. I have no idea if they ever will. Same goes for Parti's. Chesapeake retrievers were recognized by the AKC in 1878. They trace their origins to Newfoundlands that were then bred to a multiple variety of dogs to attain the breed known today. No one tossed two dogs in to a room and, low and behold, a new breed was born.

[concretegurl]

Originally Posted by capt_noonie

Like I posted here: http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/3365354-post33.html
You hate google ads for advertising hybrids, then you call me and mary hybrid haters.

Then you get upset I went OT when your own words were: "I've no quams over hijacking this thread and getting off topic since then Op and several others seem to have been banned and suspended..."http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/3366301-post36.html

You can go OT but I can't? why? The original issue the OP had with this thread was about a bad breeder who is now banned. That part of the thread is now history. It's evolved into this now. I'm not the only one who find your posts confusing and hard to read. http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/3366462-post105.html So it's fair to say that my questions and posts are not completely useless.

OkayI re-posted again! Seriously though until the OP wants her thread going in this direction I'll not...I just got really annoyed with part and pieces being expressed...what's the saying you can fix ugly...so I'm trying to make it all easier to see..
I wasn't calling you and Mardelin hybrid haters I was asking-seriously did you read my word choice, I try to word in such a way it expresses exactly what I mean..I said hybrid hating? as a question NEVERTHELESS if either of you feel I was attacking you or calling you something I'm very sorry you feel that way it wasn't what I was doing-try re-reading...

1. Ugh I will re-post here I said I HATE the ads on Google for a pup mill broker..a specific one that offers Yorkies and designer breeds here's the full link for that forum I hope more people post OT there and express the disgust with pup mill brokers etc...
http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...isgusting.html

2. OT-ye when I thought the OP had been banned...until she's okay with her post going in this direction I feel rude having it go in another on my account or in my part...but otherwise wow you have a way of twisting things and only sending the link for a specific statement-try posting the link to the thread...and listing the post number so ppl can see the whole thing...there's never any bad or useless question, I can think of all kinds of uses for your posts...fair huh not sure where you are going but I took the time to respond to any post or questions you had toward me...

3.Confusing posts- Well I'll be sure to use paragraphs numbering and such so ppl don't get confused because I don't use paragraphs-THANKS for posting that I missed the comment! Appreciated!

[RachelandSadie]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

Actually, I beg to differ. The term "hybrid dog" has nothing to do with a 50/50 mixture and everything to do with marketing by less than reputable breeders. In the past, the term mixed breed was used to describe these litters, as they were almost always a "whoops" and not planned for profit.

I would suggest that you take a look at the history of how the yorkie breed came in to being. It wasn't done willy nilly to fuel a marketing craze. The breed came in to being after the careful selection of the "parent" breeds for specific traits. And then, only the best examples of the breeds were used to create the Yorkie. Careful records were kept by selected breeders and the crosses were bred to crosses to create the Yorkie as we know it today.

That's a far cry from what's being done with this "hybrid" craze. Anyone with an off-standard yorkie will breed it to another off-standard dog to make it the latest trend. There is no "end goal" in sight, other than the almighty buck.

I do love Yorkies. Badly bred ones included. In fact, I have two badly bred ones that came from rescues. But the badly bred ones have helped create the many problems we see in the population today. The breed standard is set for a reason, and it's to maintain the integrity of the lines.

As for Biewers (which I think are gorgeous), there is a lot of controversy depending on who you talk to about their origin. There is a reason the AKC doesn't recognize them here, yet. I have no idea if they ever will. Same goes for Parti's. Chesapeake retrievers were recognized by the AKC in 1878. They trace their origins to Newfoundlands that were then bred to a multiple variety of dogs to attain the breed known today. No one tossed two dogs in to a room and, low and behold, a new breed was born.

good post!

[Breezeaway]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

When pups are born. You send in a litter registration, nothing on the registration identifies color. The final registration is when you register the individual dog. On the Registration Paper there are boxes than you fill in to identify the color of the dog. If the color of your dog does not coinside with the colors that are provided on that form you are instructed to such and such form. Per the Parti Breeders on YT; you are then to submit all the forms and provide AKC with a picture of the dog.

There is no such and such form for parti color yorkies. You just put the numbers 014 in the color spot. then send pics with the registration form so they have a record of where the spots are on the dog for identification purposes.
Sometimes the pup does not have enough white to be a parti so AKC papers will say black and tan with white markings or blue and tan with white markings.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

There is no such and such form for parti color yorkies. You just put the numbers 014 in the color spot. then send pics with the registration form so they have a record of where the spots are on the dog for identification purposes.
Sometimes the pup does not have enough white to be a parti so AKC papers will say black and tan with white markings or blue and tan with white markings.

I stand corrected. You're then registering the dog on it's markings....thanks for the clarification.

[jencar98]

Originally Posted by FlDebra

Wow -- don't think I have ever had my name thrown around in one post as many times as this one!!!! I was going to skip but how can I not respond if only to reiterate what I have said before.

I have read just as many scientific explanations that show there is NO "parti" gene in the actual Yorkshire Terrier's past. Where is the white-coated breed in the ACTUAL breed background that would somehow materialize over 100 years later????? No one comes up with a believable origin -- just that there is some gene! There are references to the Maltese being in with the original mix of dogs used to create a yorkie. I don't buy it. I had to read carefully on both sides and come to my own conclusion. But I do not believe for a minute that there was a white gene in there. Others do and they have just as much right to their opinion as I do. However, the proof is on the side of the parti's. And I have not read anything that convinces me after careful dissection.

The Yorkshire Terrier is a beautiful breed. Many, many years by so many yorkie enthusiasts have gone into improving this magnificent breed. It would be such a shame in my mind, to try to dilute it, suggest these modern day parti's are all natural Yorkie anomalies and now breed FOR the fault.

To use poor purebred breeders as some excuse for me not to have a stance against "partis" is ridiculous. That is like saying there is only one bad breeding practice and you can't say anything against all others???? Does that make any sense at all? No! I am against purebred breeders who use poor breeding practices, those breeding tinies, those breeding off standard (which includes COLOR by the way), those not selecting the best examples of the breed, those not humanely breeding, those who sell to pet shops, brokers, the list goes on......but I am still against "parti's" as they are a FAULT, a DISQUALIFICATION according to the only two governing breed organizations -- AKC and YTCA. To my knowledge the parti color is not considered a color fault by the AKC, but is a fault with YTCA and they are the determining body for the standard as accepted in AKC shows.

The "parti" people go out and start their own breed club, try to come up with their own rules, standards, etc..... but then they want to be yorkies too!!! Can't have it both wys. You want to be a yorkie then you go by the rules of the YTCA and AKC (or other country's equivalent -- I don't mean to make this like the US is the end-all but I am not familiar enough with other countries' breed clubs). Now they want to SHOW their dogs at AKC shows when the AKC has said that the color white is going to be an immediate disqualification. It is the breed club, YTCA that sets the standard and has made the white color a disqualification.

It is sort of like this site -- if you don't like the rules, then you are free to go elsewhere! Don't try to change the WHOLE Yorkshire Terrier world, just because you want to breed off-color dogs. (Speaking of a metaphorical "you" -- not the author of the quoted material).

Debra, I know we don't agree on the parti subject and that's okay with me. I do believe there are a few good parti breeders and lots of bad parti breeders, just like with traditional color yorkies. As well as, I know there are many bad show breeders and a few good ones. Personally, I think probably 90% or more of all those breeding dogs today shouldn't be doing so.

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

Maybe you need to read some more, there are plenty of books and research that have said the maltese was mixed in earlier years.
By saying that there just is no parti color in the yorkshire terrier then how do you explain the parti yorkie that Wildweir kennels had come from their 6 generations of champion yorkies? I assure you Joan Gordon and Janet Bennett did not mix a dog into their line.
Other colors have always turned up here and there, they were just done away with.

Point me to a VALID reference that says the maltese was definately mixed in earlier years!!! I do not believe it exists as I have found absoltely NO evidence of maltese being bred into the Yorkshire Terrier as it was originated. I looked -- I did not form my opinion out of thin air and we had some lively discussions 2-3 years ago on this subject. Never once is a reference produced showing this was realistically done.

Some have GUESSED MAYBE there was a Maltese simply because of the long flowing coats. That could also have come from selectively breeding the best coats each time over the years. I don't think you can use Joan Gordon to support this as she writes:

"Joan Gordon

According to many present-day writers Yorkshires were the result of
a number of breeds being bred together to produce the desired points. How anyone could believe, or even imagine, these early fanciers would have bred from a Dandie Dinmont, a breed with an uneven top line; a Maltese, a totally white breed lacking any blue or tan markings or from a smooth coated Manchester Terrier (originally a smooth coated Old English Terrier) is not being realistic." this is n excerpt from the Yorkshire Terrier History.

She does talk of "off-color" yorkies in her book but I believe she is talking about the chocolate, gold, and red pups that do occasionally get thrown from purebred yorkies. The genetic science to understand that is solid -- WHITE is not. I did not see anything about her having a parti. Do you have a reference for that? Since she does not believe white is a genetic component of the yorkie, I find this hard to fathom.

I am always open to reading any VALID scientific evidence that shows the maltese was bred into that early Yorkie. I don't close my mind to it -- but as long as the professionals writing the Yorkshire Terrier history say it is not so and I can find no evidence that it was, I think I will stick with the YTCA accepted history -- NO WHITE, NO MALTESE.

I don't even understand why you all want to change the AKC/YTCA stance. You all have started your own breed clubs -- many of them. In fact until you all agree on what the dog is supposed to be, it is difficult to try to bring the AKC/YTCA to your side.