Yorkshire Terrier and the Parti/Tricolor

[Raymond's Mom]

I have no doubt that Pfeiffer is gorgeous but I want to steal Wylie!!!!!

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

Your statement is too broad and is your opinion. Which is what you did not want here.
Some of us parti breeders strive for color placement just as much some traditional breeders. Not everyone strives for the color on the traditional yorkies as show breeders do. There are alot more yorkies born that do not have the proper color for show and those breeders don't care what color they breed or come out as long as they can sell them.
Stop lumping Parti breeders separately than any other dog breeder.
It is not just with some parti breeders placing any ol' dog with another ol' dog, Alot more traditional breeders are doing that.

All dogs start with the breeder and you cannot lump them all together just because of the color.

Some of us Parti breeders are just as selective, careful, meticulous, health conscious and reputable as are some traditional color yorkie breeders ,as are some Biewer breeders.
Some of us Parti breeders care very deeply and passionately about what we do.
We will continue to strive for the best, to show to the world how Magnificent, Beautiful and Healthy that the Parti Colored Yorkshire Terrier Is.

In my opinion, since you gave yours. It does seem that the YTCA cares more about the color of the yorkie than anything else, including health. If that were not true, then people wouldn't be doing so much enhancing(coloring) for the show, now would they and the dog would have to have stringent health tests before ever entering the ring to guard against passing on any health related genetic issues.
But they don't, they mostly just have to be the "right color" to be a Champion. IMO Health should always come first.......

I do not believe I am stating merely an opinion. I was speaking solely on the subject of color when I said parti's were not selective, that was clear. I believe that is fact and NOT opinion. [/I]It may sound subjective, but when those breeding parti's say ANY 2-3 colors and ANY placement is acceptable, then how COULD THAT POOSSIBLY be selective. You say that some parti-breeders do strive for placement. What do they use as a goal? There is no standard, no generally accepted placement requirement, no established goal for all to strive for. I never said that any breeder was not being selective in anything other than color. I hope ALL breeders are selective in health & structure (even though there are some who don't care in all walks). The subject though was COLOR.

When you say that show breeders are putting color ahead of health, that is opinion, false, and totally ludicrous. Those yorkshire terriers in the ring are obviously healthy, vetted, well cared for and most, if not all are OFA/CERF certified. All of the show breeders here do the testing and often describe removing a dog from their breeding program if any pup is ever thrown with a health or structure problem. Do you have an example of a Yorkshire in the ring that has not had their eyes, heart, and joints tested?

Just because some breeders were caught enhancing color does not mean in ANY way they or the majority of breeders put color ahead of health! I color my hair, does that mean I am not concerned with my health or that I put my hair color above health concerns? That is just crazy talk! You lose credibility when you use ludicrous statements like that. "Someone, somewhere colored their dogs hair so show breeders don't put health first" Really???? Come on! You have been so reasonable in presenting your side until this.

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

My GORGEOUS parti girl, Pfeiffer, wishes you only the best - she has room in her heart for everyone, even those who disapprove of her .

I really hate to see this sort of card being played again. I think it has been made abundantly CLEAR many times, that NO ONE has anything against ANY dog no matter what color, shape, disqualification, fault, handicap, mistake, genetic throw-back, or error that shows up! I love every dog and would do what I could to help any of them. I think the parti-s are pretty, chocolates adorable, goldens beautiful! I think even an albino dog is unique with the pink eyes & nose. I loved my first curly haired yorkie like you would not believe! Her color was good, placement good, but those wavy curls! I sure would not have bred her! That is the question always -- should they be bred? Never is there a question with having anything against any dog or disapproving of the dog itself. And I think you know that Ann!

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Ann, please don't suggest that people disapprove of Pfeiffer just because we don't support the breeding of Parti's. This isn't about individual dogs, this is about the breed as a whole and what is good for it. I think Pfeiffer is adorable, and I also think droopy eared dogs Yorkies are adorable, but I would not support a breeder who bred for them. The breed club for the Yorkshire Terrier believes that breeding for Partis is wrong, the breed club is the experts, and whether people like this or not, we can speak of them as the "majority". These breeders, in general, know how to breed and have created champions. There is an old saying that you have to know the rules before you break the rules, same goes with dog breeding, how many parti breeders have created champions before they got into breeding parti's, do they even know the other points on how to create a good structured dog? This is why many people question a parti breeders motives, but people cannot take this personally, and statements such as the one you just made suggesting that somehow we don't like Pfeiffer is really hitting below the belt. This really hurts me to read this, and I'm sure it hurts others as well.

A person should not think it's okay to make blankets statements and for those reading them to not get offended, hurt, angry (whatever their personal feelings are). When it is written, "a sucker is born every minute", to describe the type of buyer that is attracted to the parti, then yes, Ann has a right to type exactly what she did. She is not the one that took this thread to 'that' personal level so why are Ann's words being questioned?

As for those that have championed dogs and your belief that they have more rights when it comes to breeding....are you referring to a particular show breeder within this thread or just show breeders in general? You do realize that there are YTCA breeders on Yorkietalk that have never even championed a Yorkie, right? When you constantly recommend this show group to those that are looking for a breeder, do you only give the names of those that fit your statement, "These breeders, in general, know how to breed and have created champions."?

I also agree with Ann on the fact that it has been discussed MANY times where the parti comes from.

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by FlDebra

I do not believe I am stating merely an opinion. I was speaking solely on the subject of color when I said parti's were not selective, that was clear. I believe that is fact and NOT opinion. It may sound subjective, but when those breeding parti's say ANY 2-3 colors and ANY placement is acceptable, then how COULD THAT POOSSIBLY be selective. You say that some parti-breeders do strive for placement. What do they use as a goal? There is no standard, no generally accepted placement requirement, no established goal for all to strive for.[/I] I never said that any breeder was not being selective in anything other than color. I hope ALL breeders are selective in health & structure (even though there are some who don't care in all walks). The subject though was COLOR. .

Just so people reading this can understand the genetics behind many of the parti yorkies ...

The majority of parti yorkies have either the piebald gene or extreme white piebald gene. These genes have a random and unpredictable spotting pattern, so it would be nearly impossible to set a standard indicating placement of or quantity of spotting - thus the standard for parti, is the same as the blue and tan yorkie, with the exception of color.

Now, if parti's all had the irish spotting gene, like some of the Biewers have, it would be possible to list the markings in a set standard. Irish Spotting gene has a predictable spotting pattern, characterized by white legs, white on belly, chest, chin, muzzle and tip of tail.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

A person should not think it's okay to make blankets statements and for those reading them to not get offended, hurt, angry (whatever their personal feelings are). When it is written, "a sucker is born every minute", to describe the type of buyer that is attracted to the parti, then yes, Ann has a right to type exactly what she did. She is not the one that took this thread to 'that' personal level so why are Ann's words being questioned?

As for those that have championed dogs and your belief that they have more rights when it comes to breeding....are you referring to a particular show breeder within this thread or just show breeders in general? You do realize that there are YTCA breeders on Yorkietalk that have never even championed a Yorkie, right? When you constantly recommend this show group to those that are looking for a breeder, do you only give the names of those that fit your statement, "These breeders, in general, know how to breed and have created champions."?

I also agree with Ann on the fact that it has been discussed MANY times where the parti comes from.

I never said they have more rights, what makes you think I implied this? They are the experts, but they still need to breed to standard. Is there another breed club that has produced any champions? The YTCA sets the standard and protects the standard, so therefore they are the experts. What is a breed without a standard? If a YTCA member produced a parti, this in itself would not be an awful thing, it's what she does next that determines if she respects the standard. A breeder who does not respect standard doesn't understand the very basis of purebred breeding. At least, Mr. Biewer was familiar with breeding champions, and it seems like he was trying to do more than produce pets.

As to your comment about breeders in this thread, I speak in general terms, not to specific breeders in this thread or on Yorkietalk. I'm confused by your statement of ,"You do realize that there are YTCA breeders on Yorkietalk that have never even championed a Yorkie, right?" What has that to do with anything? I am speaking, in general, for the club and it's standard, not individual breeders. I even said, "These breeders, in general, know how to breed and have created champions," and yet you want to speak of exceptions? Of course, there are exceptions, but the YTCA is more than individual breeders, you're familiar with the concept, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts"?

I have been very outspoken in my views of breeders who breed tinies, even though tinies are "standard", I do not believe in the intentional breeding of or for them. If a breeder produces one, it should be placed in a pet home, not bred, same with parti's, no one has EVER accused me of not liking their dog just because it was a tiny, I just think that suggesting this is hitting below the belt. I'm also tired of breeders who continually bring up WHO brought their dogs in an effort to make themselves look better.



I believe Fldebra started this thread with the best intentions; she wanted valid references pro and con on parti/tricolor. I don't know if she had seen the thread in the Library, http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/yor...formation.html, but if she had, it's pretty one sided as to any information on the Parti, it's mainly links to Yorkietalk members websites. Several people on this thread have offered links and sources beyond breeder's websites; this thread should be about that.

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I never said they have more rights, what makes you think I implied this? They are the experts, but they still need to breed to standard. Is there another breed club that has produced any champions? The YTCA sets the standard and protects the standard, so therefore they are the experts. What is a breed without a standard? If a YTCA member produced a parti, this in itself would not be an awful thing, it's what she does next that determines if she respects the standard. A breeder who does not respect standard doesn't understand the very basis of purebred breeding. At least, Mr. Biewer was familiar with breeding champions, and it seems like he was trying to do more than produce pets.

As to your comment about breeders in this thread, I speak in general terms, not to specific breeders in this thread or on Yorkietalk. I'm confused by your statement of ,"You do realize that there are YTCA breeders on Yorkietalk that have never even championed a Yorkie, right?" What has that to do with anything? I am speaking, in general, for the club and it's standard, not individual breeders. I even said, "These breeders, in general, know how to breed and have created champions," and yet you want to speak of exceptions? Of course, there are exceptions, but the YTCA is more than individual breeders, you're familiar with the concept, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts"?

I have been very outspoken in my views of breeders who breed tinies, even though tinies are "standard", I do not believe in the intentional breeding of or for them. If a breeder produces one, it should be placed in a pet home, not bred, same with parti's, no one has EVER accused me of not liking their dog just because it was a tiny, I just think that suggesting this is hitting below the belt. I'm also tired of breeders who continually bring up WHO brought their dogs in an effort to make themselves look better.



I believe Fldebra started this thread with the best intentions; she wanted valid references pro and con on parti/tricolor. I don't know if she had seen the thread in the Library, http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/yor...formation.html, but if she had, it's pretty one sided as to any information on the Parti, it's mainly links to Yorkietalk members websites. Several people on this thread have offered links and sources beyond breeder's websites; this thread should be about that.

Ann, do we have a smilie that is going 'round and 'round in circles?

And Nancy, don't say that you are blunt in your statements and then say you were speaking in 'general'. Also how about you use your "bluntness" and say who this comment was directed at, "I'm also tired of breeders who continually bring up WHO brought their dogs in an effort to make themselves look better.". If directed at me, go back to when I brought this up recently and please reread why I said this to better understand before making, yet another, one of your blanket statements.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

Ann, do we have a smilie that is going 'round and 'round in circles?

And Nancy, don't say that you are blunt in your statements and then say you were speaking in 'general'. Also how about you use your "bluntness" and say who this comment was directed at, "I'm also tired of breeders who continually bring up WHO brought their dogs in an effort to make themselves look better.". If directed at me, go back to when I brought this up recently and please reread why I said this to better understand before making, yet another, one of your blanket statements.

I'm not sure I called myself blunt before, but yes, this time I was not speaking in general, it is you who does this over and over again, and I find it very wrong. It's not just that you say, so and so bought a dog from me, it's the fact that you use this to imply you are a good breeder.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Ann, please don't suggest that people disapprove of Pfeiffer just because we don't support the breeding of Parti's.

...and statements such as the one you just made suggesting that somehow we don't like Pfeiffer is really hitting below the belt.

I wasn't suggesting it, I really meant it, to those who disapprove of her. My comment was addressing the imperative generalizations that were posted. I said "even those who disapprove of her" (meaning her, and/or the partis -- of which, she is one). I know for a fact that people here *do* disapprove of her, specifically, bc I've read the specific comments that were about her directly. It may not be on the open forum, but they've been shared with me. And btw, I don't include you in what I'm saying here...you and I have PMd about this privately, and it has always been an extremely positive exchange .

Originally Posted by FlDebra

I really hate to see this sort of card being played again.

I can't really believe you just said that, but okay . I'm 'playing a card'? I meant what I said, and believe me - I don't consider it a game or a 'card' that I like to throw down, when it suits my whimsy. If you do genuinely feel I'm playing some sort of card, then I respect your feelings - as I won't disrespect you by implying your feelings are somehow wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When someone calls parti owners "SUCKERS", I'm confident and peaceful in expressing my opinion regarding that statement.

As in all cases, opinions about these kinds of subjects are welcome here at YT as they add to a lively and educational discussion.

Anyone is welcome to disapprove of partis, Biewers, labs, morkies, shorkies, dorkies, yorkies, lemurs, whatever. However, imperative generalizations like the one I was addressing don't often lend themselves to a discussion, *in my opinion* .

Enjoy the discussion!

[bchgirl]

Ann.

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I'm not sure I called myself blunt before, but yes, this time I was not speaking in general, it is you who does this over and over again, and I find it very wrong. It's not just that you say, so and so bought a dog from me, it's the fact that you use this to imply you are a good breeder.

Since I have only raised 4 puppies, not sure how you can say that I do this, "over and over". I wrote this very recently and did you even go back and reread my reason in that thread for adding that?

As for implying....nope, NONE of that....I am point-blank saying it....I was a good breeder, PERIOD!

You are saying that I have done something that I haven't...the people that own Livi's babies bring this up on their own. If this upsets you, that is your problem and if it makes you mad that people say POSITIVE things about me and this (again) angers you because I bred a parti....your issue.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

I wasn't suggesting it, I really meant it, to those who disapprove of her. My comment was addressing the imperative generalizations that were posted. I said "even those who disapprove of her" (meaning her, and/or the partis -- of which, she is one). I know for a fact that people here *do* disapprove of her, specifically, bc I've read the specific comments that were about her directly. It may not be on the open forum, but they've been shared with me. And btw, I don't include you in what I'm saying here...you and I have PMd about this privately, and it has always been an extremely positive exchange .



I can't really believe you just said that, but okay . I'm 'playing a card'? I meant what I said, and believe me - I don't consider it a game or a 'card' that I like to throw down, when it suits my whimsy. If you do genuinely feel I'm playing some sort of card, then I respect your feelings - as I won't disrespect you by implying your feelings are somehow wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When someone calls parti owners "SUCKERS", I'm confident and peaceful in expressing my opinion regarding that statement.

As in all cases, opinions about these kinds of subjects are welcome here at YT as they add to a lively and educational discussion.

Anyone is welcome to disapprove of partis, Biewers, labs, morkies, shorkies, dorkies, yorkies, lemurs, whatever. However, imperative generalizations like the one I was addressing don't often lend themselves to a discussion, *in my opinion* .

Enjoy the discussion!

Ann, if someone disapproves of any dog, that's a problem, I think we disapprove of the breeding of certain dogs. For example, the mix breeds you mention, no one is against them, or any other mix; we are against the purposeful breeding of mixes to supply a pet market. Many of us believe that there has to be a higher goal in breeding then simply to supply pets.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by bchgirl

Ann.

Right back at ya

{if I did offend anyone, I apologize, and it was never my intention...but I do appreciate being able to share an opinion }

[QuickSilver]

<<famous last words>> I haven't read this entire thread, BUT I do think TammyJM's reputation is enhanced by her buyers. I won't necessarily agree with everything she says just because of that , but the fact that some very smart, knowledgable, ethical people have gone to her implies that she is a good breeder. If someone's definition of "good" means, "only breeds black/tan/blue/gold", then she's not good. But knowing that people I respect buy from her makes me think that by their own, respectable definitions, she must be very good indeed.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

Since I have only raised 4 puppies, not sure how you can say that I do this, "over and over". I wrote this very recently and did you even go back and reread my reason in that thread for adding that?

As for implying....nope, NONE of that....I am point-blank saying it....I was a good breeder, PERIOD!

You are saying that I have done something that I haven't...the people that own Livi's babies bring this up on their own. If this upsets you, that is your problem and if it makes you mad that people say POSITIVE things about me and this (again) angers you because I bred a parti....your issue.

I'm referring how you mention your specific buyers in order to back up a point. You do this quite often, here's just one thread: http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/bre...08-amazed.html

If you question the ethics of the breeders that you are saying, "birds of a feather", are you also questioning the ethics of the buyer of the puppies?? It's more than fair to assume that you lumped me into the breeder category. Since it has been justified saying that there are 2 groups here...."one that cares about the breed and one that makes money off of their Yorkies".

Just curious...if you say this about me, as a breeder, what are you saying about the people that own my puppies?

Later, you mention that no one has answered your above question, about "what are we saying about the people who own your puppies.

No one answered mine either. Since you're here now and you are one that has said it a few times...."there are those that care and those that make money from their Yorkies", maybe you will answer my question.

Here you give the names of your pet buyers, I guess for those who don't know.

I bred Livi because I adore the parti color...I can only assume would be the same reason that Jencar, Wyliesmom and Sherrinkassie purchased from me. Did you rescue your Yorkies that you currently own? I think this is a very noble cause.

This certainly is NOT the first thread in which you did this. I have no problem with you writing thread after thread on who on YT has bought your puppies, I, however, have a problem with you using that fact to back up a point. I do think some wonderful people bought dogs from you.