Yorkshire Terrier and the Parti/Tricolor

[bchgirl]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

WE are just a club, AKC has told us over and over that the YTCA is the parent club.
Our club does not represent all parti breeders.

There are dozens of individual yorkshire terrier clubs nationwide and they still hold meetings of thier own.

The BBCA doesn't represent all biewer breeders either. We strive towards our own goals and within the club it is understood that which we agree or disagree.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

See that is just it..... The standard is NOT just color. Just because it is the perfect shade of blue does not make it a standard yorkie.

I agree with you on this!

[Breezeaway]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

Again a blanket statement about parti breeders.
It starts with the breeder, not you, nor I can control what a person wants to do.
Just what % of traditional color yorkies being bred are to the YTCA standard??????
One can look on puppyfind and see. My guess is Probably about 20%

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

If you are familiar with my posts, you will know that I'm always talking about breeding to standard, it's not just the parti trait. I agree, most pet owners are not breeding to standard, they don't even understand standard, and what it truly means.

Not sure what you mean by "Just what % of traditional color yorkies being bred are to the YTCA standard??????", I've read in other threads that people complain because a YTCA breeder has a black instead of a blue dog in her line. From my understanding the blue is a diluting gene, so the black must be bred back into the line to keep the blue from going to a light blue or silver, again the important thing to remember is the "goal" you are trying to produce dogs with the perfect shade of "blue". Think of it as breeding TO standard, not as breeding standard dogs.

Isn't that what I said to the standard? Did I say breeding standard dogs?

[Breezeaway]

Originally Posted by bchgirl

There are dozens of individual yorkshire terrier clubs nationwide and they still hold meetings of thier own.

The BBCA doesn't represent all biewer breeders either. We strive towards our own goals and within the club it is understood that which we agree or disagree.

And so do we, Your point?

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

This is a really salient point. Some folks seem so angry at parti breeders. One reason I've never really understood the heightened emotions over the parti/biewer issue is similar to what Jeanie mentions above.

Every dog on this planet is descended from the Gray Wolf. So, unless someone has a gray wolf, then the dog they currently have is a mix who came from the gray wolf. A 'purebred' happens over time; yorkies didn't just appear on the planet.

Makes me wonder if 10,000 years or so ago (give or take, depending upon when you see the wolf/dog split), when humans were creating all the mixes (now breeds) we see today - whether or not the passion reached the heights it does today.

At the end of the day, we all have a 'mixed' dog and every breed started as just that. And every breed 'standard' is created by humans. Not only that, but those same humans who set the standard, then change the standard...so, I guess change is acceptable....but maybe only ostensibly??

I guess one of my main points is, I don't understand the notion that breeding partis (or biewers, or whatever other controversial breed) is just plain wrong, as some indicate. Whose to say that any breed/strain/mix that was created (incl yorkies) was wrong or right?

Well, this is YorkieTalk, not AnythingDecendedFromAWolfTalk . Either you support the notion of a pure bred dog or you don't. It really is as simple as that. Pure breed dogs have breed clubs, those clubs have standards. Parti colors are a fault not within the Yorkshire Terrier breed standard, and it's pretty basic to not breed for a fault.

I am opinionated about this, but am not angry with anyone. This issue is one of those either/or things, so passions do run high. Most of us that post on these threads know this, are used to it and don't let it get to us. We just disagree.

The whole parti issue is bigger than just with the Yorkshire Terrier and I think that should be acknowledged in order to have some perspective. There are other breeds that have parti breeders and the parent clubs have met this with mixed reactions. Some have accepted the parti colors and some have not, for reasons varying from adherence to a standard to real health concerns. I think it's interesting to look at the parti color phenomenon in the entire dog world rather than just with the Yorkshire. I do find it odd, however, that parti colors have been popping up in breeds not known for that trait.

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

In my opinion , even the parti's need boundries. If you let it be a free for all, and not limit the white, they will be an all white dog. An all white dog is not a parti yorkie. Parti color yorkies should not have an all white head, all white face or a badly mismarked head. IMO discriminate or not.

Parti means, Two or more definite, well-broken colors, one of which must be white. For example, Black Parti-color would be black and white. Color definitions may vary by breed. Always check the breed standard for the definitive color description.The 70% I said was just a scenario, it could be 80 or so as long as the head is symmetrical.

Thank you Breezeway!

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by concretegurl

If you say you are not against a dog just against breeding it...how does that make sense...then you are again the pups..by default that dog's lineage and that dog no? Not against the dog but it's breeding...but it's parents breeding were you against that...why were they sick...carried a genetic disorder...a fault...the only fault was color?!?

I am not sure why that would be a difficult concept to understand but I will expound to try to make my thoughts clearer. I loved my first yorkie -- she was not to standard. She had close-set eyes, wavy hair, super short legs, and wound up with a partially collapsed trachea (the tendency to get CT can be genetic) -- any one of these things would render her unbreedable in my eyes. So, I had nothing against her -- I loved that pup and treated her like the queen she deserved to be. But, I would never have further diluted the yorkie gene pool with her faults.

I do not think you should breed tinies -- but I love the cute little pups! I do not think anyone should breed for chocolates but if a good breeder had one occur as a natural fault in her lines, I would LOVE to have one, which I would spay/neuter as appropriate. I do not think you should breed a solid color yorkie but I have seen some that are gorgeous and I would love them as a pet too! I would love any pupwith liver shunt, Leggs-perthe, luxating patellas, thick, rounded, floppy ears, sloped toplines -- but I would not want them bred. There are lots of faults that do not make a dog sick, but if you continue to breed the faults, eventually the dog will no longer look like a yorkie. The whole idea of having a standard is to preserve the look that has been refined and a standard written for.

Others are always free to feel differently -- when I express my opinion it is in no way saying others cannot have their own opinion. Expressing mine does not negate their rights to have one in any way.

BTW just to clarify to others -- I have never emailed Concretegirl, I don't even have her email address. Not sure who she is referring to but it is not me. Hope that clears any misconceptions some had.

[bchgirl]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

Why don't you ask the YTCA, since they are the parent club for the parti and all yorkshire terriers right now.
I wouldn't know what parti breeders agree or disagree on because it has never been brought to a table or to a meeting with the YTCA.
As for your last question, that's kind of a catch 22 isnt it?

Originally Posted by bchgirl

The parti yorkshire terrier club doesn't hold meetings?

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

WE are just a club, AKC has told us over and over that the YTCA is the parent club.
Our club does not represent all parti breeders.

Originally Posted by bchgirl

There are dozens of individual yorkshire terrier clubs nationwide and they still hold meetings of thier own.

The BBCA doesn't represent all biewer breeders either. We strive towards our own goals and within the club it is understood that which we agree or disagree.

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

And so do we, Your point?

According to your statement above you don't....

[Breezeaway]

Originally Posted by bchgirl

According to your statement above you don't....

I don't what???
Stop trying to twist things.
I was answering another question and was alluding that I don't know what the majority of parti breeders agree or disagree on.
What does that have to do with our club? Are you a member of our club?
Its no ones business what we discuss or don't discuss in our club if you are not a member at this point.
Does the BBCA post everything they talk about in their meetings?

LOL, I know for a fact they are not an open book with the Biewers. So much is hid from the public its not even funny.
How about the amount of seizures showing up in Biewers for a start?
How about all the inbreeding in them.
Yet you can come here and try to judge the parti breeders when your club is only breeding Biewer to Biewer. Even Germany won't do that because they were not enough new blood to do such a thing. Yet the Americans do it and they have the same dogs as Germany . Atleast Germany, Hungary etc etc has the good sense to breed back to the yorkie.

[Breezeaway]

It is of my opinion that a 7 or 8 generation pedigree should not have one dogs name in it 38 times.

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

A. … I didn't twist your words …I think what you seem to be so angry about is the way *I* (and others) intrepreted what was typed. And that was (and is) my interpretation, not yours.

B. …That said, there are plenty of posts here where people mention 'yelling', and address it right there on the thread. It's not new. Also, it's been in the YT Rules for years now.

C. …. Because you 'took it' one way, does not mean it's the right way, the wrong way, or the only way. .

D. … So no, I'm sitting here 'thinking' ..."hmmmm, self, I wonder if any members want to call anyone a sucker". I didn't have to think it, Debra, it was stated by another member.

E. …I don't view what was said yesterday as OT or silly, since the comments made were about partis - and that is the topic here.

F. the 'twisting words' or whatever - that is starting to seem like a control issue. So, I'll repeat this -- members can and *will* interpret things according to their own experience. YOU may view it as an altered meaning, incorrect, or off topic, etcetera - but please don't presume that the way you view things should be shared by everyone.

G. Please stop informing the members that they're simply wrong in what they interpret - it's their interpretation!

A. I’m not angry, sometimes frustrated, not angry. Never said YOU twisted MY words. Others have. I've also had comments made by others attributed to me & had my words erroneously interpreted. (When we talk about interpretation of my own posts, I do feel I’m in a better position to know what was intended). Sorry if you feel it is a "control issue" to want words to correctly reflect what I have said, meant or interpreted. It is important to me.

Examples of twisting my words (1) the OFA/CERF certifications and the issue of "color not being selective in parti's -- which was wrongly interpreted to mean I thought parti-breeders were not at all selective. I referred to OFA/CERF certifications and was answered with info that only applied to the CHIC listing. and (2) Since I was told by parti-breeders that any 2-3 colors, any markings, any percentages as long as white is included was accepted, I felt that was not selective in color goal. In fact my actual quote was: "For Parti's it seems that "anything goes" as long as the dog has white on it. That does not seem like very selective." and "I was speaking solely on the subject of color when I said parti's were not selective, that was clear."

B.&D Capitalization. Never said I didn’t know about it or that it was new. Explained my use of the caps was for emphasis & pointed out that I thought only entire posts in caps was against the rules, but since it is again brought up, I will quote the actual rule from YT GUIDELINES: "RULE: 3. PLEASE do not use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS when you post a reply or a new thread. All caps symbolizes shouting and while it can be used for emphasis, usually messages with entirely all capital letters are frowned upon." I think I have used them as emphasis & have not made any posts entirely with caps & thus have not broken the rules. Ironically, the post drawing criticism, included a heading in all caps meant to draw immediate attention, trying to put an end to you or anyone else thinking someone’s post meant all parti owners were suckers. I said it with emphasis to try to prevent more hurt feelings & instead it is now being used as something else I did wrong?

D. To continue about the “sucker” comment, when I tried to explain how I took it, I even made sure to say I did not think it right for standard yorkies to cost that much either ($6000 was amount mentioned in one). I did make sure to say "I took that to only refer to those paying exorbitant prices and not all of the parti owners." --and --"I do not think anyone would have tried to intimate that every one of our parti-owners was a sucker! " -- See, I used words like "I took that to only refer.." and "I do not think..." specifically showing these were my feelings/thoughts/opinions. I think I went out of my way to ensure I was relating my feelings & not saying yours were wrong. If you can interpret, can I not interpret also, even tho in a different direction?

C.E.F.G. I haven’t told you your interpretations are wrong. I have disagreed with them. The only things I have said were wrong in this thread are: incorrect information written about vestigial tails (I provided reference);and Breezeways comments about YTCA putting more importance on color than health and that it was said that parti-breeders were bad people. Since I felt I had substantial FACTS to dispute all 3, I do not feel they are disputing anyones interpretations. In all other instances I was very careful to say "I think, I believe, My opinion, etc..." a habit which was not followed by some others.

I never told anyone not to post. Originally, I asked that we put together a thread of references w/o opinions so we could ask they be put in as a permanent "sticky." That didn't work after a few days & opinions flew from all sides. Merely disagreeing with an opinion or stating one contrary to another is NOT usurping anyone's rights to their own perceptions. You wrote: "Please stop informing the members that they're simply wrong in what they interpret - it's their interpretation!" Where have I told anyone they are "simply wrong" in their interpretation? I did disagree with your interpretation of anyone calling you a sucker. I did not say you were wrong to have feelings. In fact, I said if you do feel that way I am sorry. I really am sorry you would feel people on this forum who have shown you the utmost respect and admiration would now insult you.

I wrote things like:
"Everyone is welcome to post their references pro and con."
"I like reading both sides of the coin when REAL information is presented, historically and scientifically correct. " and
"I am looking forward to more references as time passes. It would be great to have all available references in one location (at least links). ..Thank you all!!!"

...because I truly wanted an all-sided discussion on the Parti-colors. I thanked Breezeway specifically for going to the extra work of providing us with quotes, letters, & links that discussed the "white" color. One comment I wrote to her said, ": I appreciate the links, information and opinions you have provided in a most professional manner. Hope your Christmas was full of love, laughter & family!" so I do not understand your interpretation that I have somehow stopped anyone from giving their "interpretation."

E. I know I cannot nor would I want to dictate what is written. I did hope we could get the reference-laden thread this started out to be, to save for posterity. I really appreciate those that provided so many references & specific opinions based on experience. Unfortunately that sort of deteriorated after a few days, & I no longer asked for "no opinions" & let it go. I did think some of the "off topic" posts were unwarranted & against the YT rules (#5: Keep posts on topic and post threads in the appropriate section.). You wrote: "I don't view what was said yesterday as OT or silly, since the comments made were about partis - and that is the topic here." If they were about partis,then I would not have been referring to them as off topic. Purposely littering a thread with off-topic posts is frustrating & unnecessary IMO & IS against the rules posted here. (i.e. wrapping dogs???? vestigial tails??? I don't think either of those helped the course of this thread).

It is difficult to answer your post when you are basically responding as both a parti-owner/YT member & as moderator. You have admonished me for the CAPS issue & told me to stop telling members they are wrong for their interpretations -- both decidedly moderator-implied duties. I feel the CAPS issue was not warranted as I didn’t make entire posts in caps & DID only use them as emphasis. I have to wonder if you would have addressed these topics as moderator if it were not a Parti-thread. I feel like you have wielded your moderator authority with extreme fairness and impartiality overall. But I think this is a conflict of interest making it difficult to completely step out of either role.

I cannot see where I have told any member they are wrong for their interpretations. I have disagreed. I have written different interpretations. I suppose it’s human nature to think our own perceptions are fine and others' are somehow telling us we are wrong. But I have not tried to stop you or anyone from having your own interpretation or opinion. I have tried to get you to look at something with a different angle. I have also gone almost overboard with the use of “I think/ I feel/ My opinion” so as to ensure I am not trying to say my way is the only way. “I want to go on record that I don't think you or parti-owners in general are suckers. I might think anyone paying $6000 and up for any yorkie is paying too much but I wouldn't say they are suckers IMO because I am not so sure I wouldn't find a way to pay that if it was the only way to have my two. They BECOME worth that much to me! Maybe, we could at least agree on that?

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

Well, this is YorkieTalk, not AnythingDecendedFromAWolfTalk . Either you support the notion of a pure bred dog or you don't. It really is as simple as that. Pure breed dogs have breed clubs, those clubs have standards. Parti colors are a fault not within the Yorkshire Terrier breed standard, and it's pretty basic to not breed for a fault.

I am opinionated about this, but am not angry with anyone. This issue is one of those either/or things, so passions do run high. Most of us that post on these threads know this, are used to it and don't let it get to us. We just disagree.

The whole parti issue is bigger than just with the Yorkshire Terrier and I think that should be acknowledged in order to have some perspective. There are other breeds that have parti breeders and the parent clubs have met this with mixed reactions. Some have accepted the parti colors and some have not, for reasons varying from adherence to a standard to real health concerns. I think it's interesting to look at the parti color phenomenon in the entire dog world rather than just with the Yorkshire. I do find it odd, however, that parti colors have been popping up in breeds not known for that trait.

Well stated! That is the way I feel too. Of course all modern dogs are a combination of some breeds. The whole idea of coming up with the purebred registries was to have a point that each is considered their own breed. Once refined, the yorkshire breed was established with a set of standards. If anyone agrees with that notion, then how can they say any one of the standards is not important? Once we open that door, who is to say where it would stop? What other faults would then be up for acceptance?

I believe a breed is established the day it goes on the AKC (or other countries' equivalent) listing with standard established. That standard should be what every breeder strives to emulate. If a naturally occuring fault shows up, then spay/neuter is needed. No fault should purposely be a goal of a breeder's program. Many years, many breeders' lifetimes were spent breeding those faults OUT of the lines leading to the registered breed. I don't dislike the puppies resulting from any breeding. I don't dislike the owners of these pups. I dislike the PRACTICE of breeding outside of standards or health, whether that be color, size, ear set, structure, genetic health issues, etc....

[Dixies Mom]

Has DNA research and testing of the Parti Yorkies isolated the parti gene? Is it right to assume breeders who state their dogs carry a certain color gene has had their pups dna'd to prove they carry the gene?