Originally Posted by YorkieRose

There is little difference in a breeder who disregards the standard and a builder who does not use a blue print.

We have a forum full of members who adore Yorkies, we talk about them all day. If breeders toss out the standard, before long we will be talking about an animal that slightly resembles a Yorkie, acts somewhat like one and where will be alot of posts about "what happened to those REAL Yorkies they used to breed???"

Would you buy a car from a manufacturer that told the employees to just wing it...? You might think that is not important in a dog..BUT to me it is vital that I follow the standard..how else can I produce these darlings we all love so much?

Originally Posted by ChristyE1971

I just don't understand why is so important for all yorkies to look so much alike. We as humans don't look alike. I think it would be a boring world if we all looked alike. I think that us looking different and having different personalities is what make each one of us special. That goes for yorkies or any other breed of dog. But thats just my opinion which I know don't count for much..lol.

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

I was truly hoping that someone would actually address the points in the article and find evidence to refute them.

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

While it is true that the article I posted here is negative toward breed standards the fact is that I had trouble finding much in support of them as they are criticized for the reasons this article suggests almost across the board and if you really think about it makes sense.

It is very elitest and prejudicial which most in a our society do not agree with.

I was truly hoping that someone would actually address the points in the article and find evidence to refute them.

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

Most on here know how I feel about the YTCA Yorkshire Terrier Breed Standard, but I was not aware of how much negativity in general there is toward breed standards in the scientific community. I think a lot of the members here will be just as surprised as I was when I read this. The fact is that is hard to find anything positive written about breed standards froma scientific point of view.

We have always been told that the goal of a responsible breeder is to improve the breed but just the opposite is occurring apparently.

A Brief History of Breed Societies

It is significant to note that the modern concept of "breeds" only developed in the 19th Century. It is an invention, born of the English and Continental upper class, and very much rooted in intellectual elitism. During this period the sciences were formed and acquired their great cultural authority. Major transformations occurred across the Victorian period including the change from "natural philosophy" and "natural history" to "science", the shift from gentlemen and clerical naturalists to, professional "scientists", the development and eventual diffusion of belief in natural laws and ongoing progress, secularization, growing interaction between science, government and industry, the formalization of science education, and a growing internationalism of science. The Victorian age witnessed some of the most fundamental transformations of beliefs about nature and the place of humans in the universe, particularly in regards to man's dominance over nature.

The concept of distinct breeds is less than two hundred years old. The idea was founded on the contradictory premises of preservation and progress. Ancient breeds were "discovered" and preserved, even as modern science was employed to improve the breed.
One author writes:

In the early 1800's, the British, having begun the development of "pure" breeds of livestock through inbreeding, applied the same principle to their dogs. By the 1850's, they were writing Standards and holding exhibitions. When a new "breed" was proposed, the fanciers of that breed wrote the Standard to fit the dogs they themselves owned . As the custom spread to the Continent, influential fanciers collected groups of dogs, described them in a Standard, and proclaimed the "discovery" of an "ancient breed". ("Another View of Livestock Guardian Dog History", Catherine de la Cruz, AKC Gazette 4/95)

Which contrasts nicely with this:

This insistence on absolute breed purity arises from nineteenth-century notions of the "superior strain" which were supposedly exemplified by human aristocracies and thoroughbred horses; this same ideal, pushed to an illogical conclusion on the human plane, resulted in the now discredited 'scientific racism' of the Nazis, who tried through selective human matings to breed an Aryan superman. The idea of the superior strain was that by 'breeding the best to the best,' employing sustained inbreeding and selection for 'superior' qualities, one would develop a bloodline superior in every way to the unrefined, base stock which was the best that nature could produce#46;..Certainly towards the close of the nineteenth century it became embarrassingly obvious that the human aristocracies of Europe were degenerating rapidly under their own version of the 'closed studbook.'" (Purebred Dog Breeds into the Twenty-First Century -- Achieving Genetic Health for Our Dogs, J. Jeffrey Bragg 1996)
Now, less than two hundred years since the emergence of breed societies and breed standards, one will be hard pressed to find a working definition of what a "breed" is. The best, perhaps, was written by Jay L. Lush in The Genetics of Populations:

"A breed is a group of domestic animals, termed such by common consent of the breeders,In short, there is no scientific basis underlying the term "breed". The idea of distinct breeds of domesticated animals, born in the elitism of Victorian England, has been carried forth for two centuries because it serves the use of the breeders of those animals.
The Utility of Breed Standards

Breed standards are seldom based on the interests of the animalsThey are elitist by nature, intended to encourage demand by creating an aura of exclusivity.

There is little question that breed societies have been successful in increasing the monetary value of "pure" blooded animals. In 1996 Thoroughbred horses (As its name implies, it was the first pedigreed, or "thoroughbred" horse, with a studbook first began in 1791) sold for an average of $28,240 in public auctions, and the highest price paid for a weaned foal was $1,400,000, while in 1985 a yearling colt sold for an incredible $13.1 million.

A more important question though is, [B]"Have breed societies, using their standards, been successful in either preserving or improving their breeds[/B]?" If we look at dog breeds, where a great deal of literature on the subject exists, the answer is an unambiguous "No".

The Effects of Breed Standards
Graham Peck writes in "Is Crufts Damaging Our Dogs?":

"Something is going very wrong with many of the recognised dog breeds. In the early part of the 20th century under/over shot jaws and retained testicles were a breeders' main worry in terms of genetic problems. However…in the 1970's…increasing hip dysplasia problems prompted the introduction of a screening programme which continues to this day. Since then hip dysplasia has been joined by an ever-lengthening list of genetic disorders that now blight most purebred dog breeds...[and]...if anything it is inexorably worsening. Why has this happened? Wasn't the purpose of breeding purebred dogs to improve the breed as a whole?...A consequence of...inbreeding is a reduction in the genetic variety due to the often small number of founding individuals used...[I]n a limited population such as a dog breed if closely related individuals are repeatedly mated with each other as the generations pass…the percentage of individuals…carrying…problem genes becomes high enough that most matings will result in offspring with some degree of problem...

"Unfortunately the selection procedure necessary to establish a new breed and that which is necessary to ensure the continuing health and vigour of a breed on a long term basis are quite different.
"The crux of the matter was the failure by the breeding and show community to realise that a variety of key factors were perpetuating inbreeding which in turn markedly increased the chances of inherited disease being manifested."

Bragg writes:

"Modern registries based on a rigidly-closed studbook are throttling the genetic health of all registered…breeds. Genetic impoverishent is now a real and present threat. Many breeds now bear a genetic load of defects which has grown totally unmanageable as their respective gene pools have become more and more narrow through imprudent breeding and selection practices."

Johnathan Smid, B.Sc. of the Department of Biology, University of Ottawa conducted a very enlightening study described in his paper "Increased Mortality in Rhodesian Ridgebacks: The Consequences of Inbreeding Depression". The Rhodesian Ridgeback came to life on paper with the writing of the first breed standard in 1922, a mere 80 years ago. Among other things that Smid's study found,

A dog's length of life is based on their COI (Coefficient of Inbreeding), giving strong support that reduced longevity is caused by inbreeding depression.
An increase in midlife mortality rate in dogs with higher degrees of inbreeding.
An increase in COI over time representing an increase in overall homozygosity.
Increasing homozygosity is creating a significant genetic load in the Rhodesian Ridgeback population.
It is of significance that Smid found that, "Cancer appears to be the number one cause of midlife death and appears to be more frequent as the coefficient of inbreeding increases."

Using regression analysis, Smid demonstrated reduction in longevity related to COI over only six generations!

J.B Armstrong states that the Standard Poodle showed a decline in lifespan of approximately 10 months for every 10% increase in inbreeding in his paper "Inbreeding and Longevity in the Domestic Dog"

Decreased lifespan related to COI is insidious, as it is only apparent after the animal dies. What this means is an apparently healthy animal is an active breeder for some time before any problems become apparent
A growing body of literature strongly suggests breed standards have a deleterious effect on the animals they intend to preserve and improve. This is well enough recognized that efforts are under way to preserve what genetic diversity still exists in some breeds.

Anyone that carefully researches the history and impact of breed standards will be forced to conclude that they have been a failed experiment.

There is clear evidence of significant degradation of specific breeds in as little as 80 years.

Here is the internet link for the entire article:http://www.sojaa.org/alpaca-industry...-standards.php

Originally Posted by SnowWa

Most standards address the health of the breed. They mention the physical size, measurements, and appearance of the different breeds, and also state that these dogs should have good muscle tone, good teeth, a good bite, good knees, healthy shiny hair, and other health-related features. Anything that is not healthy is considered a fault and not up to the standard of any breed.

Carol Jean

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

The YTCA standard does not say this though. Health is not mentioned and neither is temperament mentioned although it has one sentence in the British standard that was intentionally deleted by the Americans in 1966.. It is almost entirely "outward appearance" period. This is a major part of what bothers me.

Some will argue that "health is implied" or that when the standard is "interpreted" health and temperament are included. In my mind, if you can devote pages and pages to outward appearance you can include health and temperament in the standard itself. Other breeds do ...why not the yorkie?

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

The YTCA standard does not say this though. Health is not mentioned and neither is temperament mentioned although it has one sentence in the British standard that was intentionally deleted by the Americans in 1966.. It is almost entirely "outward appearance" period. This is a major part of what bothers me.

Some will argue that "health is implied" or that when the standard is "interpreted" health and temperament are included. In my mind, if you can devote pages and pages to outward appearance you can include health and temperament in the standard itself. Other breeds do ...why not the yorkie?

Originally Posted by wnalegria

OK here it goes-JMHO. Why don't you research and postsome articles of the internet that talks about this breed- YORKSHIRE TERRIER and all the things that you want to bring up for discussion. I am sure that many are tired of talking about apples when the article is written for oranges.

Originally Posted by feminvstr

I dont know what mission youre on but did you know AKC does have a website for HEALTH! :eek: OH MY GOD we learn something new everyday! :eek:

http://www.akcchf.org/
http://www.akcchf.org/research/index..._area=research