I knew about culling but I did not realize that it is that it was still in that much practice. It is a horrible thought

I have both Partis and Biewers.. to me, they are one in the same. Unfortunately I have to register them differently. I breed my Biewers with my AKC Parti's and my Biewers with AKC traditional colored yorkies.. (which is allowed in the country of origin) and they are still registered as Biewers in the registry I use (not accepted in all Biewer registries as some only allow Biewer to Biewer).

I will never breed Biewer to Biewer because of the health issues I and many others have experienced in doing so.. the gene pool is far to small and the lines that have "issues" are far to many and almost impossible to avoid. When you outcross into strong, healthy AKC lines, you create robust new lines of healthy, beautifully sound dogs.. which should be the goal of a good breeder.

I will be showing my dogs as Parti's and as Biewers and they will have the same father.. now isn't that just nuts!! My dream is that someday, I will just be able to show them as a tri colored yorkie.. as it should be. I think the only thing standing in the way of that is the YTCA. We have a long road ahead of us to be sure.

Diana :animal-pa

Amen! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

:thumbup:

So much misinformation out there, thanks for taking your time to inform people.

What do I think of partis: Tricolored yorkies are my favorite.

This may sound strange... But the best and most responsible breeders cull in every litter. Culling is removing from the breeding population. Every pet quality puppy that is sterlized is culled from the breeding population.
If we want to be blunt, you're talking about killing.

It's a horrible thought, but if more breeders had to put down their defective dogs, maybe they would be more careful about their breeding practices. Both Collie breeders and Dane breeders can breed together merle dogs, producing a litter where each puppy has a 1/25 chance of being blind, deaf or both. But they will do it, and they have rescues there ready to take in their defective puppies. AND worst of all, it's not against their CoE.
Maybe if these breeders had to kill the puppies they produced with no eyes, they would be less likely to deliberately produce puppies like that. But since there are white dane rescues and white collie rescues that step in and take the responsibility off their hands, why should they?
Even worse, they get praised for insuring the defective dogs they should have never produced in the first place "found loving homes". When the responsible thing would have been to not breed such a dog in the first place.

The same thing goes for boxers, because flashy is what wins in the ring, so people breed together two dogs with a lot of chrome. This makes a litter of 1/4 white puppies which are usually deaf. Once upon a time these puppies were killed. (Not culled, but KILLED) at birth. Now you have white boxer rescue taking in these mostly deaf dogs and these breeders don't have to be responsible for what they produced, because there are rescues that are willing to clean up after these so called reputable breeders messes.

In the yorkie, you have born blue puppies. A lot of breeders recommend that these born blues be put down at birth, killed.. because of their long term prognosis of ill health.
We see here on this board, at least one born blue that thus far is in perfect health.. But from what we have all been told, this is a rarity.

If I were a breeder, I would not hesitate to euthanize a born blue puppy. Yeah, I would feel like crap if it turned out that the whole born blue thing was a lie, that they didn't have any inherited health risks due to their color. But I would not regret it, because I was doing what I thought best at the time. Is it wrong to euthanize an animal that may be suffering? Especially if it is suffering because of genetic problems that may be related to their color?

I don't think it is.
I do think it is wrong to kill a puppy because it's got white feet, or chest, or stripe (Any solid colored breed). Or to kill a puppy because it was born the wrong color with NO accompanying health problems (parti, gold and chocolate yorkies).
But I also think it's a responsible breeders duty to euthanize, to kill, since we're not mincing words, puppies with genetic problems, be they deafness from being born white, eyelessness from being born from two merles, puppies paralysed by spina bifida or puppies that will starve or drown from cleft palates or any one of a number of genetic problems.
But killing for color is just wrong and sad when the color doesn't equal a genetic defect.

Thankfully 'culling's now usually means spay/neuter and not the culling of before which was the guarenteeing the dog would not live to preproduce offspring, which was done when spay/neuter was not readily availible or to hide the outcome of a breeding (the pup).

:thumbup:

Well I have ablack and tan and a parti yorkie
I love them all but it is funny how many people
think
I am crazy when I say Elfie is a yorkie I do tell them to
look it up but some you can see they think I am nuts

I love all Yorkies faces:D

i think they are beautiful but I am a sucker for the silver and tan.

One Blue eye !!
 

Hi I wonder if u can help me , I'm buying a partis yorkie fr a breeder .
She had 3 in the litter , one the one I want to get fr her Has one blue eye, she is the only one in the litter and either parent has blue eyes , they all have brown eyes...
I been reading as much as I can find on the partis , but nothing on blue eyes , the pup is 5 month old right now...
I do have reg yorkies , so this will b my first yorkie partis...
Thanks !!!

They are gorgeous to me but I think I will stick to the traditional tan and silver

It's got to be the original yorkie for me. Have never seen "partis or biewers" breeders in the UK

I think their beautiful. I do have a hard time distinguishing them from biewers sometimes.

Honestly, if they did that, could they in any moral or ethical sense be considered a reputable breeder.
Think about it, we are told a reputable breeders babies NEVER end up in a shelter, and here is someone deliberately taking their babies to a shelter for the crime of being born the wrong color?

If I am a breeder that does not want a color fault associated with my lines, the best thing I can do to preserve my reputation would be to as they once called it, "bucket the puppy".
If I sell the mismark out of the back door, as some did, again, where is my moral and ethical standing? One, the mismarks were not registered, two, they left without contract most likely, because I certainly don't want ANY kind of proof that those mismarks came from ME, three, no contract, no sterlization, unless I did it myself, four no microchip... Again, I want nothing that can lead back to me.
No, no, no. In all things, my integrity, were I this breeder, would force me to euthanize the mismarks. It's not fair to the puppies, but what kind of reputable breeder would I be if I sent MY puppies to a shelter?

This is the quandary of some breeders.
I would not have a problem admitting my line carried this color fault, they have DNA tests to check for the presence of the gene, easily managed, there you go. BUT I understand where some breeders may feel as though they had to do that, to maintain their reputation.
And again, NO reputable breeder should EVER have a dog they bred in a shelter.

i love their markings// so cute