Thanks for correcting me? :confused:

I guess I missed it before. :questione

OH MY GOD KIM

As in any purebred dog there has to be a guide line written as to what the perfect quality bred dog would be so a breeder can follow a standard.

The YTCA guideline is written for a quality bred dog, NOT PURELY show dogs.

As in everything if there isnt a recipe to follow it would be called yesterdays leftovers!

Lisa,

I will check them out. How did Lil' Cooper do for his first grooming? Oh! I still want to take Chrissi from you! Hehe!

Get real and get off the soap box Kim, no one is imposing a thing on the pet buyer. Yorkshire Terrier purebred has a set standard plain and simple which all reputable breeders adhere to, if the pet buyer feels these standards are not to their liking then they have a option to buy a mutt! Mutt breeders have no standard, no accountability, no registry, they wing it and call it a "glamor pup" what ya see is what ya get !!!

After receiving a "challenge" from Carter's Mom I decided to do a little research on Breed Standards in general. Here is what I discovered which some of you may be suurprised about. I know I was.

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 animals. They 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, "Have breed societies, using their standards, been successful in either preserving or improving their breeds?" 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.

i prefer a docked tail....i personally would not buy a puppy for pet quality without its tail being docked AKC standard is standard

I hate to say this Kim but I am very happy that most yorkie owners do not have the same beliefs as you, what would happen to our breed?
I am just shocked at all the controversial posts you have been making lately. You seem to have your missions and push them at us all the time eg. breeding tinies, anti-spade/neuter, anti-show, anti-YTCA....... You make up stuff like pet standard, show stand when we all know there is only one stand for the yorkie. What do you think this is teaching the newbies that come here? We all have our opinions but............. I am at a loss. I really like you as a person, I'm just trying to understand.

You forgot the anti-vaccination...How vaccinating your dog is wrong

Thank you for asking this question and giving me a chance to explain:

I love the "DOG"!!! That is the simple truth! I look for what is in the dog's best interests and if things seem fishy to me, I don't accept them just because "that's the way it's done".

My views are pro-dog which is consistent with my passion to educate people about the detrimental effects of over vaccination, the unnecessary and "routine" altering that goes on, safety obedience training, service animal training to improve the life of the dog and his human, etc.

I am also an intellectually curious person and, as a lawyer, I can see multiple sides to most issues. When someone tries to tell me something is black and white, it is almost a challenge to show that there is almost always some gray in there too. That is the case with the issue of what size female yorkie is too small to breed as a general rule. I was never an advocate of breeding tiny females as I am basically opposed to breeding in general due to the risk to the female and the puppies conceived in any size yorkie female. I understand the need to preserve the breed which is the only reason I do not totally oppose it because for each individual animal in making an assessment of what is in it's best interests...it is rare that the life of a stud dog or a bitch is what is best for them.

I respect all of the views on here and while it may seem that I bring up a lot of controversial issues, it is not for the purpose of creating drama as so many like to accuse me of. It is truly due to my interest in discussing what is best for the yorkshire terrier breed in general and the dogs on this forum in particular. I do not call people names, I am not disrespectful, I try hard not to cram my views down other's throats but try to merely pose the question and provide a place for them to start their own research to make up their own minds.

It is my belief that those who constantly attack me are simply uncomfortable with my views and opinions which is not a valid reason to act disrespectfully or rudely. It is also against the rules of this forum. I made a decision a long time ago not to let those members upset me (too much) because I have learned so much and know that others have as well so I will not let the attacks of a few close minded members (no matter how popular they may be) to stop me from posting my opinions. They certainly do not have to read my posts or respond to them. They can even put me on their "ignore" list if they choose.

For every attacking post made about me, there are an average of three PMs I receive supporting me and letting me know that I am speaking for others as well, and not to let THEM upset me. There are not many who feel they can state the things I state for fear of being treated the way I am treated for it. I understand that and appreciate it. A lot of efforts have been made to shut me up so to speak and i must say that they were successful on a couple of smaller sites but so far anyway,t he admin and the moderators here have recognized that i stay within the rules of the forum and, although, the pack of wolves that seem to attack my every post make a lot more work for them, they have been great and I commend them for it.

Kim, your actvisim and support for dogs would be clear if it weren't for every post you make defending someone breeding tiny dogs. I don't see how someone who can advocate breeding a bitch under 5lbs, or none vaccination of dogs can say in BOLD print, I love dogs, when simply you contradict yourself in every other post. If I felt your fight had merit with some weight to it, I would support you via forum. JMHHO

I am so done defending my research into the area of what size is it appropriate to breed a female yorkie.......I have never ever ever advocated breeding any yorkie period, much less one under 5 lbs......I was merely trying to find out what the imperical data was on the subject of female size and breeding. Period. Some people (the same ones who accused me of supporting puppymills btw!!!) decided they could fool others into making them think that by merely asking the question I was suggesting it was okay!!

Luckily. MOST of the members here are smarter than that and saw right through it! I guess they fooled you but now you know the truth.... :)

:rolleyes: :questione :eyebrow2: :eyeballpc

I have bought a yorkie or two with tails. The Biewers as the coloring of the tail is part of the standard. I love them either way. The tail isn't what makes the dog it is the personality in my book. :) :)

Biewers have gorgeous long tails!

Kim, since this is your thread and you brought it up, I feel free to ask...
Why do you say neutering is unnecessary? Most of my pets have been rescued...that is why I have a problem with it.
Millions of dogs are euthanized even with over seventy percent of pets being neutered. What will happen to the population if more and more people choose not to to? Even that website you list recognizes the fact most people will not be responsible enough to prevent unwanted matings.

In no way do I think every animal should be neutered, it works for you not to have them fixed but do you ever look at the other side? Talk to people that work at kill shelters or even better the people who are forced to do the killing?
If your response is yorkies are popular and get adopted, please show me how you know this. MANY dogs in shelters are purebred...twenty five percent...I have to believe some of these are yorkies, unhealthy and unwanted for a number of reasons. Not to mention the mixes. The rescues can't save them all.
I would love to be wrong.

One other thing, it doesn't bother me when you give your opinion and ask they research the subject before deciding but sometimes what you write gives me the impression you think you are right and anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't know any better.

Sorry that was so long.