Just a quesion. Does anyone think that the fact that the breeder bred for color "white" and not for health is a reason is why this poor baby is like this? And why would anyone breed a white "Yorkie". It does not fit into the AKC or the Brewier standard.

This pup should be fix and never bred even if it did not have health issues. And then the fact that it can not be registered except maybe by the ACA or another like that.

:thumbup::thumbup:

This is taken from the YTCA website:

An Important Note About Color in Yorkshire Terriers
By Gale Thompson

The most distinctive characteristic of an adult Yorkshire Terrier is its long blue
and tan silk coat. A puppy is born black and tan, but the only recognized colors for
adults when registering with AKC are blue and gold, blue and tan, black and gold,
or black and tan.

The AKC Breed Standard and YTCA Code of Ethics do not recognize any
other color dogs than noted above. This includes all gold, born blue, liver
(also known as red or chocolate), and parti-colors. One of the reasons for
avoiding breeding "off-colored" Yorkies is because it could be a genetic defect
that may affect the dog's health. Some health problems can include, but aren't
limited to, severe skin problems, allergies, total hair loss and in some cases
long-term illness and/or death.

A responsible breeder will not intentionally breed for undesirable traits.
On very rare occasions, a breeder will have a puppy born with a color anomaly.
That puppy should undergo careful health screenings before being placed in a
spay/neuter (non breeding) home. A breeder should certainly never
promote these deviations as being desirable or rare.

There are many issues that potential Yorkie owners need to study before
purchasing their dog. We hope you will read the helpful information at this
web site and make an informed decision. It could very possibly save you
aggravation, disappointment and expense. We wish you the best of luck
in your pursuit of a happy, healthy Yorkshire Terrier.


Yorkshire Terrier Club of America

I am sorry but I have to comment on that.
The AKC does recognize and register parti colored yorkies.

Please reread it. Although the AKC will register partis, they are not recognized as the breed standard which is set forth by the YTCA.

Oh excuse the my wording...
The A.K.C. does register the parti colored Yorkshire Terriers and the does allow the offspring to be registered also.

:eek: definitely drastic. I would hope other avenues would be taken and eye removal would be a LAST resort. My Maddie has KSC and it is costly and time consuming. However, it can be managed.

I hope this poor puppy goes to a home where someone will take care of it.:(

The AKC is a purebred dog registry only. The individual breed club, in this case the YTCA, sets the breed standard, safeguards the health, sets the Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics, etc.

What a depressing thread. I would sure like to know what has happened with this poor puppy. :(

The OP never returned after the day she started this thread. :(

I agree this thread is depressing.. I've been watching to see if this pup would be put back up for sale if she was returned, so I do hope that since she hadn't maybe the breeder choose to treat this poor pup rather than trick someone else but who knows.

With the exception of blue born yorkies, who often do have the "severe skin problems, allergies, total hair loss and in some cases long-term illness and/or death," Chocolate, parti and golden born yorkies are no more prone to health problems than traditional colored yorkies are.

Sure wish the YTCA was a bit more specific in their statement and would indicate that skin problems, allergies, total hair loss and long term illness are conditions seen in blue born yorkies; I've heard of no other off colors displaying those types of issues. But maybe the writer of those statements wasn't as "informed" about the facts, as they should have been.

KCS is a condition seen in dogs (including yorkshire terriers) and isn't linked to coat color (as far as I know).

To me, that article is trying to discourage people from the intentional breeding of different colored yorkies.

I feel it's a scare tactic that leads people who are uneducated about how recessive color genes work, to believe that off colored yorkies could be genetically defective. They imply that all off colors could develop the health issues that they've listed when in fact, those issues are seen in blue born yorkies.

If the article were changed to include all other off colored yorkies, like BLACK AND TAN and SILVER AND GOLD, instead of targeting just a few of the off colors, and in addition they would state that the health issues they've listed are normally seen in blue born yorkies, I feel these changes would make their article more accurate and less biased.

The point of my post was to say that the OP's pup's condition, isn't a coat color related problem. :)

And my point is that the article made sense to me....totally! :)

Than I guess their propaganda is working just the way they want it to!

:thumbup:

"The point of my post was to say that the OP's pup's condition, isn't a coat color related problem."


I was not saying because of the color, I was saying because the "breeder" chose to bred for color, and maybe ignored important health factors, that his pup has issues.

Sorry if I want not clear. Thanks

A breed club should not encourage breeding a fault especially one that has not been shown to be safe. Look at what is happening to other breeds where breeders changed standards to comply with the latest fad. YTCA funds lots of research on known problems with the Yorkie, but why should they fund research for the parti gene when they don't even recommend breeding for it? Some breeders don't care about research, and will do whatever they want. In time, we may learn something from these dogs, but right now we just hear about the occasional problem, and some people are still saying it's ok to breed the dog with the problem. I hope the parti breeders will keep strict records of all their dogs, and be honest with others on the problems, and always recommend a spay neuter for any type of problem even if the don't think it's related. We won't really know much for at least 10 years on the safety of breeding for the parti gene, and even that depends on breeder's honesty. If one out of 100 dogs have a problem, there is a problem. It doesn't need to be most of the dogs, or even 1 percent to be considered unsafe. In fact, I think most scientific studies are tested on one out of 1000. For important things, it's 1 out of 10,000.


Propaganda, who's really putting out the propaganda? Do you honestly think YTCA members couldn't get a hold of a parti dog and breed them if they wanted to? What do you think their motive is for not breeding this dog? Can you understand the concept of safety/health first, and we should always know the safety before we breed for something? I really commend the Biewer clubs who understand that this is a problem and seem vigilant in testing and keeping records of their dogs. But we won't know how safe it is for some years to come.

You are right about this, one-trait breeders often overlook other important qualities, but there are some problems associated with breeding for the recessive gene. Different illnesses attach themselves to recessive genes, and so when we purposely breed for this recessive gene, we may also be breeding for the illness. It's complex, and scientists are studying this phenomenon with different species.

The health testing is one thing that first piqued my interest in Biewers. While I commend the breeders for their efforts in this regard, my take on it is that the over-riding reason is that they are operating with a more limited gene pool and the risks are higher due to that. The Biewer was started with only 2 dogs and that was just back in the 1980's. Allowing unhealthy dogs or those displaying poor traits to breed would have a greater impact on the breed going forward. This would be true for any breed (or line within a breed) being bred from a limited gene pool.

The pup is soo cute....Its really going to be a matter of can you afford what it will cost to keep the little one..I highly suggest if you keep him to get insurance right away before you head to doctors...Otherwise things won't get covered after the fact of being diagnosed...As for his weight...My little guy was about the same size at 8 weeks and he is now almost five pounds and full grown!!Healthy too...I say keep him and get insurance for him VIP is great insurance!I use that one!

Most insurance will not cover an existing problem, even if it hasn't been officially diagnosed. Many won't cover genetic problems either, don't forget insurance companies are in the business to make money, "not help people".

I think the OP has long since abandoned this thread anyway. :(

We've had that happen a lot lately.

Yeah, people ask for advice, but don't like what they hear.

I sure hope this puppy ends up with someone who will take care of him properly.

I have grave concerns about what happened to him. He was bred by someone greedy and went to someone who also wanted to breed; and she was pretty clear that she wanted him for no other purpose.

Oh, but we are all being fed with a lot of propoganda about what some people are choosing to breed. :rolleyes:

People need to get their heads out of the sand. I am not saying everyone has nothing but money on the brain, but, let's face it, plenty do. The betterment of a breed is the furthest thing from their minds. All about breeding to satisfy the public's demand for what they think looks pretty. :(

Ok, I have been wanting to ask this, and I have posted and deleted many times. This is for my own education only regarding color... disclaimer, I am not a breeder, nor do I ever intend to breed, but my background is in animal science, so I just need to be educated here.


I know that someone mentioned that this puppy's problem is not related to color so it was touched on, and sorry if I missed the explanation. But could it be? I mean, the first thing that struck me about this particular puppy was the lack of color. I grew up raising boxers, and a white born (or mostly white) was known to have genetic problems such as blindness, deafness, skin problems and much more. I know with other breeds of dogs, mixing two of the same color can cause genetic problems (Australian Shepards). Some white/blue eyed cats have eye/ear problems, and in Paint horses a white foal is a lethal gene (different from Albino's). So, my question is, why are Yorkies exempt from this possibility? Has it been proven? I am not judging breeding Parties or Biewers, I am just wondering if with them, a minimally colored puppy could have genetic problems. Maybe this puppy's condition does occur in other "colored" Yorkies/dogs, but could the incidence be more prominant or other issues be present when the puppy is born with little color like this one? Again, I am not partial one way or the other, as with Paint horses, it simply requires genetic testing for the lethal gene to manage your breeding operation. Ok, just wanting to be educated here.

I don't mean to be rude Cha Cha..But don't you think it is a bit selfish to post what you did when this poor person is trying to decide over keeping a puppy she had just gotten...And probably already fallen in love with. Why don't you repost to a new thread and I am sure many people will reply that can help...And more will see it that way!! Good luck on your research!

To the OP, since this thread has gone off topic - it's being closed. If you want/need any help - please feel free to PM me.

Also, if you want to start a new thread, please do. I hope this pup is okay and gets the help he needs. There is always the option that a rescue may be able to help in this kind of situation.