How is it tainting the gene pool when the piebald gene is a part of the pool??

Who's doing the justifcation...the YTCA or parti breeders?

I think they are looking into all of this very carefully.

I see a lot of parti breeders justifying their behavior. The piebald gene may or may not be a part of the yorkie lineage. It may or may not have been introduced by breeders trying to create something new (the parti breeders call the Biewer clubs liars because they say that Biewers are not yorkies but their own separate breed). But bottom line, it's considered a major fault, and purposely breeding to produce parti's is NO different than purposely producing tinies or apple headed yorkies or any other variant that's produced to meet market demand.

So, to clarify my position on this subject....I would spay/neuter ANYTHING that would produce a Parti and if I knew was a carrier as it's not what I'm breeding for as I'm not breeding for an apple head, under shot bite, bad topline ect...I would place into a pet home not put them to sleep just because they are off colored that's cruel in my opinion.
I will stand behind the YTCA code of conduct and ethics and will always tell anyone that asks my opinion what I think about a parti or anything else that is off standard and direct them to who I think is a reputable standard yorkie breeder. If anyone comes to me asking about Parti breeders I can't recommend because I don't know any personally and will also tell them that a Parti yorkie is not the standard. Don't like my post oh well it's how I feel and I'm not slamming anyone or saying anyone is a bad breeder for breeding parti's it's my opinion and mine alone and I will always stand behind it.
Any breeder that is a YTCA member that is breeding carriers or Parti's will have to live with their choices and well...I could go on but the code of ethics I signed when I joined YTCA will not allow me so I'll stop here....
No use arguing with anyone anymore as no one is going to change their opinions or minds here on the Parti issue....

I think that it would be great if a person is going to be vocal on a subject matter, they research and learn before writing certain things. The piebald gene is in the gene pool and if you read earlier Yorkshire Terrier books, and even on YT, you will see this to be shown. Also, there might be some of Biewer breeders trying to prove parti breeders to be wrong, but again, look around on YT and you will see their motives. You won't see reputable Biewer breeders and parti breeders arguing because they believe that the tri-color came from the same line.

Also, I would not compare the faults of your dog to an apple head any more than I would to my parti girl. An apple head can cause neurological problems....not the same as being tri-colored.

OMG You make a comparison like this? That is truly disgusting.
Pedophile is against the LAW and beyond anything one could imagine can happen to a child. Breeding a parti yorkie is not against any laws except the laws of the obvious haters in here that seize every opportunity to chastise and try to humiliate anyone who breeds a parti. That you would even try to associate the parti breeders with the word pedophile is definitely
Sick sick sick.

I used this example because it explains that you can't justify your own behavior by saying other people (who belong to good organizations) are doing it. I did not use this example to compare parti breeders to pedophiles, and seriously, you must know that.

I agree. Out of all the things she could have compared it too...like normal faults (size, coat texture, eye and nose pigment, etc)...she compares it to a pedophile...a sick sex predator of children. This is just another tactic to scare people away from the parti yorkie by comparing it to something evil and vile.

Again
After all, you're the one that said, "I guess the point I was trying to make is...if a YTCA member can show and breed a known carrier...then so can I!" I was trying to point out the error of this type of thinking.

I'm done with this thread. People will always try to justify their own bad behavior by pointing that someone else does it or does something that (in their minds) is worse.

Perhaps I have been misled, but according to Malcolm Willis' book "Genetics of the Dog," yorkies do not carry the Piebald gene as suggested. Their genetic make-up does include an s allele that can cause the white marking on the chest that is present at birth, but disappears as the puppy ages. Parti's and Biewers carry the Piebald gene, resulting in the white coloring. This would indicate that another breed, perhaps the maltese or shih-tzu were introduced, resulting in this fault. If that is really the case, then can Parti's and Biewers really be considered pure bred yorkies? Please don't persecute me for my post, just inputting my understanding of the situation based on my very limited understanding of genetics.

I’m coming in at the tail end of this thread and will need time to read it in it’s entirety but wanted to post a few things before this thread gets shut down
;-).

I've posted numerous book links in past threads, that say the maltese was thought to be one of the dogs used in the make up of the YT and I continue to find new books pre 1950 that state the same.

The New Book of Dog, Robert Leighton, 1907, under the chapter of Yorkshire terriers, it talks of the Yorkshire Terrier heritage ...

"Evidence of origin is often to be found more distinclty in puppies than in mature dog, and it is to be noted that the puppies of both the dandie and yorkshire are born with decided black and tan coloring. Selection and rejection must have been important factors in the production-selection of offspring which came nearest to the preconceived model, rejection of all that had the long body and short legs of the skye, the white colouring of the maltese, the drooping ears of the dandie and the wiry coat of the black and tan"

The New Book of the Dog - Google Books

I recently purchased a 1945 copy of the AKC's "The Complete Book of Dog". It’s a 700+ page book displaying all the reg. AKC breeds. Each breed chapter has numerous photos, brief history and breed standards. Each chapter was written with the help and approval of the specific breed club.

Under the Yorkshire Terrier chapter, it states that in addition to the dogs currently thought to be used in the breed makeup, also dogs like the Dandie Dinmont and Maltese were thought to be used in the makeup. I’m at work now so can’t quote word for word but that was the basic idea.

So how and where did we go from the early writings of the late 1800's through early/mid 1900's where it's stated that the maltese was part of the Yorkshire terriers heritage, to the current thinking of today's YTCA that there was never any white dog or dog with white used in the make up of the YT? I mean, even the British Kennel Club still has posted on their website that the Maltese was used in the YT makeup?? Did the current YTCA club and it’s views (which differ from the 1945 writing) start after this 1945 addition of this AKC’s breed book?

If someone has a more current version of "The Complete Book of Dog" could you please see if there is any mention of the Maltese used in the makeup of the YT?

And you wonder why off colors in the YT breed rarely been seen until the last 10 years or so ... Early writings like this one below, gives you a pretty good idea of what happened to those early off colored pups ...

Kennel secrets: How to breed, exhibit, and manage dogs, 1904
"In some instances when puppies must inevitably turn out poorly they present evidences of the fact before they are eight weeks old, but except they are weaklings, have pronounced congenital deformities or are bad in markings, fatal defects, as acquired deformities, a snipy face, prick ear or the like, can seldom if ever be detected until a later age. But when any such defects are clearly evident, as a rule he is wisest in the end who destroys the victims, for although he might dispose of some of them for a few dollars, the sums received could scarcely compensate him for the risks he takes of endangering the reputation of his kennel.”

Http://books.google.com/books?prints...page&q&f=false

And there are a whole lot more early books that say that off colored pups were often destroyed by their breeders. After many years of trying to get rid of the off color quietly and secretly, the color is still showing up.

These books were (in some cases) written over 100 years ago. DNA and the ability to research genetics is a modern science, providing indisputable proof. I imagine these books are based more on an assumption of the facts as determined by the the (visual) evidence. "Genetics of the Dog" was published in 1989. Is there some other reference guide written more recently that provides genetic proof that the yorkie carries the Piebald gene? I'm curious because I have been studying the yorkie breed for about 5 years and I haven't seen one.

I couldn't agree with you more, Brooklyn. The thought of anyone out there putting puppies to sleep because they come out with the wrong colors instead of spaying/neutering them and placing them into nice pet homes...well....it "sickens" me.........I tell you, if someone gets caught doing that, I think they should face some serious prosecution.

I guess I should have posted the little eye rolling guy. I was being sarcastic with my comment you quoted above. Just so we are clear on this...my desire to show or breed a carrier does not now, nor ever will...hinder on the fact that a YTCA member does too.
However, I do wish this Ch. carrier a long and prosperous stud career!! ;)

Yes, many of these books were written prior to, during and shortly after the Yorkshire Terrier became a recognized breed with the Kennel Club in England in the late 1880's. Who better to ask about the dogs that went into the breed, then the people living during the time when that breed began?

As for the more recent books you mention, that "provide genetic proof" that the yorkshire terrier carried or did not carry the parti gene, I don't belive that any of the recent books or theory's have proved that the early YT dogs did not carry genes for off color unless someone was able to dig up some of the first Yorkshire terrier graves and extract DNA to prove that these dogs did not carry genes other than the ones that Willis speculated that all Yorkshire terriers should carry. Even if some lines of modern day Yorkies were tested for the certain coat colors or coat patters that tests are currently available for, not all lines of yorkies will carry for off colors but some will (much to the breeders surprise).

The yorkshire terrier did not start out by breeding purebred, blue and tan, long haired dogs who's pedigrees were known. It began by breeding dogs of unknown heritage who carried unknown genes. It's those early genes that are still being passed on in some of todays Yorkshire terriers :)

What are talking about...."me staying about from that one"? What in the world are trying to say?? I haven't said anything about tinies because your mention of the apple head in comparison to the parti is what caught my attention the most because it was pretty extreme. Are you asking my opinion of what I think about someone breeding in order to achieve tinies? Is this your question? Of course some breeders are breeding for this size are asking more money so what is your point? If you are saying that these people have the same motives as a parti breeder, you won't get me to say/write that because that is not the motivation behind the parti breeders that I know. Do you think that the YTCA members that are now furthering the parti line are just giving these puppies/dogs away or do you think they are selling them?

Have you done research on where the Biewer originated or are you just tossing out opinions?

this is such a difficult debate. i LOVE the white coats on those dogs. i think they are absolutely beautiful dogs. so how do i tell myself that it's 100% wrong when it's so pretty. i agree with Nancy 100% that breeding a dog for a pet market is bad breeding ethics. i love the yorkie breed as blue and gold so much i hate to see it disappear because all the breeders started breeding for piebald color. we wouldn't have our traditional yorkies anymore.

is there a place for both? will the yorkies we know and love someday become like other dog breeds and come in other colors?

i can't answer those questions and I may never in my lifetime know what is the right answer for certain. i'm sure things will change in the future as all things do. and i'm sure that I personally love the white colored dogs but it makes me sad to think that some people are simply breeding them to make a profit.

i guess i'm more on the side of the standard, but want to know for certain if piebald IS geneticly there or if it is maltese genes in the breed somehow or if other ancestors of yorkies are showing up white sometimes. who knows really. they will research it. and someday the final decision will be either the way it always was or changed.

to all the parti breeders, if you are honestly out there breeding because you love the white dog and you want to see the white dog accepted i can't say i totally disagree or hate you for it, but if you are breeding just to make money and sell "RARE" dogs then shame on you for it.

First, everyone, don't EVER call anyone 'stupid' here, ever.

I get mentally exhausted when people refer over and over to ethics on this board, as if ethics were born unto this earth right along with the amoeba. :D

So yes, ethics is whatever you choose to ascribe to. Because your set of ethics is *this over here*, it does not, by definition mean someone else's set of ethics is simply wrong....nor does does it mean a code of ethics is 'right' just because some people developed it. Ethics is pretty much the most subjective branch of philosophy there is. It's something you ascribe to as a group or individual, it's not fact. Also, codes of ethics change over time, so that alone is evidence of their abstract nature.

Def of ethics: that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Yes. Women used to be prohibited from the vote, black people were seen only as slaves, rape used to legal, beating your wife was once legal, animal cruelty was once legal. There are great changes being made about Homophobia.

Is the color of a yorkie as important as these issues? *Shrugs*, I dunno. But yes, since all things are possible, I do believe there is a place for both. I don't know what that 'place' looks like, but it must certainly be better and more healthy than some of the ugliness that always occurs in these threads, yes?

Regarding the tri-color issues, it's disheartening when some people are compelled to runnnnnnnnnnn to opposite poles as fast as they can, locked and loaded -- rather than coming to the middle for some kind of consensus, acceptance, and real discussion.

I am new to this forum and I have to say that while I can be very vocal and opinionated, there really is no need to get so heated in a discussion. It completely loses the focus and nobody is heard. It seems like some of the posters just need to have the last word and don't know when enough is enough. Sometimes it is just best to agree to disagree.

When these threads get hijacked and the original post is no longer even being discussed, what is the point?

I have to say, though, y'all are a passionate bunch! :D

:thumbup::thumbup:Ann, excellent post.....thank you for posting.

ditto that
 

:thumbup::thumbup:

Genes for other colors besides blue and tan, are in the Yorkshire terrier make up. Attached are several paintings from the 1800's prior to the Yorkshire Terrier becoming a breed of it's own. It was dogs like the ones pictured, who ran together, bred and produced pups that were a genetic smorgasbord of more than just blue and tan colors. The pups selected to start this breed, may have been black and tan as pups, but they carried more than the blue and tan color genes. I see black and tan, solid tan, parti and white terriers running around in these paintings.

Also pictured is a scanned portion from the 1945 book written by the American Kennel Club, "The Complete Dog Book," where it says "it is doubtful if many of the early Yorkshire Terriers could trace back to common ancestors, for in a land that knew so many terrier and toy dogs, it would be unreasonable to suppose that all the breeders used the same crosses." It goes on to say that it was thought that the Maltese also had a part in the development of the YT.

If some one has a newer version of this book, I'd love to hear what is written today about the Yorkshire Terrier because todays thoughts are so different from the views from earlier written yorkshire terrier history.

We see the assumption in many books that the Maltese was used in the development of the YT. It's only a guess, because we have no records that prove it one way or another.

What I don't understand, so somebody please correct me if I am wrong .... the coat color genes that produce the pure white of the Maltese are different from the genes that cause a parti-color coat. So if the Maltese was used, wouldn't there be some pure white Yorkies popping up, however rare? I just don't see parti-color YT's as proof that a Maltese is in the background. It doesn't mean they aren't in the background, either, just that parti color came from somewhere else.

Dog Coat Colour Genetics

Every dog that has been posted as being in the makeup of the breed, has been an assumption. Even the AKC stated that, in the scanned book page I previously posted.

The maltese color is a result of the extreme white piebald gene. This was confirmed to me by D. Phillip Sponenberg, DVM, PhD Professor Pathology/Genetics, Department of Biomedical Sciences & Pathobiology at the University of VA, and it's also noted in Malcom Willis's book "Genetics of the Dog."

There are early illustrations of maltese with piebald coloring and tan or black ears ... and in the early 1900's, there were standards and show classes for colored Maltese (if I recall correctly ... I'll try to find that info).

I'm sure the piebald and other color genes came from some of the other terrier type dogs as seen in the pictures I posted ... there were many dogs who carried the piebald gene in the 1800's

I don't even know how I started reading this thread..

I have wanted to respond, but to be honest was almost afraid to because some poster can be abrasive in their response. I am so glad Wylie’s mom made the statement about not calling someone stupid. The sad think is the person who said that is a nice person but got caught up in the passion of this argument. There is a lot of back biting-- or maybe I should just say ..in your face biting! I feel for the op who must think “what the heck happened” It is really uncalled for, if an argument type discussion starts there should be a way to move it to another post. I read on yt a lot before I posted, but if one of my first post was hijacked like some that I have seen I am not sure I would have come back. Now I have made friends and do like most of the people.

I have done some research on different breeds in my search for the dog I wanted. I can see that the breeds are mostly evolving. I don't think any of us have a dog that is like (size for example) the fist yorkie.. so we all have the product of breeding for change. There are many new breeds that are being recognized by akc and they are the product of cross breeding. If all breeds stayed true to the very original wouldn't we all have wolf (I know that is not the best example - just making a point). So we love the yorkie… I hope the breed standards keep the yorkie the way it is, but there are brewers that should be recognized, and parti.. that is what should be worked upon in my opinion.

I am not sure if this example is the best.. but I have Lasa, that breed was given to china who breed it with other breeds that produced the shih tuz. Both are recognized breeds now, the history does show they were “mixed up” and breed together at one time. So things change.

I was reading about German Sheppard’s that are breed to show need a certain stance.. they are breed to the point the dogs can not walk properly. I think it was call the German sheppard’s hop.. I have tried to find the article but no luck. But the point I am making, even standards that are too extreme are not always the best for the dog. So the breeders who are breeding to standard to show their dogs are doing so even if the dog is handicapped? If this article is correct it made me wonder about why they had standards like that and maybe they should be looked into!!

Also history has shown we breed for tiny dogs. Look at Poodles for example. I am sure someone was upset when breeders started breeding for miniature poodles, then toy poodles. I do think there is a point that should not be cross… for example when the health of the dog is a factor.

All breeders who sell their dogs breed for money in some way. Why do you show dogs? So your breed line has more value? Not every breeder has the goal to show or have show stock, pets are needed and loved .. so is it wrong to breed a healthy dog to sell as a pet? If you can breed a healthy dog that will have a happy life and it happens to be a color that is desirable is that so bad? I think the key is health and happy life. I don’t really care so much about the color- except the color I WANT (I happen to love my remy who is black and tan)

I think we get so focus on our opinion we forget there are other very good opinions out there.
We all love yorkies, we all have the right to our opinion!!! None of us are perfect!!!! I just think we should not be so judgmental and realize we all are different.

Until full DNA mapping per breed is a reality, ie; what make up of genes is unique to the Doberman, the Shepherd, the Great Dane, etc; and of course our Yorkshire Terrier, the argument can go on endlessly. I can see the benefit of identifying the "piebald" gene in Yorkies, at least then a breeder can then test their breeding stock.

But the fact remains; per the Standard of the YTCA the only Yorkies qualified to show are the blue and tan. The tricolor dog is a disqualification. Just as in many other breeds a color other than what is called for in the standard is a DQ.

Are you saying the quote by Quote: by Rhetts_mama "Since when is ethics on a sliding scale" is the same as calling someone stupid? I think it meant you can't be a little ethical, just like you can't be a little pregnant, I in no way think it had anything to do with calling anyone stupid.

The post was deleted where someone call some people stupid.