Rosemark responds

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

You are right, it's doing something to the breed. It's tainting the gene pool.

I see a lot of justifying behavior on what someone else is doing. Since when is ethics on a sliding scale?

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?

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

It is written as a fault, but is it really if they are allowing their own members to breed parti carriers? Are breeders suppose to go by the YTCA code of ethics or by what they allow of their own members? Other members are aware of this particular line producing partis and yet there are still breeders buying and showing her lines.

Maybe it's time (past time) for them to take another look at what should be allowed as part of the standard...that or remove certain members and spay/neuter their dogs and the dogs that they have produced and the dogs that they have produced, etc. You get the point...

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

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

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 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.

[Brooklynn]

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....

[TammyJM]

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.

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

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.

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.

[Breezeaway]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I personally think she should spay and neuter the dogs that produced this fault, YTCA members are individuals and apparently she doesn't think this is necessary. It seems that the YTCA believes that a parti should be spayed or neutered and placed in a pet home, and not sold for profit, but no official stance on carriers.

Using the excuse that YTCA members do this, so therefore I can do it, really bothers me. I mean in every organization there are a few bad apples, look at the Catholic Church and the problems with some priests, should a pedophile say, "Well my priest did it, then so can I!"

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.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

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.

[kpstoybox]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

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 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.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

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.

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

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

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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.

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.

[Rhetts_mama]

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.

[TexasKat08]

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.

[Pinehaven]

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.

[TexasKat08]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

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?

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.

[caw]

Originally Posted by Brooklynn

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'mbreeding for as I'm notbreeding 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 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.