Rosemark responds

[kpstoybox]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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 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!!

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by TexasKat08

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.

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

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

What about tinies? I've noticed you continuously stay away from that one. You know as well as I do that they are produced to fulfill a buyer's demand. Yet you can't/won't admit the same is true of parti's.




Too bad there are so many stupid members of the BRTCA and BTRA. They actually have the NERVE to believe that their dogs are a separate breed. Pray tell, where is the club for the reputable Biewer breeders?

People will always come up with excuses for breeding off-standard dogs.

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?

[RachelandSadie]

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.

[Wylie's Mom]

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

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

Since when is ethics on a sliding scale?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RachelandSadie

is there a place for both?

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.

[TexasKat08]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

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

Thank you for saying this Wylie's Mom/moderator.


. . . 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!

[bjh]

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

[magicgenie]

Originally Posted by bjh

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

[Pinehaven]

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.

[OwnedByJezebel]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

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.

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

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by OwnedByJezebel

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

[Lil Sis]

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.

[gemy]

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.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

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.

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.

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.

[bjh]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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.