Rosemark responds

[hartygirl]

I have drooled over parti yorkies for a long time, especially ones belonging to some in this thread.

IMO I think it's just sad that they (parti) can not be accepted and loved and shown the same as any yorkshire terrier.

Focus on "bettering the breed" should be on the health of the dog, not the color or markings. Just like people the things that make us individual make us beautiful.

I just can't see the wrong in Parti's, but I'm no expert by any means.

[Maximo]

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.

There were specific comments about being "stupid."

[Rhetts_mama]

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.

Ann, I did not call anyone stupid. Honestly, we need a sarcastic smilie to use here. What I wrote was:

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?

in response to Tammy saying:

You won't see reputable Biewer breeders and parti breeders arguing because they believe that the tri-color came from the same line.

So, by virtue of what Tammy said, she's calling every member of the BRTCA and BTRA unreputable or a sheeple because this is their stance on Biewers:

The BTCA, Inc. contacted the Mars Veterinary in Feb of 2007 to see if they could help them with the genetic make up of the Biewer Terrier. It wasn’t until later in the year that they released the tests and we began submitting blood samples. After testing over 30 different lineages (100 plus dogs) to date, we have been able to show that the Biewer Terrier is a distinct of its own. Oct. 5th, 2009 the geneticist working with the BTCA, Inc. released the news that they had developed a breed signature for the purebred Biewer Terrier
Biewer Terrier History



Although the Biewer Terrier is a relative to the Yorkshire Terrier it is evident that they are not the same breed. After two years of working with world renown geneticists at Mars Veterinary, we have been able to establish that the Biewer Terrier is a completely separate breed with a genetic make up, unique to the Biewer Terrier.
Biewer Terrier Club of America, Inc.

Ethics is 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, individual ethics may vary. But we base every day activities on what the general consensus of right and wrong is within a particular society. We base our laws on what is the generally accepted ethics within a community. We say, in this society, that it's wrong to murder, to do drugs, to drink and drive or what ever. But obviously there are people who don't believe that there is a problem with doing any of those things. If someone were to kill another person, would we turn a blind eye to it and say "Oh, it's ok because he doesn't believe that what he did was wrong"? No we don't. That's what I mean by ethics is not a sliding scale. We don't get away with it because we only murdered one person and that wasn't as bad as that guy over there who murdered two.

Now, I truly am DONE with this thread.

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

Ann, I did not call anyone stupid. Honestly, we need a sarcastic smilie to use here. What I wrote was:


in response to Tammy saying:


So, by virtue of what Tammy said, she's calling every member of the BRTCA and BTRA unreputable or a sheeple because this is their stance on Biewers:

[F Arial, sans-serif]The BTCA, Inc. contacted the Mars Veterinary in Feb of 2007 to see if they could help them with the genetic make up of the Biewer Terrier. It wasn’t until later in the year that they released the tests and we began submitting blood samples. After testing over 30 different lineages (100 plus dogs) to date, we have been able to show that the Biewer Terrier is a distinct of its own. Oct. 5th, 2009 the geneticist working with the BTCA, Inc. released the news that they had developed a breed signature for the purebred Biewer Terrier
Biewer Terrier History

[/FONT][F Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[F Arial, sans-serif]Although the Biewer Terrier is a relative to the Yorkshire Terrier it is evident that they are not the same breed. After two years of working with world renown geneticists at Mars Veterinary, we have been able to establish that the Biewer Terrier is a completely separate breed with a genetic make up, unique to the Biewer Terrier.
Biewer Terrier Club of America, Inc.
[/FONT]
Ethics is 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, individual ethics may vary. But we base every day activities on what the general consensus of right and wrong is within a particular society. We base our laws on what is the generally accepted ethics within a community. We say, in this society, that it's wrong to murder, to do drugs, to drink and drive or what ever. But obviously there are people who don't believe that there is a problem with doing any of those things. If someone were to kill another person, would we turn a blind eye to it and say "Oh, it's ok because he doesn't believe that what he did was wrong"? No we don't. That's what I mean by ethics is not a sliding scale. We don't get away with it because we only murdered one person and that wasn't as bad as that guy over there who murdered two.

Now, I truly am DONE with this thread.

I reread what I wrote and, yes, it was far too broad and for this, I apologize. I wish those of you that have said that all parti breeders are doing it for a profit would also recognize that an apology should be made as well. I know, for me, it's those type of statements that cause a stir and make it hard to make a clear point and, in turn, end up in argument. It does get really old to read in many of the parti threads how it is all done for money.

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by hartygirl

I have drooled over parti yorkies for a long time, especially ones belonging to some in this thread.

IMO I think it's just sad that they (parti) can not be accepted and loved and shown the same as any yorkshire terrier.

Focus on "bettering the breed" should be on the health of the dog, not the color or markings. Just like people the things that make us individual make us beautiful.

I just can't see the wrong in Parti's, but I'm no expert by any means.

I wish they could be accepted as well.

[yorkiegirl2]

While we have those with strong believes about the ethics of breeding
Parti Yorkies,
I will speak for myself and some of the Parti breeders I know.
We are not asking for your understanding if you don’t understand our goals.

But we do ask is that you stop chastising us at every opportunity for doing something we love and believe in. There are many who loves the Parti’s and are striving to producing healthy, beautiful, well structured dogs. And are breeding to the standard for the yorkies (omitting color)

Our passion is every bit as real and strong as those who believe in and breed the standard yorkie.
We believe it was a great injustice that the Parti color was not developed along with the standard color at the beginning of the breeds history.
We are working toward righting a wrong that robbed a beautiful dog of this rightful heritage.
What we are doing is working with each other to bring the Parti’s to their peak perfection.
Yes we have a long road ahead but the beautiful standard yorkies we see today were not developed over night. As the yorkie breed is still a baby in terms of how long it been around, the Parti colored yorkie is just being born.

While we have often seen the double standards when it comes to the YTCA’s stance on these dogs and with other issue, the question remains.
Why is it ok for some to do certain things and other will be called unethical ??

This type of hypocritical thinking is what most of us have a problem with, when we call someone out.
It is not done to try and justify our actions. But it’s mainly to show others not familiar with way things work in the dog world.

Yes we have heard standard breeders do not want the gene in their lines but it’s very possible the gene is already in their bloodlines somewhere and it just been taken recessive.
Since most of the dogs revert back to the foundation dogs that started the Yorkies those gene were locked in along with those pesky genetic defects we see today.

A few of the despairing remarks we see against these dog.
They are they just being breed for $$$$.We know there are those who are going to breed for the right and wrong reason in both Standard and Parti colors. But it’s very unfair to lump everyone into the same category.
They started out high just as the standard yorkies did when they first became popular and are now lower in price because they are in abundances. With more of the dogs being bred the prices are coming down and they are now more affordable for the pet person to own, love and enjoy .

They are out of standard, it’s a fault and should not be bred. We don’t see it as a fault but a natural occurring part of the make up of the Yorkshires.
There are just as many standards if left natural who would also not meet the breeds standard .
If you took out all dogs who have faults you would have nothing left to breed since there have never been a perfect yorkie born.

And if this issue of breeding the Parti’s bothers those from the YTCA then they should work with Parti breeders to establish a plan to get these dogs in as a variation of the breed.

But either way with or without YTCA's help we will continue on with the development of the beauitful Parti.

[jencar98]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

I wish they could be accepted as well.

Tammy, I know what you mean by "accepted" but would add, they are accepted, loved and cherished by those that own them♥ I think the real losers here are those that don't accept them. They lose out on truly knowing what wonderful yorkies partis are, all because of their so called "ethics".

As the ethics of dog breeding has now been compared to the ethics of pedophiles and murderers (extreme examples, IMO), perhaps ethics should be discussed a little more.

At one time I bought into the spiel the YTCA and it's members try to sell regarding the ethics of dog breeding. Others actions and education have changed my opinion of what constitutes good dog breeding ethics. I believe the best interest of the breed was lost long ago to the all important dollar and to egos, regardless of what many of their "ethical, reputable" breeders want us to believe.

I do find it hypocritical that one would imply their ethics regarding breeding and showing are somehow better than others because they wouldn't show a carrier, and don't believe partis should be bred. But, then that same person isn't above showing off a little cleavage to a male judge in order to better their chances of winning. Ethical? Or, the one who's ethics wouldn't allow partis to be shown/bred, but has no problem with dyeing yorkies. Ethical?

[RachelandSadie]

Originally Posted by yorkiegirl2

While we have those with strong believes about the ethics of breeding
Parti Yorkies,
I will speak for myself and some of the Parti breeders I know.
We are not asking for your understanding if you don’t understand our goals.

But we do ask is that you stop chastising us at every opportunity for doing something we love and believe in. There are many who loves the Parti’s and are striving to producing healthy, beautiful, well structured dogs. And are breeding to the standard for the yorkies (omitting color)

Our passion is every bit as real and strong as those who believe in and breed the standard yorkie.
We believe it was a great injustice that the Parti color was not developed along with the standard color at the beginning of the breeds history.
We are working toward righting a wrong that robbed a beautiful dog of this rightful heritage.
What we are doing is working with each other to bring the Parti’s to their peak perfection.
Yes we have a long road ahead but the beautiful standard yorkies we see today were not developed over night. As the yorkie breed is still a baby in terms of how long it been around, the Parti colored yorkie is just being born.

While we have often seen the double standards when it comes to the YTCA’s stance on these dogs and with other issue, the question remains.
Why is it ok for some to do certain things and other will be called unethical ??

This type of hypocritical thinking is what most of us have a problem with, when we call someone out.
It is not done to try and justify our actions. But it’s mainly to show others not familiar with way things work in the dog world.

Yes we have heard standard breeders do not want the gene in their lines but it’s very possible the gene is already in their bloodlines somewhere and it just been taken recessive.
Since most of the dogs revert back to the foundation dogs that started the Yorkies those gene were locked in along with those pesky genetic defects we see today.

A few of the despairing remarks we see against these dog.
They are they just being breed for $$$$.We know there are those who are going to breed for the right and wrong reason in both Standard and Parti colors. But it’s very unfair to lump everyone into the same category.
They started out high just as the standard yorkies did when they first became popular and are now lower in price because they are in abundances. With more of the dogs being bred the prices are coming down and they are now more affordable for the pet person to own, love and enjoy .

They are out of standard, it’s a fault and should not be bred. We don’t see it as a fault but a natural occurring part of the make up of the Yorkshires.
There are just as many standards if left natural who would also not meet the breeds standard .
If you took out all dogs who have faults you would have nothing left to breed since there have never been a perfect yorkie born.

And if this issue of breeding the Parti’s bothers those from the YTCA then they should work with Parti breeders to establish a plan to get these dogs in as a variation of the breed.

But either way with or without YTCA's help we will continue on with the development of the beauitful Parti.

i just wanted to say that i think this was very eloquently put. no matter what side of this clearly drawn line i find my beliefs and opinions are matching up to, it is refreshing to see a very well put statement that gives such detail and thought provoking information. thank you for that.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by jencar98

Tammy, I know what you mean by "accepted" but would add, they are accepted, loved and cherished by those that own them♥ I think the real losers here are those that don't accept them. They lose out on truly knowing what wonderful yorkies partis are, all because of their so called "ethics".

As the ethics of dog breeding has now been compared to the ethics of pedophiles and murderers (extreme examples, IMO), perhaps ethics should be discussed a little more.
At one time I bought into the spiel the YTCA and it's members try to sell regarding the ethics of dog breeding. Others actions and education have changed my opinion of what constitutes good dog breeding ethics. I believe the best interest of the breed was lost long ago to the all important dollar and to egos, regardless of what many of their "ethical, reputable" breeders want us to believe.

I do find it hypocritical that one would imply their ethics regarding breeding and showing are somehow better than others because they wouldn't show a carrier, and don't believe partis should be bred. But, then that same person isn't above showing off a little cleavage to a male judge in order to better their chances of winning. Ethical? Or, the one who's ethics wouldn't allow partis to be shown/bred, but has no problem with dyeing yorkies. Ethical?

For the third time, I will attempt to explain I didn't compare parti breeders to pedophiles. I was trying to explain you couldn't justify your actions by saying that members of a good organization do something therefore I can do something. Kpstoybox, even said that she was being sarcastic, when she made her comment about "if a YTCA member can show and breed a known carrier...then so can I!"

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

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!!

I guess I should have realized she was being sarcastic, but I've read this excuse in so many threads before, that a YTCA member does such and such so why should I do any better, that I felt like I had to address it. I really find it hard to believe that anyone thinks I'm comparing pedophiles to parti breeders, and if they do, I sincerely apologize. Many of us feel very protective of the breed, and breeds do have to have standards that need to be protected, without a standard there is no breed! Instead of seeing us as protective, many of you only see us as haters, I just don't understand this.

There are some breeders of tricolored dogs who are going about the beeding of them that I believe is the right way to do it, but this thread isn't really about that, it's about this:

Originally Posted by rosemark

Folks,

Just to set the record straight, I sold a show prospect with a full registration to a person who showed him to his championship which requires a full registration. I do not sell pets with full registrations. Unfortunately, I trusted this person do the right thing and have learned that I will no longer sell show dogs without remaining as a co-owner so that I can retain control over where my dogs end up. I disliked the fact that other name breeders retained this type of control, but now I understand that it's necessary to retain control of where my dogs end up. A quality breeder's biggest fear is that our dogs will end up poorly cared for or in a puppy mill.

I'm happy that you love your new boy, and I do hope that you breed him wisely and for the betterment of the breed. Marshall is capable of producing wonderful puppies when bred to a quality bitch and if you understand what qualities he brings the table.

Good breeders of partis should understand that last statement throughly, and I hope they are protective of their lines.

[lisaly]

Originally Posted by hartygirl

I have drooled over parti yorkies for a long time, especially ones belonging to some in this thread.

IMO I think it's just sad that they (parti) can not be accepted and loved and shown the same as any yorkshire terrier.

Focus on "bettering the breed" should be on the health of the dog, not the color or markings. Just like people the things that make us individual make us beautiful.

I just can't see the wrong in Parti's, but I'm no expert by any means.

I understand how people love the Yorkshire Terrier standard and the fear of change, but there is far more that this dog represents to me than its color. There are people on this board that own and breed tricolor Yorkies that I have utmost respect for. To say that they are unethical because their vision is different is wrong to me. The first time I saw a Parti or a Biewer is when I found Yorkie Talk. They represent everything the Yorkshire Terrier breed has evolved into with the exception of color. I love traditional Yorkies, but I think tricolor Yorkies are also beautiful. For some it may be about money, but like truly reputable breeders who breed to the standard, it is about the love of this beautiful dog with a wonderful temperament and fulfilling a dream.

Originally Posted by yorkiegirl2

While we have those with strong believes about the ethics of breeding
Parti Yorkies,
I will speak for myself and some of the Parti breeders I know.
We are not asking for your understanding if you don’t understand our goals.

But we do ask is that you stop chastising us at every opportunity for doing something we love and believe in. There are many who loves the Parti’s and are striving to producing healthy, beautiful, well structured dogs. And are breeding to the standard for the yorkies (omitting color)

Our passion is every bit as real and strong as those who believe in and breed the standard yorkie.
We believe it was a great injustice that the Parti color was not developed along with the standard color at the beginning of the breeds history.
We are working toward righting a wrong that robbed a beautiful dog of this rightful heritage.
What we are doing is working with each other to bring the Parti’s to their peak perfection.
Yes we have a long road ahead but the beautiful standard yorkies we see today were not developed over night. As the yorkie breed is still a baby in terms of how long it been around, the Parti colored yorkie is just being born.

While we have often seen the double standards when it comes to the YTCA’s stance on these dogs and with other issue, the question remains.
Why is it ok for some to do certain things and other will be called unethical ??

This type of hypocritical thinking is what most of us have a problem with, when we call someone out.
It is not done to try and justify our actions. But it’s mainly to show others not familiar with way things work in the dog world.

Yes we have heard standard breeders do not want the gene in their lines but it’s very possible the gene is already in their bloodlines somewhere and it just been taken recessive.
Since most of the dogs revert back to the foundation dogs that started the Yorkies those gene were locked in along with those pesky genetic defects we see today.

A few of the despairing remarks we see against these dog.
They are they just being breed for $$$$.We know there are those who are going to breed for the right and wrong reason in both Standard and Parti colors. But it’s very unfair to lump everyone into the same category.
They started out high just as the standard yorkies did when they first became popular and are now lower in price because they are in abundances. With more of the dogs being bred the prices are coming down and they are now more affordable for the pet person to own, love and enjoy .

They are out of standard, it’s a fault and should not be bred. We don’t see it as a fault but a natural occurring part of the make up of the Yorkshires.
There are just as many standards if left natural who would also not meet the breeds standard .
If you took out all dogs who have faults you would have nothing left to breed since there have never been a perfect yorkie born.

And if this issue of breeding the Parti’s bothers those from the YTCA then they should work with Parti breeders to establish a plan to get these dogs in as a variation of the breed.

But either way with or without YTCA's help we will continue on with the development of the beauitful Parti.

Beautifully put.

Originally Posted by jencar98

Tammy, I know what you mean by "accepted" but would add, they are accepted, loved and cherished by those that own them♥ I think the real losers here are those that don't accept them. They lose out on truly knowing what wonderful yorkies partis are, all because of their so called "ethics".

I totally agree with both you and Tammy. I've never personally met a Parti or Biewer, but I can look into their eyes and see their spirit. I don't own one, but I recognize their beauty and great worth.

I think this breed has been about picking the traits that are found to be desirable and it has evolved in time to what the Yorkshire Terrier is today. We shouldn't have to agree on the breeding of Partis, but it should be about respect. Those breeding traditional yorkies to standard have a right to their opinion, but breeders of tricolor Yorkies also deserve that right and respect.

[hartygirl]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

I wish they could be accepted as well.

Well it was your babies I was speaking of, I remember Livi's litter in particular and always will.
Meg

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by hartygirl

Well it was your babies I was speaking of, I remember Livi's litter in particular and always will.
Meg

Thank you so much Meg!! That means more to me than you know....I love, love, love those babies and am pretty proud of their sweet selves. Not to mention, I am equally proud of their cute tricolor mama.

[hartygirl]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

Thank you so much Meg!! That means more to me than you know....I love, love, love those babies and am pretty proud of their sweet selves. Not to mention, I am equally proud of their cute tricolor mama.

You are more than welcome, it is your hard work that speaks for your puppies and program.

[FlDebra]

I have decided it is impossible to argue over whether specific traits were ever a part of the Yorkshire Terrier makeup -- there are just too many conflicting references. We do not have valid DNA testing available to us to make sure at this time. There are references saying the Maltese "was probably," "may have been," or "was never" in the makeup of the Yorkshire Terrier. It is difficult to discern which reference might hold the most weight as few are even definitive in what they say. Most is speculation. I have also given up trying to argue genetic science as there is some info online that is empirically FALSE and then some refuse to follow basic science premises in debates.

But then after some very careful thought, I figured that it really does NOT MATTER! All dog breeds go back to the same basic canine input, all the way back, they go to the wolf. So there are bound to be many characteristics in some part of the history that are NOT part of the standard accepted today. The whole idea of having a standard is to say, okay as of this date, these dogs, displaying these particular attributes are a breed unto themselves and that breeding should adhere to this set of standards. So, it really does not matter if there was white in the make up or not -- surely there was some white as it often shows on the chest in a small patch that usually is replaced by standard color hair as the dog matures. But that does not mean they definately had Maltese or that the Partis or Biewers of today are naturally showing some long lost genetic code. Even if it did, that STILL would NOT matter as the standard DOES SAY IT IS A FAULT. (Not yelling, only emphasizing my point). For instance, floppy ears appear naturally in the breed, but are not part of the standard. They are adorable but not what you breed to get. If you just keep breeding the heavier, leatherier ears that do not stand up, pretty soon, you wind up with cocker ears. The more you breed out of standard, the more out of standard you wind up with.

Ethics as Wylie's Mom says is "something you ascribe to as a group or individual." Our group -- which is parented by the Yorkshire Terrier Club of America HAS ascribed to the standard of blue and tan and has made it abundantly clear that they have determined the white color, along with solid colors to be faults and disqualifying.

IF people want to be associated with the AKC or the YTCA, then they should abide by the Code of Conduct and Ethics of that GROUP, IMO. In any regulatory group or law abiding community, people normally lobby to change a law BEFORE they actually try to live by it. When people wanted some of the speed limits increased above 55, they got the laws changed. Theydid not get to get out of speeding tickets before the law was changed. In THIS case, people just started breeding FOR the tri-color even though it was NOT in the standard. Then after the fact, they petitioned the AKC/YTCA to change to meet the practices they were already following. The YTCA has studied the subjct extensively and come to a decision -- NOT to accept tri-color in the standard. Seems simple to me.

I believe with all my heart that only dogs meeting their breed standard should be bred. I did not hesitate to spay the most loving Yorkie I ever saw due to her wavy hair. I loved her and pampered her to no end but would never have bred her. That is the same way I think about the tri-colors. Love them and spay/neuter. Disqualifying faults should not be promoted, even when they may be cute as can be! I think some parti's are cute. I think many chocolates are pretty. I've seen blonde yorkies that are unique! I would love any one of them as the wonderful pets they can be.

I do believe there are breeders with high standards and hearts in the right place that do not agree with me on this subject. I think at least one of the Parti breeders is one of the best breeders I have heard of outside of the color standard issue. She obviously CARES a great deal for the health and well-being of her dogs -- which I hold above the issue of color. I still think the tri-color breeding is wrong, but see her as head & shoulders above many standard breeders who do not take the same safeguards for their dogs & pups. I do not think all of them are only in it for the money, but I do believe a disproportionate number of Parti-breeders tried to capitalize on the fad and crossed the lines "making their own" tri-color yorkies by taking liberties with their breeding practices. I have had other Parti-breeders complain of the same thing. This dilution of our gene pool will haunt the breed for years to come. I know that not all standard color breeders are the highest ethical breeders either -- so don't anyone think I am saying all fault lies on one side or the other. I do not believe in very many absolutes or generalizations.

I think this is an issue that will not be solved in my lifetime. Too many are too deeply involved with breeding the non-standard dogs to give up the practice no matter how many times the parent breed club tells them their dogs ARE NOT in standard and are disqualified. Too many YTCA members have devoted scores of years to the refinement of the breed, working diligently to preserve the beautiful blue and tan that was the GOAL of early Yorkshire Terrier breeders (as well as MOST of them now) to abandon the current standard and open the door for accepting any deviation of standard a handful of breeders decides they want to breed.

So we will continue to debate the issue here, have our posts deleted, our threads closed and never find a middle ground because there is NONE for this situation. It is a black and white issue with no gray area. You either accept the YTCA's finding that tri-color is DISQUALIFYING or you don't. There is no point of compromise, and the "consensus" has already been made -- it is the YTCA position.

I also find it unethical (even if it only by my own ascribed set of standards -- which Wylie's mom has said does not make mine wrong even if others --presumably even the moderator-- disagrees with me) for someone to use their moderator powers in the same posts they are stating their case in such a heated debate, time after time. I wholeheartedly agree that moderators deserve the right to their own opinion ON ANY issue, but it is highly out of the ordinary to argue with the same people you are deleting, admonishing and closing their threads. It becomes very difficult to see where the "edict of the moderator" stops and "personal opinion" starts. I apprecate that Wylie's Mom owning a tri-color dog herself, makes for a difficult predictment. Perhaps someone else could exercise moderator powers in threads where one moderator wants to engage in debate?? Just asking and again, just my opinion and suggestion -- not in any way saying I would not accept what already is in place. Just throwing an idea out for consideration.

But I think the instance of Rhett's_mama's post being deleted and then a comment that made it sound like she was calling people here stupid illustrates my point. She did not call anyone here stupid at all. But this is where I think trying to moderate when you are also arguing with those you want to moderate, can result in biased and partisan decisions NOT in keeping with the otherwise broad-minded dispensing of justice. Probably wasn't even a conscious mis-interpretation at all, it just is natural when we are emotionally invested in a debate.

I know this will probably get deleted too but, I believe I need to at least try to voice my opinion. In the Rules & Guidelines it says that posts WILL NOT be deleted unless they break the rules. I believe I have presented my ideas without breaking any rules or guidelines. I KNOW the moderator's job is a difficult one and I think everyone here has done an exceptional job. Pls do not think that because I mention one area that I might not see eye to eye on that I have an overall negative view -- NOT AT ALL! I truly enjoy this site and speak highly of it in other realms.

[musiccitymom]

Originally Posted by FlDebra

I have decided it is impossible to argue over whether specific traits were ever a part of the Yorkshire Terrier makeup -- there are just too many conflicting references. We do not have valid DNA testing available to us to make sure at this time. There are references saying the Maltese "was probably," "may have been," or "was never" in the makeup of the Yorkshire Terrier. It is difficult to discern which reference might hold the most weight as few are even definitive in what they say. Most is speculation. I have also given up trying to argue genetic science as there is some info online that is empirically FALSE and then some refuse to follow basic science premises in debates.

But then after some very careful thought, I figured that it really does NOT MATTER! All dog breeds go back to the same basic canine input, all the way back, they go to the wolf. So there are bound to be many characteristics in some part of the history that are NOT part of the standard accepted today. The whole idea of having a standard is to say, okay as of this date, these dogs, displaying these particular attributes are a breed unto themselves and that breeding should adhere to this set of standards. So, it really does not matter if there was white in the make up or not -- surely there was some white as it often shows on the chest in a small patch that usually is replaced by standard color hair as the dog matures. But that does not mean they definately had Maltese or that the Partis or Biewers of today are naturally showing some long lost genetic code. Even if it did, that STILL would NOT matter as the standard DOES SAY IT IS A FAULT. (Not yelling, only emphasizing my point). For instance, floppy ears appear naturally in the breed, but are not part of the standard. They are adorable but not what you breed to get. If you just keep breeding the heavier, leatherier ears that do not stand up, pretty soon, you wind up with cocker ears. The more you breed out of standard, the more out of standard you wind up with.

Ethics as Wylie's Mom says is "something you ascribe to as a group or individual." Our group -- which is parented by the Yorkshire Terrier Club of America HAS ascribed to the standard of blue and tan and has made it abundantly clear that they have determined the white color, along with solid colors to be faults and disqualifying.

IF people want to be associated with the AKC or the YTCA, then they should abide by the Code of Conduct and Ethics of that GROUP, IMO. In any regulatory group or law abiding community, people normally lobby to change a law BEFORE they actually try to live by it. When people wanted some of the speed limits increased above 55, they got the laws changed. Theydid not get to get out of speeding tickets before the law was changed. In THIS case, people just started breeding FOR the tri-color even though it was NOT in the standard. Then after the fact, they petitioned the AKC/YTCA to change to meet the practices they were already following. The YTCA has studied the subjct extensively and come to a decision -- NOT to accept tri-color in the standard. Seems simple to me.

I believe with all my heart that only dogs meeting their breed standard should be bred. I did not hesitate to spay the most loving Yorkie I ever saw due to her wavy hair. I loved her and pampered her to no end but would never have bred her. That is the same way I think about the tri-colors. Love them and spay/neuter. Disqualifying faults should not be promoted, even when they may be cute as can be! I think some parti's are cute. I think many chocolates are pretty. I've seen blonde yorkies that are unique! I would love any one of them as the wonderful pets they can be.

I do believe there are breeders with high standards and hearts in the right place that do not agree with me on this subject. I think at least one of the Parti breeders is one of the best breeders I have heard of outside of the color standard issue. She obviously CARES a great deal for the health and well-being of her dogs -- which I hold above the issue of color. I still think the tri-color breeding is wrong, but see her as head & shoulders above many standard breeders who do not take the same safeguards for their dogs & pups. I do not think all of them are only in it for the money, but I do believe a disproportionate number of Parti-breeders tried to capitalize on the fad and crossed the lines "making their own" tri-color yorkies by taking liberties with their breeding practices. I have had other Parti-breeders complain of the same thing. This dilution of our gene pool will haunt the breed for years to come. I know that not all standard color breeders are the highest ethical breeders either -- so don't anyone think I am saying all fault lies on one side or the other. I do not believe in very many absolutes or generalizations.

I think this is an issue that will not be solved in my lifetime. Too many are too deeply involved with breeding the non-standard dogs to give up the practice no matter how many times the parent breed club tells them their dogs ARE NOT in standard and are disqualified. Too many YTCA members have devoted scores of years to the refinement of the breed, working diligently to preserve the beautiful blue and tan that was the GOAL of early Yorkshire Terrier breeders (as well as MOST of them now) to abandon the current standard and open the door for accepting any deviation of standard a handful of breeders decides they want to breed.

So we will continue to debate the issue here, have our posts deleted, our threads closed and never find a middle ground because there is NONE for this situation. It is a black and white issue with no gray area. You either accept the YTCA's finding that tri-color is DISQUALIFYING or you don't. There is no point of compromise, and the "consensus" has already been made -- it is the YTCA position.

I also find it unethical (even if it only by my own ascribed set of standards -- which Wylie's mom has said does not make mine wrong even if others --presumably even the moderator-- disagrees with me) for someone to use their moderator powers in the same posts they are stating their case in such a heated debate, time after time. I wholeheartedly agree that moderators deserve the right to their own opinion ON ANY issue, but it is highly out of the ordinary to argue with the same people you are deleting, admonishing and closing their threads. It becomes very difficult to see where the "edict of the moderator" stops and "personal opinion" starts. I apprecate that Wylie's Mom owning a tri-color dog herself, makes for a difficult predictment. Perhaps someone else could exercise moderator powers in threads where one moderator wants to engage in debate?? Just asking and again, just my opinion and suggestion -- not in any way saying I would not accept what already is in place. Just throwing an idea out for consideration.

But I think the instance of Rhett's_mama's post being deleted and then a comment that made it sound like she was calling people here stupid illustrates my point. She did not call anyone here stupid at all. But this is where I think trying to moderate when you are also arguing with those you want to moderate, can result in biased and partisan decisions NOT in keeping with the otherwise broad-minded dispensing of justice. Probably wasn't even a conscious mis-interpretation at all, it just is natural when we are emotionally invested in a debate.

I know this will probably get deleted too but, I believe I need to at least try to voice my opinion. In the Rules & Guidelines it says that posts WILL NOT be deleted unless they break the rules. I believe I have presented my ideas without breaking any rules or guidelines. I KNOW the moderator's job is a difficult one and I think everyone here has done an exceptional job. Pls do not think that because I mention one area that I might not see eye to eye on that I have an overall negative view -- NOT AT ALL! I truly enjoy this site and speak highly of it in other realms.