Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3424574)

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.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3424574)

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.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3424574)

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.

Originally Posted by BonBon (Post 3424904)

Did I read this right? You are calling Ann unethical? The woman who bends over backwards and works harder than any of us can imagine to be as fair and impartial as possible to EVERYONE here?

What you've read into Ann's post and assumed here leaves me speechless. As do your disparaging remarks. My respect for a few people has taken a hard hit today.

Ann posted in answer to two previous questions that had been asked on this thread. And she expressed her disappointment in the inability to come together and discuss tri-colored yorkies calmly and rationally. She was not at all argumentative and she in no way tried to force her opinions on others as many here have tried to do. Even though she may personally disagree with your opinions she has not closed this thread - it is still OPEN. That fact alone shows me that Ann has not abused her Moderator position in any way.

I am beyond words here. And very saddened.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3424574)

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.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3424574)

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.

Originally Posted by Maximo (Post 3424958)

Debra, I believe Ann does an excellent job separating her role as moderator from her personal opinions in the debate over tri-colored Yorkies. She has demonstrated elsewhere on YT that she feels very strongly about the word "stupid" and anything that is demeaning, whether it is written sarcastically or not. I do not believe her position on "stupid" has anything to do with her position on partis.

I do not always agree with Ann, but I think she has been more than fair moderating these debates and by no means, unethical, especially in this thread.

Originally Posted by bchgirl (Post 3425063)

I can see quite honestly why she may chose not to read or reply to your pm's.

I'd like to be moderator for a day...heck maybe just 15 minutes.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3425048)

No, I am not calling Ann unethical -- I am saying I personally find the ACTION of censoring the very people you debate with unethical (in my own personal set of standards that I ascribe to).
You don't have to argue as much openly when you can delete posts, close threads or just remove entire threads.
Yes, this thread is still open, but there are dozens of others that were closed. What facts do they show you? Would you feel differently if one of your threads was removed from the forum altogether even after you had carefully gone through EVERY single rule & guideline to ensure none were broken? Maybe not.

I am sorry some want to make this "for and against the moderator" -- not my intention! But I do think it is good to voice your opinions, even if they are not my own and even if I think you might be missing my point. Not a problem.

Originally Posted by BonBon (Post 3425088)

If you have issues with Ann's right to speak as an individual and with her duties as a moderator, perhaps you should suggest that admin consider bringing in more moderators - because right now, Ann is doing it all alone.

Bonny