Thank you for posting link.

This is referring to deformed or ill pups, not non-breed standard pups. Either way, I refuse to believe any compassionate, caring individual could ever "euthanize" in this manner and asking the question will certainly raise eyebrows as to your intentions, valid or not.

It just floors me that ANY breeder, in this day and age, would consider any method for euthanization other than having a vet do it humanely. There certainly is nothing humane about putting a pup in the freezer.

that's kinda what i meant but didn't say all the way before my editing time expired...(sorry at work)

this thread was controversial, but meant with good intentions i truly believe. it's one of those horrible things to think about but really what do you do if it's an emergency mercy euthanasia? i'm partly glad to see some very good information and ideas posted in that thread about the most humane way to go about this.

It was an outrageous thread and the only humaine way to euthanize is to take it to the vet and let the vet put it to sleep. Any breeder that does anything but that is just trying to save money and doesnt have their pups best interest at heart

That is one discussing ill pups but there were others too
(don't remember the name of the threads) that discussed out of standard pups being put down.
And in Joan Gordon's book she also talked about if you could bring yourself to put down a non standard pup to pet it out.

and it's not really on topic of killing because of a color fault. it's not meant to be about that at all. but you asked to see it and there it was...

now back on topic. i'm sure that in the old days they did possibly kill the color faults pups and i've heard that if it did happen they spayed the pups and the breeding dogs and found a private and possibly secretive home for the off color puppies. the thing to remember here is that they no longer bred the carrier dogs and the did not allow the pups to ever be bred. that to me is the responsible thing to do.

That thread was about euthanizing sick dogs, and I've never read a thread here where a breeder recommended putting down a non standard dog, I'm sure old-time breeders did suggest putting dogs down who weren't to standard, and I personally think this is more humane than selling them to a home where they are bred to death, because their pups can be sold as "rare". Too bad the breeders couldn't trust the pet homes where they placed their dogs, obviously some of these pet homes decided to cash in on it. We now can spay and neuter the dogs before placement, but in the past, that wasn't an option.

i agree that it was very controversial for a thread and that the best method is ALWAYS the vet, but I can tell you that if an extreme case happened to me where a pup was born with it's brain exposed and screaming out in pain i would probably figure out something quick to end the poor baby's misery. but this is only for EXTREME and RARE cases and i'm not a breeder thank God so i don't have anything to worry about. :p

Not quite a true statement because we know at least one YTCA breeder who is breeding a carrier who is possibly pass the the gene on to his offspring.

And hence the need for accurate pedigrees so that people who don't want to end up with an off standard dog can avoid breeding with those lines.

I'm not even sure if a brain exposed is painful for the puppy, the brain has no nerve endings. This is another reason why it's important to have a mentor to help guide you along the way.

Post 73 by YorkieRose, was a good post. http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/478248-post73.html

With the prevalence of ER vets in this day and age, there is no excuse for a breeder taking the matter in to their own hands.

:thumbup:

that post was a good one. that's why i was saying that it was a great thread in the long run because it brought up a very controversial issue and did give some helpful advice in the end. this valium advice is exactly what i was thinking of when i said that there were some good things given in the thread. and i totally agree that the ER vets are almost everywhere now so it's a much much better thing to use them. some people in the original thread brought up the possability of a super snowstorm that the breeder could not travel in or on the rare chance that they lived literally in the middle of nowhere where vets were much further away and there were no overnight vets and something must be done quickly. at least the valium method is humane, quiet, and doesn't require physical harm to the poor dying pup.

How many times have we heard YTCA breeders here say...that no ethical breeder would breed or show a known carrier? It would appear that this is clearly a "do as I say, not as I do" stance on breeding and showing carriers.

And...just so I understand this correctly...since she is not "purposely" breeding for a parti...it's ok to continue to breed a known carrier and show and breed it's offspring? Correct?

And how would "just not repeat the breeding" do any good to eliminate the chance of producing anymore carriers or parti's from that line? A carrier can pass on the parti gene no matter what color it is bred too. A pup only needs one parent to pass on the gene for it too become a carrier. This is exactly how the parti gene has been passed on through hundreds of generations. Trying to keep it suppressed is not the answer to how we should deal with the parti yorkie. It's still there..waiting for the right combination of genes to express itself again.

And the only reason I keep bringing it up is...I would like to know what the YTCA's stance is on breeders who continue to breed a known parti carrier. Is it alright as long as you pet out the parti's that will pop up every now and then? I would certainly like some clarification on that.

From my understanding, in order to report a complaint against a YTCA member as doing something unethical, it has to affect you personally. That's why many YTCA members say, "Do your research, being a club member is not enough to ensure you are dealing with an ethical breeder.

Here's what it says before going to the breeder referal page:

Thanks Nancy. I appreciate your attempt at answering my question. However, I have NO issue's with any YTCA breeder, and would certainly NOT report one for breeding a parti carrier. The more well bred carriers out there...the better...I say! LOL Keep em comin!! ;)

I was just hoping someone could post a link or some info on the YTCA's stance, opinion, rule...whatever...on breeding a known disqualifying fault. I guess there really isn't one. It's just expected.

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!

Does that mean if a YTCA member wasn't breeding them, you would feel like it's wrong for you to breed them as well? :confused:

Isn't there an ethical difference between breeding a dog that potentially carries a fault and intentionally breeding to obtain that fault?

How is there a difference in what she is doing? She is intentionally breeding a line that she knows has produced partis.

The only difference I see is the fact that she is a YTCA member.

A yorkie that is black or one that is a very light silver would also be disqualified. Possibly all yorkies have the 'genes' to produce a faulty color if the right combination is made. The YTCA is not a policing organization and they will not go around telling breeders who to breed and who not to breed.

Paragraph one of the YTCA code of ethics states:
The YTCA knows that dogs will produce faults but members should strive to avoid them.

Again you mention the YTCA member that used a champion that produced parti pups. This member did not intentional try to produce these pups and she did not intend for them to be sold with full registration. I don't think she was even a member of the YTCA when this incident happened. Do you think because she had a error in judgment several years ago that that entitles everyone else to make the same mistake? I am not a member of the YTCA but I respect the organization and I understand their goals. The YTCA members that post there grievances about parti yorkies on here are speaking from their hearts as to what they feel about parti breeders that are trying to exploit the breed by adding color. That is just their opinion and everyone is entitled to an opinion. The problem is not so much about parti breeders but about the unethical way that some of these breeders came about getting their dogs. Many lessons have been learned, the main lesson is that stricter contracts are needed by those that don't want their lines getting into the hands of breeders that share differing opinions on breeding for the betterment of the breed.

The biggest difference I see is that she isn't TRYING to produce flawed dogs for profit, while parti breeders are.

:confused: How can you say that?? She's knows that her line is producing partis and that she is producing carriers. So what is she trying to do then? She is, in deed, breeding this line so are you saying her actions are justified? Do you really know her intentions any more than you do parti breeders? Your statement above about parti breeders is pretty bold, considering I was a breeder and know that I didn't do it for a profit.

Nope, I don't know the breeder in question. But I do know that both the YTCA and the AKC consider parti colored dogs a disqualifying fault. Since parti's aren't going to be allowed to be shown any time in the near future, then the only reason for producing parti's is to supply market demand. They certainly aren't improving the breed any more than breeding for tinies is improving the breed.

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!"

And yet she, as a YTCA member, is showing her carriers. Also, her line has produced partis. So I wouldn't be so quick to say that they aren't doing anything for the breed....obviously, she and the judges felt the opposite.

Why no official stance on carriers? So a litter of Yorkies are born....2 are parti, one is a carrier....you feel adamant about the partis, but you are still up in the air about the carrier? :confused: Same lines. If the parti can't be shown, then what is the difference for the carrier...other then coloring. Again, same lines!

It's not an excuse that the parti breeders are trying to use. They want the YTCA to acknowledge that the piebald gene is a part of the Yorkie make-up. If they can't do this, then fine, but don't allow an exception to be made for one of their own.

Did you read my first paragraph?

Is they all parti breeders want, that the YTCA say the piebald gene is a part of the Yorkie make-up? No question it seems to be part of some lines, and people seem to be trying to get it in every line, but it's still a fault. Also, I don't feel any differently about the parti trait, then any other fault, I feel strongly that breeders should breed to standard, and if they don't like standard, they should find a breed that suits them more.

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?

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...