Question....
 

Does anyone know if Ch Hylan Acres Ridin' The Storm has been neutered yet?

Do we even know with any amount of certainy that the owner of the dam placed any of the pups from that litter on full registration?

We don't know how many other show breeders that didn't know or knew and took the gene recessive, who are still showing, breeding and reproducing hidden carriers that are running around in the gene pool.

One thing that is different is Parti breeders are up front and saying they plan to show the carriers. And if the dog meet the standard then it should be allowed to be shown.

Parti breeders did NOT put the gene in the dogs, they are just letting it express natural.

Barb,

Most everyone I know has the dogs they are planning to show dna'd, usually upon registering them. It's pretty well done on whether or not they are going to produce 1 litter or year or never use the dog for 7 litters or 3 times in one year. It's just something I do. I've even begun DNAing me females.

As far as I know he is still being used for breeding. One of his 9 month old daughters just got winners bitch for a 4 point major at the Houston yorkie specialty recently and she got reserve on another day.

I would never suggest neutering a yorkie just because a parti was produced out of a litter. I would not repeat the breeding though.

So...what you are saying in a round about way is...anything produced by Ridin the Storm can no longer be ethically shown or bred. DNA claims he is a carrier. What about his littermates?

Am I the one reaching now?

I was told that 4 of the 7 in that litter are being used for breeding.

I did not know that. If and when I ever introduce a new yorkie into my breeding program I will do that. I have not studded out any of my males in years, it is not worth the headache that can come with it.

Ethics is still ethics. you are knowingly showing a dog that has or carries a dq fault. The purpose of showing is to have breeding stock evaluated to the stand of the breed. Knowing the dogs can and will be used to produce color faults is, IMO, un-ethical breeding.

Ok so I just gotta ask just what is the difference when one continues to breed a known carrier and sell dogs for show who's offspring maybe possible carriers any different then parti breeder showing a carrier ??
LOL ...There is that old double standard we are so use to seeing.

No it isn't worth the heartace, since if anything goes wrong it's always the sire's fault. I've only allowed my sire to be used by one very good friend. In one litter 2 Champions were produced. And of course my mentor used him another time and and another Championed was produced.

Only 5 pups were AKC registered, The breeder kept 3 and 2 separate people have the other 2

Considering that you have just listed color (parti) as a severe fault and that it speaks volumes about a breeder that would knowingly show that same fault, what does it say about the numerous show breeders and handlers (well-known names) that routinely dye yorkie coats? I personally know this (dyeing) is done very often. Is not enhancing a coat just as deceptive, after all it is about the color, right? But yet, it is still accepted and not even frowned upon by many exhibitors. How is an enhanced coat a true representation of that yorkie? Is it not deceptive because so many do it and it's accepted with the club members even though not admittedly within a judge's hearing.

I am also wondering about the statement that the average parti puppy is selling for "inflated" prices....what is considered an inflated price? Yes, I do believe some parti breeders are selling their pups at high prices, just as do some of the exhibitor breeders and others that breed traditional colors. I won't give specifics bc it's really no ones business but my parti boy cost considerably less than my ch. sired traditional yorkie from a well-known exhibitor breeder. Btw....my parti boy also has a lovely silk coat!

Don't sit there and spout ethics to me when Ch Hylan Acres Ridin' The Storm a known parti carrier is still being used for breeding and his offspring are being shown.

It's ethical for show breeders to do it but not ok for parti breeders to take carriers in the ring ? PLEASE

Well, if you want to keep comparing yourself with the coat dying exhibitors... But, just remember, those lighter blue coats that some have dyed will NEVER produce a parti, a serious DQ fault, by the way. But they can and do produce darker coats. Again, showing is for evaluating breeding stock. There is no reputable breeder/exibitor that will knowingly breed to a parti or a parti carrier.

You know, I dont know Ann. I dont know how ethical she is. If she is purposely breeding parti carriers then, IMO, she is not very ethical. But then I dont know her. If that is her goal to breed partis, then there is no difference, ethically, between you and her. And I am talking about breeding ethics.

Can you honestly say that with 100 % certainty after seeing the pedigree that was just posted today?

No, it just proves that not everyone has the same values and ethics. There are good and bad breeders everywhere, whether they are members of the ytca or not. I do not judge people and I do not feel it necessary to make everyone think just as I do. If someone wants to show parti carriers then that is their business as long as the breeders are being honest to those that buy their pups as to what faults the pup's might have if they are sold as breeding or show quality pups. The same thing would apply to anyone selling yorkies for show or breeding purposes. One needs to know your lines, faults and weakness along with the good qualities and go from there. You should be trying to breed faults out, not in, whether you are showing or not.

I really feel that what this boils down to is how can parti breeders claim they are breeding for the betterment of the breed if they are intentionally adding a disqualifying fault to their bloodlines? Sure you might get a nice parti carrier that might finish but then if you bred that nice carrier back to a parti yorkie then to me you all your hard work of producing a nice yorkie, carrier or not, has gone down the drain. JMO

I don't breed nor show so I'm not comparing myself to anyone. But, I do believe it is a legitimate question and deserves a serious answer, and not another attempt to deflect attention from the question. Is it or is it not deception to dye a coat? Is it like a "white lie" and some think it doesn't really matter?:confused:

Sorry, dont know what you are asking.

You said"Well, if you want to keep comparing yourself with the coat dying exhibitors... But, just remember, those lighter blue coats that some have dyed will NEVER produce a parti, a serious DQ fault, by the way"
And Kp ask you "Can you honestly say that with 100 % certainty after seeing the pedigree that was just posted today?
Meaning how can you say that those lighter blue coats will never produce a parti? Can you predict that?

So what you are saying is it's ok to breed a known carrier as long as you are taking the gene recessive by breed back to a standard color dog.

How is that in the betterment of the breed if you are intentionally adding a disqualifying fault to your standard bloodlines?

No answer....for my question??? :confused:

Anyone?????

I am saying I would not repeat that breeding and if the dog continued to produce parti pups I would remove him from my breeding program. Hylan Acres has produced many champions and they have been breeding for many years. I will never judge a breeder's breeding program just based on one questionable litter. Anyone that breeds knows that sometimes breeding can produce surprises. I normally stay out of these debates because they usually go no where. Everyone that breeds are on different levels when it comes to breeding ethics and convictions. Life it that way to. Who are we to judge?

If he was DNA'd and proven to be the sire of those parti pups, and from the posts I read on here...HE WAS. What would be the purpose of keeping him intact or producing more pups out of him?

We are being told in this thread that it is ethically and immorally wrong to breed or show a known carrier.

The YTCA says they are changing the standard to be stricter? All I can say is they better think long and hard before they go imposing on stricter measures. They may soon find they cut the fingers off of the hand that feeds them. No one can predict what lies in the future. Just look at what has come about in the last 10 years with the parti color. What is happening is that now when the parti's are showing up in a Ch. line it is harder and harder to get the owner of the Dam to get rid of them unlike 15 years ago when it was taboo to have them.
If the YTCA wants to protect the standard then they need to atleast converse with the parti/other colors breeders instead of calling them names and putting them down at every opportunity. Nothing was ever solved by not talking.

Good luck getting a strait answer on this one!! ;)

I have read this thread long enough and will not be back. Normally I avoid reading these threads, but for some reason I stuck with this one. I simply want to leave you all with my thoughts on this mess:

Tragic. Certainly many here do not have the best interest of any dog at the forefront of their thoughts.
I could puke reading some of this nonsense. :(

Carry on. Of course you will as you always do. :(

Ok..let's just cut to the chase. Would showing any of Ridin the Storms pups be cheating?

Not in pedigrees with weak and unknown tail lines.