Parti Color? YTCA?

[Raymond's Mom]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

Everyone keeps saying this...yet no one will back it up with how it would be changed. These statements are only misleading people into assuming that if the parti were allowed a variety class...they would have to change the standard of the blue and tan yorkie. This is simply not true. Why must people continue to spread false information? Please explain to me how it would change the standard of the traditional blue and tan Yorkie in the ring today?
The YTCA does not have to change a thing. They would only have to add a variety class. Once again..this means the blue and tan and the parti would show in different rings. They would only meet in group. How would this affect the standard of the blue and gold?
This fight has nothing to with changing the standard..and all to do with acceptance. Something the YTCA obviously will not allow because of old school beliefs and fear of change.

How in the world would you add a variety that is not included in the standard. That's a silly statement. And as for being afraid of change, I don't think so. YTCA is afraid that because the AKC of today is interested not in preserving the purity of the breed but in their pocketbook that they are knowingly destroying the yorkshire terrier breed.

[Raymond's Mom]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

Jim..you know as well as I do that many breeds have successfully added varieties of size, color, and coat many times over. And the original varieties were not ruined because of it. How will adding a variety class for the parti be detrimental to the standard blue and tan? Nobody seems to want to answer that...but they sure do keep beating that dead horse.

Besides...you can't just wipe out a recessive color that has been in the breed for years. If the serious breeders of the color give up and quit...you will still have as many parti's being born...but they will be horrible quality.
But wait..that is exactly what the YTCA and their members want. It's ok if pet parti's are bred by the hundreds..as long as they don't affect the show world. They can be pets...but heaven forbid you want to take one in the ring. Then it becomes personal. LOL

The parti is here whether everyone like's it not. Why can't those who want to better it and show it be allowed too? If a variety class is allowed...soon...just like with the color varieties in the cocker spaniel...reputable breeders will breed parti to parti, and keep the show lines of each separate for the most part. And those in the show world know this to be true. They just will not admit it.

You are right about one thing, parti colors are being bred by the hundreds thanks to the fact that there's a sucker born every minute that will pay inflated prices for them. If YTCA could put a stop to the mass production of the parti colors they certainly would but you know as well as I do that AKC LOVES the income you generate registering your dogs. They don't even care that a good portion of them are F1 generation mutts. BUT YTCA can and will prevent you from every showing them in an AKC show and I believe that UKC is following their lead on the DQ.

[Raymond's Mom]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

And it remains to be seen the proof of the "written letter by Joan" and the picture that Joan may or may not send. Also, what they considered a tri-color back then may not have been the mostly white parti dogs of today. Maybe they had much smaller white patches probably on the chest and feet. But I cant wait to see that picture! Either way, it will be informative.

If the white is only an overly large patch on the chest and white on the feet you're in trouble. That color pattern does occur on purebred yorkies. I've seen pups born with white "boots" but the white grows out and the pups have normal colored feet by the time they're around 8 weeks. The question is can purebred yorkies have the white patches on the head, sides, legs, etc. without the introduction of a breed with that color pattern such as a papillon or shih tzu. Remember, Mr. Biewer also bred shih tzu. It's the white patches on places other than the chest, feet and a small dot on the chin that leads most to believe that the origin of the parti is the result of a cross breeding.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Raymond's Mom

If the white is only an overly large patch on the chest and white on the feet you're in trouble. That color pattern does occur on purebred yorkies. I've seen pups born with white "boots" but the white grows out and the pups have normal colored feet by the time they're around 8 weeks. The question is can purebred yorkies have the white patches on the head, sides, legs, etc. without the introduction of a breed with that color pattern such as a papillon or shih tzu. Remember, Mr. Biewer also bred shih tzu. It's the white patches on places other than the chest, feet and a small dot on the chin that leads most to believe that the origin of the parti is the result of a cross breeding.

I have always suspected this to. And who really knows what Mr Biewer was breeding behind closed doors. And it could have been an oops breeding as well. Dont know about the U.S. parti breeders except they almost all are inbreed on a Nikko dog.

[Raymond's Mom]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

I have always suspected this to. And who really knows what Mr Biewer was breeding behind closed doors. And it could have been an oops breeding as well. Dont know about the U.S. parti breeders except they almost all are inbreed on a Nikko dog.

The Nikko bitch that produced the parti colored pup was not Nikko bred. She was from a breeder in OK. so Gloria Lipman couldn't attest to the purity of the bloodlines behind the bitch.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Raymond's Mom

The Nikko bitch that produced the parti colored pup was not Nikko bred. She was from a breeder in OK. so Gloria Lipman couldn't attest to the purity of the bloodlines behind the bitch.

Good to know!

[kpstoybox]

Originally Posted by Raymond's Mom

The Nikko bitch that produced the parti colored pup was not Nikko bred. She was from a breeder in OK. so Gloria Lipman couldn't attest to the purity of the bloodlines behind the bitch.

And just what Nikko bitch and parti colored pup are you talking about. Please be more specific. Thanks.

[kpstoybox]

Originally Posted by Raymond's Mom

How in the world would you add a variety that is not included in the standard. That's a silly statement. And as for being afraid of change, I don't think so. YTCA is afraid that because the AKC of today is interested not in preserving the purity of the breed but in their pocketbook that they are knowingly destroying the yorkshire terrier breed.

Silly..I don't think so. Other breeds have added color variations that have not affected the original colors of the breed. With out adding your hate filled and bigoted remarks...why don't you tell me how adding a color variation for the parti would change the standard for the blue and tan.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

Silly..I don't think so. Other breeds have added color variations that have not affected the original colors of the breed. With out adding your hate filled and bigoted remarks...why don't you tell me how adding a color variation for the parti would change the standard for the blue and tan.

I know or one: White cannot achieve the correct silk texture. The standard would need to be changed to suit your white haired dogs. The standard says that coat is of prime importance..........color AND texture. White hair is always more of a cottony texture.
So would your "new standard" say that coat is of prime importance, except for in parti dogs?
What about the black toenails? White legged dogs usually have pinkish toenails.
So, you see, you ARE changing the standared to suit your dogs.

Just a thought.

[kpstoybox]

[QUOTE=Elle;3260763]I don't think it's a fight at all, I think it's just selling puppies. Trying to get more publicity from people looking for information on the real breed.

And people trying to find people to sell puppies to. As I notice, the people in these thread always sell puppies. While all the other people, we've nothing to gain.

Interesting how you always talk about how money makes everything happen. As you have a website selling puppies with each post.[/QUOTE]

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! High parti prices. Is that all you got? Prices are what they are. I cannot control what other parti breeders sell their pups for no more then you can control the hundreds of traditional colored pups sold every week. Do I blame you for the blue and tan "micro teaspoon" for sale on puppy find for $9,000? Of course not. Come up with a new beef..this one is getting stale.

[kpstoybox]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

I know or one: White cannot achieve the correct silk texture. The standard would need to be changed to suit your white haired dogs. The standard says that coat is of prime importance..........color AND texture. White hair is always more of a cottony texture.
So would your "new standard" say that coat is of prime importance, except for in parti dogs?
What about the black toenails? White legged dogs usually have pinkish toenails.
So, you see, you ARE changing the standared to suit your dogs.

Just a thought.

Obviously...you have never had your hands on a silk coated Biewer or Parti yorkie.

Also...the Maltese is white...and it's AKC standard reads ...."The coat is single, that is, without undercoat. It hangs long, flat, and silky over the sides of the body almost, if not quite, to the ground."

What happens to a cotton coated blue and tan that shows up in the ring? He would be faulted and not given the points. I would expect no less for a cotton coated parti.

Do you happen to have any real reasons adding the parti variety would change the blue and tan standard?

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

Obviously...you have never had your hands on a silk coated Biewer or Parti yorkie.

Also...the Maltese is white...and it's AKC standard reads ...."The coat is single, that is, without undercoat. It hangs long, flat, and silky over the sides of the body almost, if not quite, to the ground."

What happens to a cotton coated blue and tan that shows up in the ring? He would be faulted and not given the points. I would expect no less for a cotton coated parti.

Do you happen to have any real reasons adding the parti variety would change the blue and tan standard?

Those are valid reasons. Maltese hair does not feel like a true silk Yorkie. What about your pink toenails? Thats in the standard also.

[kpstoybox]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

Those are valid reasons. Maltese hair does not feel like a true silk Yorkie. What about your pink toenails? Thats in the standard also.

LOL...did you type that with a strait face?

Props to you for reaching on that one. LOL

However...since pink toenails are a fact of life for any white footed dog. I would assume that it could be added to the parti's color portion of the standard that pink toenails are acceptable. But in fairness to my original point...that would STILL not effect the blue and tan standard.

[Elle]

Originally Posted by Beamers Mom

This thread is very interesting.

This is on the YTCA website. I hadn't heard of Parti Color Yorkies until I came on YT, so I have been looking for some info about them. Came across this:

Yorkshire Terrier Club of America (Awards)

I also came across a breeder's website that says:

"Parti Color Yorkies have been accepted and registered by the AKC as Yorkshire Terrier, Parti Color for the past 10 years."

This seems to be a bit misleading. If parti-colors were accepted wouldn't it have read that they were registered as Parti Colored Yorkshire Terriers?? Were they just registered as Yorkshire Terriers and where the color is put on the form they just put Parti-Color??

This is very confusing.

Most people have not heard of them other than here. It's not uncommon to find this type of breeding in various breeds. Off colors that are not permitted in confirmation but registrable.

[Elle]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

Those are valid reasons. Maltese hair does not feel like a true silk Yorkie. What about your pink toenails? Thats in the standard also.