Parti Color? YTCA?

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by gardenyorkies

I think everyone has listened...Lack of agreement does not mean lack of understanding...

Genetics tells us this is not a good idea...The understanding of genetics tells us not to accept this...Not the lack of listening...The line HAS been drawn and again AKC will NOT accept anymore variations period!

Never say never. I know you didn't say never, but it was inplied with the period.

[Breezeaway]

Originally Posted by Raymond's Mom

They are foolish to think that just because they DQ'd them, that they will disappear.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Foolish, the YTCA is not. As long as the parti breeders have money to spend registering their dogs with AKC they will not disappear. That, unfortunately, is a fact that YTCA has been forced to accept. The fact that parti color and off color yorkies will continue to be a DQ is a fact that you will have to accept.

Why would they disappear? They are in fact yorkshire terriers and for the life of me I cannot get over how some YTCA members accept and even own Biewers when they actually are parti colored yorkies. They are just trying to justify owning a tri colored yorkie, it is quite amusing these YTCA members with Biewers isn't it.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by Raymond's Mom

They are foolish to think that just because they DQ'd them, that they will disappear.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Foolish, the YTCA is not. As long as the parti breeders have money to spend registering their dogs with AKC they will not disappear. That, unfortunately, is a fact that YTCA has been forced to accept. The fact that parti color and off color yorkies will continue to be a DQ is a fact that you will have to accept.

Only time will tell. Things will change, people will die, life will go on. The partis will not go away.

[Brooklynn]

LOL..the debate continues...

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by evab

To continually bully about books written in the 1800's by sporting men in the STOCK-KEEPER, Dalzel,Walsh nee Stonehenge, is futile as to your proving how a Tan Dog with a Blue Saddle, suddenly became after 140 years of breeding......... a White dog with a Black saddle. We do not have these dogs in the originating country, we do not cull our dogs or throw them off bridges.

Evab, you have posted links to the same books written in the 1800's and early 1900's on your anti parti site, that you now say I'm "bullying" by referencing to them in my own post? So which is it, do you want people to read these books or do you not want people to read them? Why post the links on your site, if you are going to discount and discredit what they say here?

You say that your countrymen didn't cull dogs or throw dogs/pups off bridges (drowning them), but the same books you've posted, say differently. Doing a quick word search on 3 of the 4 book links on your site, it brought up 7 references to destroying or drowning pups, some based on being an incorrect color.

I also think it's interesting that the KC kennel club, registers steel blue dogs with no tan or gold markings ... dogs this color, would be an automatic DQ in the YTCA's eyes, since they are solid colored and lack a saddle. More often than not, solid blue yorkies have health risks associated with their color if they are blue born and this color should be highly discouraged and not promoted.

Science and a better understanding of how recessive genes work, has changed since the 1800's when the YT standard was written. If the early genes from the foundation dogs, were still not being passed on in today's dogs, then we'd never see black and gold adults or "solid" steel blue yorkies but these colors still appear today (just like parti, gold and chocolate colors do).

[shodanusmc]

So after 445 posts and 33 pages, what has been accomplished? It is not going to change in the near or far future. Nothing wrong with Parti and Blewer as pets. If you love them, terrific. Why change the standard? It is a standard for a reason. I would not care if my dogs deviated, they are pets and I do not breed or sell for cash!

[Pinehaven]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

But the yorkie parti gene didnt come from the Skye, period. The off-shoot of the Skye, the Paisely/ Clydsdale, is the dog that was used to get the beautiful silk hair on the Yorkie. Its very doubtful if the Maltese was used for this. Why breed for the wrong color and incorrect texture?

Why is it doubtful that the Maltese was used? Book after book written in the early days of the breed, reference the Maltese as thought to have been used in the make up of the breed? It wasn't until much later, that the Maltese was said to not be in the make up of the YT, this view is seen on the YTCA site (but the KC kennel club says maltese were in the YT makeup).

Also, the YTCA says the waterside terrier was used in the makeup of the breed ... otterhounds were used in the makeup of the waterside and otterhounds come in parti colors. So one way or the other, whether through the unpedigreed foundation dogs, or the maltese or the waterside (who were by the otther hound), there are genes for parti color and other off colors in the breed.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Pinehaven

Why is it doubtful that the Maltese was used? Book after book written in the early days of the breed, reference the Maltese as thought to have been used in the make up of the breed? It wasn't until much later, that the Maltese was said to not be in the make up of the YT, this view is seen on the YTCA site (but the KC kennel club says maltese were in the YT makeup).

Also, the YTCA says the waterside terrier was used in the makeup of the breed ... otterhounds were used in the makeup of the waterside and otterhounds come in parti colors. So one way or the other, whether through the unpedigreed foundation dogs, or the maltese or the waterside (who were by the otther hound), there are genes for parti color and other off colors in the breed.

Regardless of the foundation dogs used in creating the Yorkshire Terrier, the dog became a separate, distinct breed of its own, with its own standard. Of course there are traits still being expressed from these early dogs, but those dogs expressing those traits should not be bred and those traits certainly should not be bred for. Since the beginning, the Yorkshire Terrier has always been a blue and tan dog and today is a blue and tan dog. No amount of wordplay will change that. If parti breeders were accomodated, what's next? Do we breed for flop eared dogs? Teapots? Wiry coats? Roach backs? Why not? The logic for doing so is the same as yours. Try applying that logic for all these traits and see what you come up with. It sure won't be a Yorkshire terrier, I can tell you that.

I can't understand why someone would want to breed for a fault and then have the audacity to demand they be given the same status as correct dogs in the show ring. It makes one wonder if the term 'pure bred' is really understood.

[Breezeaway]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

Regardless of the foundation dogs used in creating the Yorkshire Terrier, the dog became a separate, distinct breed of its own, with its own standard. Of course there are traits still being expressed from these early dogs, but those dogs expressing those traits should not be bred and those traits certainly should not be bred for. Since the beginning, the Yorkshire Terrier has always been a blue and tan dog and today is a blue and tan dog. No amount of wordplay will change that. If parti breeders were accomodated, what's next? Do we breed for flop eared dogs? Teapots? Wiry coats? Roach backs? Why not? The logic for doing so is the same as yours. Try applying that logic for all these traits and see what you come up with. It sure won't be a Yorkshire terrier, I can tell you that.

I can't understand why someone would want to breed for a fault and then have the audacity to demand they be given the same status as correct dogs in the show ring. It makes one wonder if the term 'pure bred' is really understood.

The term purebred is clearly understood....
Purebred:Of or belonging to a recognized strain established by breeding individuals of unmixed lineage over many generations.
Our Parti yorkies are of unmixed lineage and are AKC registered and DNA'd. Purebred does not mean color.

[Breezeaway]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

Regardless of the foundation dogs used in creating the Yorkshire Terrier, the dog became a separate, distinct breed of its own, with its own standard. Of course there are traits still being expressed from these early dogs, but those dogs expressing those traits should not be bred and those traits certainly should not be bred for. Since the beginning, the Yorkshire Terrier has always been a blue and tan dog and today is a blue and tan dog. No amount of wordplay will change that. If parti breeders were accomodated, what's next? Do we breed for flop eared dogs? Teapots? Wiry coats? Roach backs? Why not? The logic for doing so is the same as yours. Try applying that logic for all these traits and see what you come up with. It sure won't be a Yorkshire terrier, I can tell you that.

I can't understand why someone would want to breed for a fault and then have the audacity to demand they be given the same status as correct dogs in the show ring. It makes one wonder if the term 'pure bred' is really understood.

I find this quite odd you would post something like this when you used breed wolf hybrids. Didn't you use a dog to accomplish this? What breed of dog did you use to breed to your hybrids? Whatever breed it was I am sure the parent club of it wasn't too happy about it.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

The term purebred is clearly understood....
Purebred:Of or belonging to a recognized strain established by breeding individuals of unmixed lineage over many generations.
Our Parti yorkies are of unmixed lineage and are AKC registered and DNA'd. Purebred does not mean color.

....and yet you persist.

The 'recognized strain' is that of a blue and tan dog. Read the standard.

The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.
The Yorkshire Terrier is a blue and tan dog.

What part of 'is' don't you get??

[Breezeaway]

LOL temper temper.
What part of my Parti's are registered don't you understand
MY dog is AKC Registered and DNA'd
MY dog is AKC Registered and DNA'd
MY dog is AKC Registered and DNA'd
MY dog is AKC Registered and DNA'd

[jencar98]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

I can't understand why someone would want to breed for a fault and then have the audacity to demand they be given the same status as correct dogs in the show ring. It makes one wonder if the term 'pure bred' is really understood.

That's just it Jim....for parti/biewer breeders it is not a fault but a desired trait and with that it mind it is certainly not audacious for them to desire to show the tri color yorkie.

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

I find this quite odd you would post something like this when you used breed wolf hybrids. Didn't you use a dog to accomplish this? What breed of dog did you use to breed to your hybrids? Whatever breed it was I am sure the parent club of it wasn't too happy about it.

Awww...say it ain't so, Jim?

[shodanusmc]

Cane Corso is now AKC registered, but can't be shown in conformation! Get Ready Carlo, we will start pushing to have you shown! NOT

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

I find this quite odd you would post something like this when you used breed wolf hybrids. Didn't you use a dog to accomplish this? What breed of dog did you use to breed to your hybrids? Whatever breed it was I am sure the parent club of it wasn't too happy about it.

Yes, I used to breed wolf hybrids. That was quite some time ago. My boy, Pagan, was a cross between a wolf (his dam) and a f-1 wolf GSD hybrid (sire). My girl, Sandy, was a GSD. They were wonderful animals and I still love them and have no regrets. I lost my last hybrid girl (Toy) at age 15 in 2007. Toy was not bred.

Also, the first Yorkies I got and bred weren't to standard. I was admittedly ignorant at the time. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of what I did. I found wonderful pet homes for the pups. It was my entrance to the breed, which I am totally in love with. I had a pretty fast learning curve on the breed and sought out better quality dogs, which I believe I now have.

The key word here is what I used to do. Once I knew better, I did better. Can you say the same for yourself?