Parti Color? YTCA?

[bjh]

Originally Posted by Breny

Hey! What happened to the OP???

She is probably reading this and eating popcorn.

[bchgirl]

Here's one reference....scroll down pg 6.

New breed varieties

http://www.akc.org/pdfs/about/board_minutes/1105.pdf

[Breezeaway]

Originally Posted by bchgirl

That reads like the same thing to me. A variation is a variation.

I am trying to find it on the AKC site. I read it there also.

There are only 9 breeds with accepted varieties. The ones which denote color as a variety the coloring is also acceptable within the breed standard.

American Kennel Club - Facts and Stats

Just so there isn't any confusion...there has been discussion where AKC has considered adding another variety of the present groups....herding, working, toy, etc.

Where does it say on that page that they dont accept variations anymore?

[bchgirl]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

Where does it say on that page that they dont accept variations anymore?

It didn't...it just gave the list of breeds which have them. See the link above

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

Talk about SAD. That is really sad, and it is all politics. It isn't about who has the better dog, it's who knows the right people.

Its funny how when someone cant get their way it becomes all about politics and money.

[Woogie Man]

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.

Yes, i know that there are other breeds with varieties. No argument there. Not all breeds are the same, however, and not all are bred the same so you can't automatically assume what is true for one breed is true for another.

I know you've heard it as often as I that you breed Yorkies genotype to genotype in order for it to breed true to type. With some other breeds you can breed phenotype to phenotype and get predictable results. It's not that way with Yorkies. They are a young breed and the undesirable traits have not yet been weeded out. Some Yorkies are so out of standard that it's sometimes hard to be more specific than that they look like a terrier of some sort.

With some of the older breeds, you can put just about any 2 dogs of that breed together and get pups that look like the breed. Maybe not ideal representations, but even a casual observer can recognize the breed. That isn't true for Yorkies and I feel that, until that day comes, breeding for any variation is detrimental to the breed. It's not like all faults will magically disappear overnight, but unless we attempt to breed them out they will crop up more and more often. That is the crux of the argument in breeding to the standard....so a Yorkie will look like a Yorkie.

To me, getting the Yorkie to breed true to type should be the goal of every breeder. We will have all left the breed better than we found it when even an 'average' Yorkie is a good representation of the breed. It may make more sense to breed for varieties after that is accomplished, but any variations (and I like teapots myself) at this time only makes that goal more difficult.

It's nothing personal against partis for me. They are easy to identify if one wants to avoid them. The carriers, however, will cross over into the standard gene pool and make it even harder to breed true to type for the breed overall. The goal for a breed, any breed, is to breed true and carriers will be just one more wild card in a deck with too many wild cards already.

[kpstoybox]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

Yes, i know that there are other breeds with varieties. No argument there. Not all breeds are the same, however, and not all are bred the same so you can't automatically assume what is true for one breed is true for another.

I know you've heard it as often as I that you breed Yorkies genotype to genotype in order for it to breed true to type. With some other breeds you can breed phenotype to phenotype and get predictable results. It's not that way with Yorkies. They are a young breed and the undesirable traits have not yet been weeded out. Some Yorkies are so out of standard that it's sometimes hard to be more specific than that they look like a terrier of some sort.

With some of the older breeds, you can put just about any 2 dogs of that breed together and get pups that look like the breed. Maybe not ideal representations, but even a casual observer can recognize the breed. That isn't true for Yorkies and I feel that, until that day comes, breeding for any variation is detrimental to the breed. It's not like all faults will magically disappear overnight, but unless we attempt to breed them out they will crop up more and more often. That is the crux of the argument in breeding to the standard....so a Yorkie will look like a Yorkie.

To me, getting the Yorkie to breed true to type should be the goal of every breeder. We will have all left the breed better than we found it when even an 'average' Yorkie is a good representation of the breed. It may make more sense to breed for varieties after that is accomplished, but any variations (and I like teapots myself) at this time only makes that goal more difficult.

It's nothing personal against partis for me. They are easy to identify if one wants to avoid them. The carriers, however, will cross over into the standard gene pool and make it even harder to breed true to type for the breed overall. The goal for a breed, any breed, is to breed true and carriers will be just one more wild card in a deck with too many wild cards already.

It's already here..and has been for years. Just more people purposely breeding for it now. But one that knows pedigree's can certainly try and avoid it for the most part. However, as Joan Gordon recently admitted...she and others breeders she knows of, have had the parti babies show up out of the blue in their litters.

As far as the yorkie not breeding true. For the most part...any popular breed...has the same problem of pet bred bred not looking like the show bred. It's just a fact that pet bred dogs are not bred the same as show bred. Look at the show poodle compared to the pet poodle. The pet poodle for the most part looks mixed in most cases. They resemble the poodle..but look NOTHING like what is shown in the ring. The same can be said for cocker spaniels, doxie's, chi's, collies, shepherds, maltese and many other breeds for that matter. And yes...yorkies too.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

It's already here..and has been for years. Just more people purposely breeding for it now. But one that knows pedigree's can certainly try and avoid it for the most part. However, as Joan Gordon recently admitted...she and others breeders she knows of, have had the parti babies show up out of the blue in their litters.

As far as the yorkie not breeding true. For the most part...any popular breed...has the same problem of pet bred bred not looking like the show bred. It's just a fact that pet bred dogs are not bred the same as show bred. Look at the show poodle compared to the pet poodle. The pet poodle for the most part looks mixed in most cases. They resemble the poodle..but look NOTHING like what is shown in the ring. The same can be said for cocker spaniels, doxie's, chi's, collies, shepherds, maltese and many other breeds for that matter. And yes...yorkies too.

Karen, though we don't see this issue the same, it's fun discussing it with you. You're right in that the Yorkie's popularity hasn't done it any favors. I don't think the parti has benefitted from its new found popularity, either. The greed factor can ruin any dog and greed is the worst influence on the Yorkshire today. I think that every breeder, exhibitor or not, prolific or not, has some effect on the breed and therefore some responsibility.

If parti breeders only bred parti to parti, there would be no issue for me. From posts here on YT, it's obvious that parti breeders want to acquire high quality standard Yorkies to improve their parti dogs. So, in general, what partis are at this time are dogs that have largely been bred for a single trait and the quality is not so good overall.The problem is that the carriers, which may themselves get championed, carry not only the genes of the standard Yorkie that got them championed, but those of the parti parent that wasn't the quality of the standard parent.

While this may be a good thing for the parti breeder, it's not good for the breed IMO. The carriers are registered as standard Yorkies and their influence will depend on how widely they are bred. It's likely the results of any such breedings will be hit or miss at best and it's doubtful these dogs will breed true. It would be the same as if I took an open pedigreed, off standard bitch and bred it to a nice male. I might get lucky and get a nice pup that possibly could be championed but it shouldn't be bred due to all the wild cards on its dam's side. The same with the parti carrier. Neither breeding would be for the good of the breed.

I don't know where all this will lead, but the breed can't afford to take one step forward and two steps back. I understand that there are true parti fanciers but I fear that any progress the partis make will be at the expense of the breed as a whole. One good thing. With the AKC allowing partis to register as partis, breeders who wish to avoid them in their lines can at least find out through pedigree research.

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by bchgirl

That reads like the same thing to me. A variation is a variation.

I am trying to find it on the AKC site. I read it there also.

There are only 9 breeds with accepted varieties. The ones which denote color as a variety the coloring is also acceptable within the breed standard.

American Kennel Club - Facts and Stats

Just so there isn't any confusion...there has been discussion where AKC has considered adding another variety of the present groups....herding, working, toy, etc.

Yes you'd be correct a variation is a variation and to add a variation it has to be done with the parent club and the standard would have to be changed in order to add a variation for it to be shown and accepted. That isn't going to be done. I'll have to do some more research on AKC to see where I read that they were not going to add anymore variations to a breed. A variation is a variation and it has to be accepted by the parent club and the standard also changed to allow for a color variation. Just like in Chi's some are wanting to add the color merle to the chi standard for showing and the parent club had to present it to the membership to vote on it. It's not a DQ in the breed of Chi's but I believe they are in discussions to have it a DQ as well. I have a Chi friend so I will find out on it. So, the DQ isn't going anywhere.

Donna

[kpstoybox]

Originally Posted by Brooklynn

Yes you'd be correct a variation is a variation and to add a variation it has to be done with the parent club and the standard would have to be changed in order to add a variation for it to be shown and accepted. That isn't going to be done. I'll have to do some more research on AKC to see where I read that they were not going to add anymore variations to a breed. A variation is a variation and it has to be accepted by the parent club and the standard also changed to allow for a color variation. Just like in Chi's some are wanting to add the color merle to the chi standard for showing and the parent club had to present it to the membership to vote on it. It's not a DQ in the breed of Chi's but I believe they are in discussions to have it a DQ as well. I have a Chi friend so I will find out on it. So, the DQ isn't going anywhere.

Donna

The only "change" to the standard would be to add a color variance. The blue and tan would keep it's present standard..even the new DQ for the blue and tan would not have to be lifted, as the parti would show in it's own variety class. You are leading people too believe that by adding a color variance...it would change the blue and tan standard...and it's just not true.

For those of you who do not understand standards and color variations...look at the American Cocker Spaniel standard. It has three color varieties. And they are not having any problems breeding and showing (separately for the most part) black's, buffs, chocolate's, parti's, roans, black and tan's. Every color shares the same standard EXCEPT for color.

American Kennel Club - Cocker Spaniel

AS far as the merle Chi is concerned...the chi standard simply states...Any color - Solid, marked or splashed. And if my sources are correct...the parent club voted in 2008 that merles would NOT be disqualified from showing and AKC reg. However, there is a growing anti merle movement within the Chi community that is trying to gain support for a DQ. But what does that have to do with the topic at hand? More propaganda I suppose.

[bchgirl]

I can appreciate the tenacity of the debates, but isn't it a moot point? Since 1942, AKC has had a policy in place of not accepting any additional varieties for any breed.

[Breezeaway]

I guess we have to work on that then don't we.
I do understand what your saying Bchgirl.

[GreenwoodBiewer]

Originally Posted by bchgirl

I can appreciate the tenacity of the debates, but isn't it a moot point? Since 1942, AKC has had a policy in place of not accepting any additional varieties for any breed.

Yes, I understand there are hurdles to overcome, but maybe with enough support, goals can be accomplished. It may take the Parti contingent and the Biewer contingent getting together to support their comman purpose to get this done. It may not look exactly how anyone invisions it right now.. but I can't believe with the numbers of people who are drawn to these tri colored yorkies, with the passion both the Biewer and the Parti fanciers/breeders have for these dogs.. that if they join forces, they can't get a whole lot further than either group can alone.

Once people make the step and realize that they are the same dog, with the same history and that they are both just a color variation of the Yorkie, maybe we could all work together.. at least talk about it. Each "group" has very dedicated supporters..together we may have a better chance. (IMO) I know this is a big step for some and many just aren't there yet. I hope that day will come.

Diana

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

Where does it say on that page that they dont accept variations anymore?

The Board has maintained a policy since 1942 of not approving additional varieties for any breed. Following a motion by Mr. Merriam, seconded by Mrs. Strand, it was VOTED (unanimously) to direct the Executive Secretary to advise the Dachshund Club of America that the Board would not consider the approval of breed standard changes that provided for any additional show varieties

This is from the AKC website link that was provided....

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by kpstoybox

The only "change" to the standard would be to add a color variance. The blue and tan would keep it's present standard..even the new DQ for the blue and tan would not have to be lifted, as the parti would show in it's own variety class. You are leading people too believe that by adding a color variance...it would change the blue and tan standard...and it's just not true.

For those of you who do not understand standards and color variations...look at the American Cocker Spaniel standard. It has three color varieties. And they are not having any problems breeding and showing (separately for the most part) black's, buffs, chocolate's, parti's, roans, black and tan's. Every color shares the same standard EXCEPT for color.

American Kennel Club - Cocker Spaniel

AS far as the merle Chi is concerned...the chi standard simply states...Any color - Solid, marked or splashed. And if my sources are correct...the parent club voted in 2008 that merles would NOT be disqualified from showing and AKC reg. However, there is a growing anti merle movement within the Chi community that is trying to gain support for a DQ. But what does that have to do with the topic at hand? More propaganda I suppose.

The topic has been adding the Parti as a variety and well the DQ in yorkies have been brought up so it another breed club is joining the ranks of the YTCA in adding a DQ I think it fits the topic at hand....AND another reason it's part of the topic is it's also been addressed in your post about the cocker spaniel ect...so I provided another breed that is trying to prevent the same thing we've prevented

Donna