Idea weight for show?!?

[MyFairLacy]

Everyone has their preferences because our standard is somewhat vague on a lot of things. For me, I prefer smaller to middle of the road in size (5 - 6.5lbs). Proportion-wise I prefer to have a yorkie that is slightly taller than long in body...I like the appearance of a short back as I feel it makes them look more compact. I also like a yorkie to have good bone and rib spring.

I do not like a tall, fine boned yorkie, especially when they have no body & rib spring. I like enough leg to look balanced and square, but I don't like "leggy." I also don't like a yorkie that looks too long bodied in my opinion. I want a yorkie to look balanced.

[swan]

Wow, there were some really cool responses a lot of stuff I never thought of before. I hope I didn't indicate that I want to change the breed standard that was not my intention.

Its really interesting to see how everyone has there own preferences, even the most experienced connoisseurs.

I like Gemy's idea of a point system, that's thinking outside the box, I would imagine such an idea if formally introduced to the AKC would be subject to backlash. Which kind of makes me like it more. If you have a good dog, new judging standards wont hurt you.

I had never heard of the three strike rule, but it makes a lot of sense.

My modest proposal, would be that weight's be listed along with the owner/breeder/sire/dam in the entry. Not to disqualify, but to add data that could be analyzed. The only reason I use weight is because it is the only specific number listed in the entire standard.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by swan

Wow, there were some really cool responses a lot of stuff I never thought of before. I hope I didn't indicate that I want to change the breed standard that was not my intention.

Its really interesting to see how everyone has there own preferences, even the most experienced connoisseurs.

I like Gemy's idea of a point system, that's thinking outside the box, I would imagine such an idea if formally introduced to the AKC would be subject to backlash. Which kind of makes me like it more. If you have a good dog, new judging standards wont hurt you.

I had never heard of the three strike rule, but it makes a lot of sense.

My modest proposal, would be that weight's be listed along with the owner/breeder/sire/dam in the entry. Not to disqualify, but to add data that could be analyzed. The only reason I use weight is because it is the only specific number listed in the entire standard.

The three strike rule is more of a guideline not a rule. If you get into breeding it is advisable to do some heavy thinking about your breed, what you like, what you don't, how important is this or that trait in the context of the whole of your breed. And of course endless hours of discussion with learned breeders to truly understand their point of view. Most of us could talk dogs almost all day :-).


ANd at sometime in your breeding life, You and only You, will need to make the decision to breed or not to breed this dog or not. You might have spent big$$ investing in this lad or lass, to look one day and say, Wow I don't think this one is going to add to the breed, it is helpful to have an evaluative form to try and dispassionately fill out, and self assess your dog. And of course to seek the advice of a few trusted experienced breeders.


We can't help but be subjective, we are vulnerable to all the human frailities, one of which is to over-weight what we like, and undervalue what is a fault or a flaw, and we adore our dogs, so it is easy to do.


One of the first things my now Russian mentor said to me, when I asked her opinion of one of my females, through the translator (lol), was do you want the truth? My answer was an un-equivocal yes. Well I got it. 3rd class dog, not breed worthy, pet her out. There was a lot more to the response but that was the conclusion. I had earlier pulled her from the Canadian show scene, as I did not like what I was seeing. She was never bred! Although I had a lot of pressure to breed her, from a renowned Russian breeder of this gal. She came from august lineage, but she herself was a poor representative of the breed. Hers was about the 10th opinion I solicited from breeders in the USA and in Canada.


A very respected and experienced judge and breeder, said to us, Don't bring to me (in the ring) what can be finished, but what Should Be Finished! Words to live by. Only you know the full and complete health of your dog, you have done the health screenings so you know at this point in time this dog is healthy, you live with them, you watch them move, and interact with ppl and other dogs. You have examined their teeth, you know if a tooth is missing, or broken. You know if your dog has allergeries, or is fear aggressive.


And there will be little or big dilemmas in your show life, like during winter one year Magic came up with Snow Nose. We went to the dermatologist did the requisite testing, and it was idiopathic in nature, but it is a major fault to have for our breed, and he was being readied for a very large and prestigious show, by invitation only. So what was I to do? I decided not to enter him, and to see if that nose of his cleared up, which it did, it took about a year, but even now he has a beautifull black nose. We don't know why it happened or why it cleared up, but I was not going to resort to a *dye* on his nose to enter him into a show. Other breeders might have elected differently.


Anyhow just some more thoughts to ponder in your free moments :-)

[Mike1975]

Gemy, what can I say???



I totally agree with you

Originally Posted by gemy

Historically Yorkies were ratters, was that the vision of the founders, to create a better more versatile ratting dog? Or was it something different?

I can't find any historical evidence that yorkies were ratters or that this was the purpose of breeding them, based on books of the late 19th and early 20th century. Assuming that Crab, Kitty and Whittam's bitch were the early dogs. Actually no one knows for sure what where the real intentions for breeding Old Crab to Kitty at the first place.

This doesn't mean that they don't possess ratting ability or that they don't have terrier spirit.
Nor that breeders should not care about soundness or structure.
Breeders should strive for perfection in all aspects.
Health, structure, soundness, temperament, coat, color etc.
That's the only motive to breed.
Its a huge responsibility towards the future of this wonderful breed.


Joan Gordon in her book gave us all the data concerning the manufacture of the breed. Based on books that anyone can read via openlibrary.

The Dogs of the British Islands - 1872 - Stonehenge (John Henry Walsh)
https://archive.org/stream/dogsbriti...ge/n6/mode/2up


A history and description of the modern dogs of Great Britain and Ireland.
(The terriers.) - 1894 - Rawdon B. Lee
https://archive.org/stream/moderndog...ge/n9/mode/2up


British dogs their varieties, history, characteristics, breeding, management and exhibition... by Hugh Dalziel - 1879
https://archive.org/stream/britishdo...ge/n3/mode/2up


A manual of toy dogs how to breed, rear, and feed them
3d ed. by Mrs. Leslie Williams. - 1904
A manual of toy dogs; how to breed, rear, and feed them


The Kennel Club Stud Book (U.K.) Volume I - 1874
https://archive.org/stream/TheKennel...ge/n5/mode/2up




Maybe - as Joan Gordon wrote : "later day authors did no research or the records were unavailable to them, or they simply preferred to go along with
what someone else had written."

http://www.theyorkshireterrierclubof...TCAHistory.pdf


Have a nice day everyone

[swan]

Gemy, once again you bring a wealth of information to the table. The point you made about a judge telling you, "don't bring me what can be finished, but what should be finished" that really makes a lot of sense to me. I was thinking of this conversation and I came across this article:

Born To Breed Dogs | Best In Show Daily | 2014

In the article there is a quote from a successful breeder of Japanese Chins and Pomeranians in 1902.

"Mrs Addis attaches more importance to type and quality than size, and likes small ears, set on high, broad, square faces and muzzles, with abundant coats of good colour and texture, in all of which I agree with her, and she also emphatically shares my views that in all Toy or Pet varieties one’s motto should be: “As small as possible, without sacrifice of type and quality.”

I thought the message from that quote was the same message I was hearing from experienced breeders here on YT. You guys are the best.

[lisaly]

Originally Posted by swan

Gemy, once again you bring a wealth of information to the table. The point you made about a judge telling you, "don't bring me what can be finished, but what should be finished" that really makes a lot of sense to me. I was thinking of this conversation and I came across this article:

Born To Breed Dogs | Best In Show Daily | 2014

In the article there is a quote from a successful breeder of Japanese Chins and Pomeranians in 1902.

"Mrs Addis attaches more importance to type and quality than size, and likes small ears, set on high, broad, square faces and muzzles, with abundant coats of good colour and texture, in all of which I agree with her, and she also emphatically shares my views that in all Toy or Pet varieties one’s motto should be: “As small as possible, without sacrifice of type and quality.”

I thought the message from that quote was the same message I was hearing from experienced breeders here on YT. You guys are the best.

I've learned so much from this thread, including your posts. I, too, have learned a wealth of information from Gemy. Her ethics relating to breeding (and life in general) demonstrates that she epitomizes what it means to be an honorable, knowledgeable, and responsible breeder with an impeccable and impressive character. Gemy's posts are so evocative,so filled with the love she feels for her dogs, and she shares a wonderful life with them filled with training, hiking, swimming (even in the winter in indoor pools), dock diving, and vacations shared. She earned my deep respect and admiration long ago, and what I have learned of matters of the heart will last me a lifetime. She is not only a devoted caretaker to her pups and sister, she is a loving wife and such a beautiful, devoted friend who I treasure and love dearly.

Her screen name is perfect, for she surely is a gem. I will never forget the day I spent with her in Manhattan at the National Yorkie Specialty. Her knowledge about movement is awe inspiring, and it seemed like Razzle walked at times with all four feet off the ground. His extension is incredible, and it's striking to watch him moving in the show ring and to see his magnificent looks and incredible temperament. Both Razzle and his mom are truly special.

Gemy's contributions to both thr Yorkshire Terrier and Black Russian Terrier breeds is so valuable, and she has left her mark in the show world and most definitely in my heart.

[gemy]

Thank you Mike - what great links you provided!

[swan]

Mike those links were fantastic. Thank you for sharing them, all of them were great reading and incredibly informative. Looks like there have been debates going on since the 1870's. Amazing.

[Mike1975]

I forgot the 3rd edition of Stonehenge book :"The dogs of the British Islands
being a series of articles on the points of their various breeds, and the treatment of the diseases to which they are subject. " published on 1878, 6 years later than the second edition.

https://archive.org/stream/dogsofbri.../n277/mode/2up

There you can see a picture of Bounce, grandson of Kitty and Old Crab.
Crab's last visit to Kitty was at 1851.

[Mike1975]

Originally Posted by swan

Mike those links were fantastic. Thank you for sharing them, all of them were great reading and incredibly informative. Looks like there have been debates going on since the 1870's. Amazing.

The point is that there is no evidence that yorkies were bred to be ratters in the first place. On the contrary it seems that Yorkshire workers found a way to earn money, breeding the best specimens they could in order to sell them to the wealthy Victorians.
I believe that the Yorkie development is woven into the developing sport of showing dogs.

And like Joan Gordon wrote in her book :
" neither the people in the pet shops, nor the purchasers and new fanciers in London, saw the progenitors from whom the yorkie was manufactured, and, thus, his origins were forgotten and the factors used to produce him were woven into myths"
Those myths are passed from generation to generation and now in 2014 we still believe in them.

Here is another book I found "Dog shows and doggy people" written on 1902
by C.H. Lane.

https://archive.org/stream/dogshowsd...e/106/mode/2up

Maybe we should start a new topic about the history facts on our breed.

[gemy]

I think that would be wonderfull. Links that we have. Books that look wayyyy back in history, and it can become a permanent resource for many of us.

[swan]

Mike I think that is a great idea, I will start the thread today. I think its important to understand the real history of the breed and share it with others.