Discussion in 'The Breeding Ground' started by Laurelin, Feb 16, 2010.
Chihuahua forums are too much for me lol I cant read them
We don't have a papillon forum.
Pug forums suck most of the time... Fat wheezing dogs are encouraged and i've been scolded by members at one for having a pug with a waist... If it's not shaped like a sausage, it musn't be purebred or you must be starving it...
I couldn't imagine those tiny toy breed forums... Ick... I've unfortunately only met one breeder here in Poms that is sane...
Here is an example from that forum I was talking about:
it was a poll that asked what weight people prefer their yorkie to be:
So as you can see 76% want them in the "standard" I was talking about... that is pretty much the general consensus there.
I wouldnt persoannly want a dog any smaller then 6 lbs.. i just dont see the point to be honest.. jmo.
I own a 2.5 lb Chi.... she may hit 2 3/4 on a good day, she is tiny, fragile and I can't imagine breeding for her size on purpose... just a lb or two would make a huge difference....
chis should be between 2-6lbs, however ive yet to see a 2lber do well in the ring, generally 3-5lbs do the best...
with chis its geneal "responsible" practice to never breed a female under 4lbs and the male shoudl be at least 1lb smaller than the female...
even then problems can occur...
i cant see why anyone would want the risk of a dog under 3lbs, 3lbs is tiny and delicate, 2lbs?! that would be too small even for me! lol
Luna is 7 pounds, I don't think I'd want a chi (or any dog) less than 6 pounds. Honestly, that's why I wouldn't get a chi from a breeder, because they're too small for my taste. I got Luna from a rescue and there are plenty of good chis in shelters around here if I want another. But that's JMO.
There are SO many "teacup" breeders around here, producing 2 pound chis (and yorkies, poodles, poms, etc.). It's really sad to me to see all the health problems those little guys have - cause not only are they small, but they're from BYBs - and yet people pay SO much to have one.
I don't really like the ultra-tiny trend. I think it takes very special treatment for a dog under 3 lbs to live a well-rounded life. And I see so many ads on craiglist asking for 3lb chis for free. Disgusting.
I've lived with a 3lb dog before. I'm more comfortable with 6 lbs and up. For cresteds I prefer to see 7-8 lbs and up. Chloe is 6.5lb, and even if she were standard and shown, she would not be bred.
Tippy is about 6lbs, Critter is 9 and Chili is about 12.
Tippy IMO is TINY. She has the short doxie legs, I can't imagine having a dog much smaller...all i think of are bladders....tiny tiny bladders.
Its funny though because I guess this is an individual thing... Armani and Chloe weigh only ounces different and Armani could probably hold it all day if he had to and Chloe needs to go every 2-3 hours.
your right, it is! But I tend to think of the worst...and after Tippys housebreaking fiasco (i thought it was Critter having issues so I spent a long time training and monitoring the wrong dog) when I see a little one now i always think of the "its me or the dog" episode with the peeing chihuahuas where Victoria brings out shotglasses to illustrate Chi bladders....
Trav is 5.5lbs. I am happy to keep the males smaller to be honest. I would breed him with a bigger bitch. His mothers biggest litter was 2 puppies so I hope that would be the trend in his line.
I would be happy with a 5 pound dog. I think it's the perfect size for Pomeranians. When you go larger the conformation doesn't seem to hold as well. It comes with bigger features most of the time, longer snouts and bad ears. Most breeders I've talked to breed tiny. It's not often that they get a dog under 3 pounds however it does happen. My sisters new Yorkie puppy is 1.5 and this is FAR far too small for my likes. I'm into day two and I work myself into an anxiety wondering if she's had enough to eat while I'm at work. Picking her up, walking around her are all very careful things.. All the toys are bigger than her and they are the smallest I can buy. :lol-sign:
It is variable as well. The pomeranian ranked fifth in the USA for agility is 3 1/2 pounds. For some other poms they might act and be considered fragile. I don't know how many people remember when I was getting a 10 month old, 3 pound pom from a breeder... however she was being rehomed since she was too small for the breeding program. A few months later this woman bred Bling and it's made me very sad. A good breeder won't breed a dog under 3-1/2-4 pounds. She had one pup and obviously survived, but she bred too young and Bling is too small. She never should've carried a litter. She bred Bling to a male larger (4-5 pounds) as well.
Like I said in the other thread though, it's a great misfortune that they stay with the breeder after their socialization window closes. Who knows what the breeder does for socialization.
See, and this ^^^ always mystifies me.
WHY are Pugs in the "Toy" group at all when that is the standard? Their standard on height/weight is about the same as Westies ... yet Westies are in the terrier group and not considered toys. It's not just because they are terriers ... the Yorkie temperament is ALL terrier ... but they are in the toy group due to smaller size, which makes sense to me as their standard is so much smaller/lighter than Westies and Pugs.
But why aren't Pugs in the Non-Sporting group since their standard is so much bigger/heavier than the other toys? Especially since they are apparently being bred to be even bigger these days ... up to 25 - 30 lbs? That is NOT a toy-sized dog ... but neither is an 18 lb. dog, which is included in the standard for Pugs.
^^^That, as far as why many toys are being bred to be smaller and smaller. There's ads all the time on Craigslist and elsewhere from so many people demanding "teacup" size dogs.
They don't even seem to realize that "teacup" is NOT a separate breed or a separate standard. It's out of standard ... often resulting in fragile and shivering tiny little dogs with many health and dental issues ... and with a life-time propensity to be FAR more prone to hypoglycemia than the normal-sized toys.
thats part of the problem though, people are breeding to look standard in smaller sizes, the more people do this the more the origional standard changes...
poms werent supposed to be 3lbs, years back 5-7 lbs was show range for a pom...now its 3-7lbs...what does that tell you?!
smae with yorkies, yorkies for the ring are SUPPOSED to be 4-7lbs according to standard, yet breeders are continually aiming smaller...
those arnt GOOD breeding practices at all...
standards change to fit the majority and before we know it the toy group will consist of 15 breeds who all show in the 3lb range because tiny is popular...*sigh*
there was a time when the chihuahuas was supposed to be THE smallest breed...but now these itty bitty yorkies and poms are in the same weight range?!
its one of the reasons confirmation bothers me, instead of havign a standard and keeping it, it gets changed every coulple of years for "popular trend" in a breed (so in poms decreasing a show weight from 5lb bottom to 3lbs bottom) its rather frustrating to hear people say they want to preserve a breed, and then see the breed standard change because those saying that are "modifying" it to suit popular demand...
They were bred to be companion dogs and nothing else. No purpose like bulldogs or poodles or bostons. Strictly companions, that's why they're in the toys. They also have the domed toy head. They're not terriers, not bulldogs, not herders, not retrievers, not pointers, not setters, not protection dogs, just companions. Cavaliers are also 13-18lbs in the standard, ShihTzus are also 9-16lbs in the standard, so it's not just pugs that are big in the toy group.
ETA: I dunno why the small terriers are in the toy group when they're really terriers and descended from working terriers. Who knows. But i do know pugs don't really fit in anywhere else.
personally id LOVE to see the yorkie back in the terrier group at its correct weight, id also like to see them "proven" like any good terrier out there...
let them DO the job they were bred for...
my yorkies are trying to do what they are bred for... they just keep getting cats confused for rats
Thanks for the explanation. But French Bulldogs and Lowchen were also bred to be companions only ... yet they're both in the Non-Sporting Group.
American Kennel Club - French Bulldog
American Kennel Club - Lwchen
(These are AKC links ... I do realize you're in Canada, but guess Pugs are in the Toy Group in Canada as well ... since you said yours are.)
Tibetan Spaniels and Tibetan Terriers (which are not true terriers) were bred primarily as companions ... though both were used as watchdogs. (But I would imagine most in the "Toy" group would bark at a doorbell? All the Toy dogs I have ever met certainly do. ) Again, both in the Non-Sporting Group.
American Kennel Club - Tibetan Spaniel
American Kennel Club - Tibetan Terrier
Not sure ... but I always assumed it was the size difference, they're about half the size of the other small terriers such as Westies and Cairns. Which is why I can see the Yorkies in the Toy Group, but not Pugs. Or Cavaliers either for that matter, considering they're also pretty big compared to others in the Toy Group. The Non-Sporting Group is VERY diverse, and it seems to be the "catch-all" for breeds that don't fit in anywhere else, rather than the Toy Group.
Our Westie actually LIKES cats, go figure! He was raised with them though ... perhaps that's the difference. But gophers or squirrels are "rats" to him .. he always wants to go after them.
Separate names with a comma.