|
Welcome to the YorkieTalk.com Forums Community - the community for Yorkshire Terriers. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. You will be able to chat with over 35,000 YorkieTalk members, read over 2,000,000 posted discussions, and view more than 15,000 Yorkie photos in the YorkieTalk Photo Gallery after you register. We would love to have you as a member! Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please click here to contact us. |
|
| LinkBack | Thread Tools |
10-01-2006, 01:12 PM | #1 |
YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: kent england
Posts: 1,646
| breed standard do you agree with it or do you think it is out of date and should be changed? as most of you know yorkies were a lot bigger when they were first bred but over years and as fashion changed they were bred down in size just for looks. also when yorkies were first showed there were 2 sizes in the ring the small yorkies and larger yorkies but as not enough people with the larger yorkies wanted to show then the larger size was dropped. my concern is yorkies seem to be getting smaller and smaller with more health problems, in time if this carrys on there will be no yorkies big enough to breed with. also more and more health problem. its all about fashion and not the health of the breed, it just goes to show how things are going when breeders ask a LOT more money for a tiny yorkie, why? its not breed standard, its not healthier,you cant breed with it, its because its the fashion and they know people will pay more for it because of this,and imo thats really sad. imo we shouldnt be breeding down in size we should be breeding up in size to a normal healthy weight. its so sad to see other breeds that now even have problems breathing so they fit the breed standard of that breed and i for one dont want to see something like that to happen to the breed we all love the yorkshire terrier.
__________________ Facebook group yorkies & small terriers worlwide needing fur-ever homes & deathrow Zac Brandi Suki |
Welcome Guest! | |
10-01-2006, 01:51 PM | #2 |
YT 500 Club Member Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 779
| The breed standard for the Yorkshire Terrier is from 5-7 pounds. That is a healthy size for these dogs and I see no problem with leaving it as is. The people who are breeding these teenie tiny 1-2 pounders are not responsible breeders and generally do not care about the breed standard whatsoever, excepting of course the breeder who has a fluke and gets one that is itsy bitsy. Changing the breed standard would not do any thing to eliviate the problem of irresponsible and bad breeding practices. I think it is fine how it is, and should not be changed, afterall yorkies are a toy breed and toy breeds are for the most part are in that 5-7 pound range. I do think it would not be horrible if the standard allowed for natural tails or something like that, but overall I think that it should be stuck to.
__________________ Bruce's Dogster Page http://www.dogster.com/?177273 |
10-01-2006, 02:42 PM | #3 |
YT 2000 Club Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: USA
Posts: 2,992
| I agree -- the standard size, 5 to 7 pounds, is a good and healthy size for the Yorkshire terrier ---and should be left as it is. Yes - there are larger and smaller Yorkies. It is unfortunate that they are being bred smaller - to the point that it has affected their health - and being done for $$$$$. The larger Yorkies are healthy, happy pets - they just don't fit the standard to be shown - so, I see nothing wrong here. I have a very old AKC book - that I had as a child. I'm going hunting for it and see what the Yorkie standard was "way back then" -- it would be interesting to compare to today's standards -- and, for all I know - maybe there has been no change. Carol Jean |
10-01-2006, 03:10 PM | #4 | |
Donating YT 3000 Club Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,685
| Quote:
__________________ Janet | |
10-01-2006, 03:24 PM | #5 |
Donating YT 12K Club Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Council Bluffs Iowa
Posts: 12,552
| I believe I have a book by Joan goodman that tells what the standards used to be. I'll take a look. However I don't believe the current standard gives a 5 to 7 range. doesn't it just say 7 or under? I could be wrong. It would be a first time, but it could happen. LOL Also I don't believe that changing the standard would stop the breeding of the smaller ones. It's a matter of supply and demand. It's not the show breeders that are breeding them down. They're being bred down by other breeders, un ethical breeders looking to make a quick buck, because the small ones are the ones that bring in the most money. |
10-01-2006, 03:27 PM | #6 | |
YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: TX
Posts: 1,226
| Quote:
...but my impression has always been that, smaller sizes (ie: smaller than say 10 lbs! I'm not talking teacup sizes here!) were ALWAYS a desired trait when this breed started being developed, because of the whole purpose of them (fitting into small places as rat hunters). And I'll throw up another comment fully admitting that I need someone to educate me....but, for the people desiring LARGER yorkies, why not move on to the Silky breed? With all the teapot yorkies that exist, it's already very hard sometimes to tell the difference between the two. And Silkies are adorable and wonderful dogs in their own right!
__________________ OUR HEARTS KIKI MAZIE JIMBOB ELFIE OUR JOYS | |
10-01-2006, 03:27 PM | #7 | |
YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: kent england
Posts: 1,646
| Quote:
__________________ Facebook group yorkies & small terriers worlwide needing fur-ever homes & deathrow Zac Brandi Suki | |
10-01-2006, 03:28 PM | #8 |
Its all about the yorkies Donating Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,451
| The standard calls for a dog that doesnt exceed 7 lbs. I think the standard should stay as it is. Also just because a yorkie doesnt fit the standard doesnt mean they are not a yorkie, it means they arent a show dog. I have read topics in another forum that their dog must not be a purebred because the dogs doesnt fit the standard to a T. There are no perfect dogs (well except of course mine lol they are all perfect in every single way lol) The Official Breed Standard for the Yorkshire Terrier General Appearance . That of a long-haired toy terrier whose blue and tan coat is parted on the face and from the base of the skull to the end of the tail and hangs evenly and quite straight down each side of body. The body is neat, compact and well proportioned. The dog's high head carriage and confident manner should give the appearance of vigor and self importance. . . Head . Small and rather flat on top, the skull not too prominent or round, the muzzle not too long, with the bite neither undershot nor overshot and teeth sound. Either scissors bite or level bite is acceptable. The nose is black. Eyes are medium in size and not too prominent; dark in color and sparkling with a sharp, intelligent expression. Eye rims are dark. Ears are small, V-shaped, carried erect and set not too far apart. . . Body Well proportioned and very compact. The back is rather short, the back line level, with height at shoulder the same as at the rump. . . Legs and Feet . Forelegs should be straight, elbows neither in nor out. Hind legs straight when viewed from behind, but stifles are moderately bent when viewed from the sides. Feet are round with black toenails. Dew claws, if any, are generally removed from the hind legs. Dew claws on the forelegs may be removed. . . Tail . Docked to a medium length and carried slightly higher than the level of the back. . . Coat . Quality, texture and quantity of coat are of prime importance. Hair is glossy, fine and silky in texture. Coat on the body is moderately long and perfectly straight (not wavy). It may be trimmed to floor length to give ease of movement and a neater appearance, if desired. The fall on the head is long, tied with one bow in center of head or parted in the middle and tied with two bows. Hair on muzzle is very long. Hair should be trimmed short on tips of ears and may be trimmed on feet to give them a neat appearance. . . Colors . Puppies are born black and tan and are normally darker in body color, showing an intermingling of black hair in the tan until they are matured. Color of hair on body and richness of tan on head and legs are of prime importance in adult dogs, to which the following color requirements apply: BLUE: Is a dark steel blue, not a silver blue and not mingled with fawn, bronzy or black hairs. TAN: All tan hair is darker at the roots than in the middle, shading to still lighter tan at the tips. There should be no sooty or black hair intermingled with any of the tan. . . Color on Body . The blue extends over the body from back of neck to root of tail. Hair on tail is a darker blue, especially at end of tail. . . Head fall . A rich golden tan, deeper in color at sides of head, at ear roots and on the muzzle, with ears a deep rich tan. Tan color should not extend down on back of neck. . . Chest and Legs . A bright, rich tan, not extending above the elbow on the forelegs nor above the stifle on the hind legs. . . Weight . Must not exceed seven pounds. . Approved April 12, 1966 .
__________________ CHRISSY Nikki Precious Lizzy Mimi , Lena Taboo Last edited by Chrissy0277; 10-01-2006 at 03:32 PM. |
10-01-2006, 03:30 PM | #9 |
YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: TX
Posts: 1,226
| Oh, maybe I got a little off-topic! Anyway, yes, I agree with others....4-7 lbs has proven to be a healthy weight for these dogs, as long as they are well-bred. Changing the breed standard wouldn't help a thing. The problem is all the unscrupulous breeders out there who are completely UNconcerned with health or the breed standard, and are focusing only one thing....the tiny size that will get them the big bucks.
__________________ OUR HEARTS KIKI MAZIE JIMBOB ELFIE OUR JOYS |
10-01-2006, 03:32 PM | #10 | |
YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: kent england
Posts: 1,646
| Quote:
__________________ Facebook group yorkies & small terriers worlwide needing fur-ever homes & deathrow Zac Brandi Suki | |
10-01-2006, 03:34 PM | #11 | |
YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: kent england
Posts: 1,646
| Quote:
__________________ Facebook group yorkies & small terriers worlwide needing fur-ever homes & deathrow Zac Brandi Suki | |
10-01-2006, 03:36 PM | #12 |
YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: kent england
Posts: 1,646
| vets will tell you that the smaller the dog the more likely health problems, so why not change breed standard to 6 pound and up?
__________________ Facebook group yorkies & small terriers worlwide needing fur-ever homes & deathrow Zac Brandi Suki |
10-01-2006, 03:42 PM | #13 |
YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: kent england
Posts: 1,646
| also i would like yo point out that the yorkshire terrier is a TERRIER and should of stayed that way , its only been since it was bred down in size did it become a toy breed.
__________________ Facebook group yorkies & small terriers worlwide needing fur-ever homes & deathrow Zac Brandi Suki |
10-01-2006, 03:44 PM | #14 |
YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: kent england
Posts: 1,646
| im not having a go about the little yorkies they are cutie pies but its all about health for me. ive got one yorkie who at the moment is over weight but normal weight for her would be about 6 or 7 pounds.
__________________ Facebook group yorkies & small terriers worlwide needing fur-ever homes & deathrow Zac Brandi Suki |
10-01-2006, 03:46 PM | #15 |
Donating YT 12K Club Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Council Bluffs Iowa
Posts: 12,552
| 1891 Two classes Under 5 pounds over 5 pounds, but not to exceed 12 pounds. 1904 Three Classes 5# ands under 7# and under Over 7# 1912 - 1966 The AKC accepted the Canadian Standard, which (in my book) does not list a weight standard 1966 Weight up to 7 pouinds was added to the standard and has remained. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
| |
|
|
SHOP NOW: Amazon :: eBay :: Buy.com :: Newegg :: PetStore :: Petco :: PetSmart