Poll:Is Breeding a 3 lb and under dog considered cruel?

[kewtee]

It is cruel and mean!

Our breeder makes small puppies by using a 3 lb stud and a 5lb female - I think that's ok, even though he has to have a pillow to stand on when doing her. I have seen pictures and people, that is hilarious....

[bravodarling]

I agree and the Yorkies Go Wild! CHEER! YEAH, GOOD THINKING

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

Originally Posted by StewiesMom

Yes.

As time wears on, I start to feel more and more sorry for all momma dogs --regardless of their size.

This is how I feel too but I answered undecided because "cruel" is such a subjective word.

C-sections are common place in our society and I had one and don't consider it cruel. I think that just as many 3 lb females free whelp as 5 lb ones do. I don't really think from talking to reproductive specialists and breeders who breed for tinies that there is any difference in breeding a 3 lb female and a 2.5 lb male and breeding a 5 lb female to the same male. Either is just as apt to have a difficult delivery as a perfectly normal and easy one.

I think natural childbirth is cruel and unusual punishment for humans (I had my first 2 w/o any medication!!!) so I am really undecided since no dogs I know of get epidurals!!

[cheryl000]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

This is how I feel too but I answered undecided because "cruel" is such a subjective word.

C-sections are common place in our society and I had one and don't consider it cruel. I think that just as many 3 lb females free whelp as 5 lb ones do. I don't really think from talking to reproductive specialists and breeders who breed for tinies that there is any difference in breeding a 3 lb female and a 2.5 lb male and breeding a 5 lb female to the same male. Either is just as apt to have a difficult delivery as a perfectly normal and easy one.

I think natural childbirth is cruel and unusual punishment for humans (I had my first 2 w/o any medication!!!) so I am really undecided since no dogs I know of get epidurals!!

But the difference is you made your own choices. And after the c-section you decided you didn't want to go through another prengnacy. Animals depend on on US to lookout for their best intrests. Dogs this small have more risks just as an 85lb woman does. C-sections have been downplayed by our society but it is still major surgery. I believe that if a dog has one it should be fixed shortly afterwards. It is more painful to recover from a c-section than a natural birth. There is no way to tell how much pain a dog is in. Tons of vets even make pain medicine OPTIONAL!
Thanks for your opinion though.

[cheryl000]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

This is how I feel too but I answered undecided because "cruel" is such a subjective word.

C-sections are common place in our society and I had one and don't consider it cruel. I think that just as many 3 lb females free whelp as 5 lb ones do. I don't really think from talking to reproductive specialists and breeders who breed for tinies that there is any difference in breeding a 3 lb female and a 2.5 lb male and breeding a 5 lb female to the same male. Either is just as apt to have a difficult delivery as a perfectly normal and easy one.

I think natural childbirth is cruel and unusual punishment for humans (I had my first 2 w/o any medication!!!) so I am really undecided since no dogs I know of get epidurals!!

But the difference is you made your own choices. And after the c-section you decided you didn't want to go through another prengnacy. Animals depend on on US to lookout for their best intrests. They can not tell you if they want to go through it again or not. Dogs this small have more risks just as an 85lb woman does. C-sections have been downplayed by our society but it is still major surgery. I believe that if a dog has one it should be fixed shortly afterwards. It is more painful to recover from a c-section than a natural birth. There is no way to tell how much pain a dog is in. Tons of vets even make pain medicine OPTIONAL!
Thanks for your opinion though.

[omichka]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

I think natural childbirth is cruel and unusual punishment for humans (I had my first 2 w/o any medication!!!) so I am really undecided since no dogs I know of get epidurals!!

hehe. I had my son w/o any medication too. I prefer natural way and btw I am against epidurals . so I do not agree that natural chilbirth is cruel . sorry for off
but... we are human. we decide ourselve what we will do.
the situation with small dogs WHO DEPEND on us is different .

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

Originally Posted by cheryl000

But the difference is you made your own choices. And after the c-section you decided you didn't want to go through another prengnacy. Animals depend on on US to lookout for their best intrests. Dogs this small have more risks just as an 85lb woman does. C-sections have been downplayed by our society but it is still major surgery. I believe that if a dog has one it should be fixed shortly afterwards. It is more painful to recover from a c-section than a natural birth. There is no way to tell how much pain a dog is in. Tons of vets even make pain medicine OPTIONAL!
Thanks for your opinion though.

Thanks for your opinion too, but I also think it is not worth the risk for my dogs to be spayed and/or neutered because of the pain and the risk of death but I do not judge others negatively if they make the decision to have their pet go through what I consider to be unnecessary surgery. Do I think unnecessary routine altering surgeries are cruel? Yes. Do I get upset with people who choose this surgery for their pet despite the risk and pain? No.

Our pets cannot make ANY decisions for themselves. We as the pet owners must make those decisions for them. Sometimes we are wrong and sometimes we make mistakes. I know plenty of vets and theriogenologists for that matter who feel it is the same risk whether you are breeding a 3 lb female or a 5 lb female. Most do not feel a C-section is any more rsiky than a spay...in fact the c-section is actually less risky because no organs are removed.

So, Cheryl1000, do you think it is somehow less risky to breed a 4 lb female than a 3 lb female and on what do you base your opinion?

[ytsirk27]

WELL................This is all i have to say to the suggestion that breeding a 3 pound and under is ok and ANYTHING LIKE CHILDBIRTH FOR A HUMAN! SORRY but i dont see many 2 and 3 pound adults have 3-4 kids at a time!!!!!

ARE YOU INSANE?????????? If you actually believe that logic..PLEASE feel free to live in your fantasy world!!!! :

[cheryl000]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

Thanks for your opinion too, but I also think it is not worth the risk for my dogs to be spayed and/or neutered because of the pain and the risk of death but I do not judge others negatively if they make the decision to have their pet go through what I consider to be unnecessary surgery. Do I think unnecessary routine altering surgeries are cruel? Yes. Do I get upset with people who choose this surgery for their pet despite the risk and pain? No.

Our pets cannot make ANY decisions for themselves. We as the pet owners must make those decisions for them. Sometimes we are wrong and sometimes we make mistakes. I know plenty of vets and theriogenologists for that matter who feel it is the same risk whether you are breeding a 3 lb female or a 5 lb female. Most do not feel a C-section is any more rsiky than a spay...in fact the c-section is actually less risky because no organs are removed.

So, Cheryl1000, do you think it is somehow less risky to breed a 4 lb female than a 3 lb female and on what do you base your opinion?

Yes, I believe a there are less risks with a bigger female. I don't know how to this not sound mean, but I base it on common sense. There are wider hips for birthing. There is more room in the womb. It doesn't take as much out of the mother to lose fluids and breastfeed. I believe gaining the extra weight would cause pain in the dog's back.
As for the S/N a pet. I have heard many times there are health benefits and can prelong the animal's life. Also, if your pet accidently gets out, then you don't have to worry if she accidently got pregnant or her getting hurt from a larger male getting ahold of her. Also a spade is a one time deal.
Some People put their 3 lb dogs through c-section after c-section. I have heard that a c-section is more painful to recover from. Perhaps you had an easier time giving birth by c-section due to the medictions you recieved unlike the natural birth? My son was born naturally, but with an epidural. I had no problems. Since you have had both a c-section and a natural delievery which one was harder for you to recover from? Most hospitals keep c-section women for at least 3 days, but a natural for only 1 day. So that is why IMO natural birth is better.

[livingdustmops]

The Yorkshire Terrier had its beginnings as a breed in the Yorkshire, Manchester and Leeds counties in the northern part of England. The weavers of Scotland brought their families and dogs with them when they left their homeland. The Industrial Revolution had forced them out of work. The time was the mid 19th century, 1860’s and 1870’s. The dogs that accompanied these families were for the most part the sturdy Scottish Terrier. The Paisley and Clydesdale Terrier’s bloodlines were probably also included in the bloodlines. These were all working men’s dogs, used to keep the vermin under control in the textile mills and coal mines. What bloodlines were used to establish the Yorkshire Terrier is subject to much speculation, due to the fact that the breeders of these dogs did not write down who was bred to whom. If they liked the spirit and looks of the dogs, they mated them. It was chancey at best.
It is guessed that the Yorkshire county miners crossed the Black and Tan English Terrier, this dog was rough-coated, and the long-coated, blue-gray Waterside Terrier breeds were infused in the Scottish Terriers. The Maltese and Skye Terrier are also possibilities.
In 1865, the foundation sire of the Yorkshire Terrier breed, was born. Huddersfield Ben was owned by M.A. Foster, and he enjoyed a very public life, to popularize the breed in England. He demonstrated that he was very successful in the rat killing contests (these were quite popular in the 19th century), and he won more than 70 prizes as a show dog as well.
In 1872, the Yorkshire Terrier was introduced into the United States, and was recognized by the AKC in 1878. But it wasn’t until the 1930’s that the Yorkshire Terrier took on its modern look. It is important to note that the Yorkshire Terrier up until the 1930’s usually weighed approximately 30 pounds, not the 3 to 7 pounds it does today

So if I understand this right - eventually we will breed these dogs down to less than a few oz. It used to be that 7 lbs was OK and now we are into the 3 or 4 lbs. At what point do we stop? With the mass breeders doing it for the $$$ and people paying top $$$$ these dogs will get smaller and smaller and smaller.

Someone the other day made a comment about the standard just saying it couldn't be over 7#'s but what people are forgetting is there is a height requirement.

Size and Appearance
The Yorkshire Terrier is a long-coated small-size toy dog. The weight of these dogs should not exceed 7 lb., the height should be 6-7 inches. The long body coat is glossy, fine, silky and straight. Hair on the muzzle is very long.

Food for thought!

[Diego]

This is very nice to say that breeders use tiny males with their 7 + pounds females to have smaller pups . This smaller dog bred to another small dog can have bigger dogs .
Maybe it is the reason why peoples are always researching the adult weight of their pups .

[YorkyKids]

[QUOTE=livingdustmops]
It is guessed that the Yorkshire county miners crossed the Black and Tan English Terrier, this dog was rough-coated, and the long-coated, blue-gray Waterside Terrier breeds were infused in the Scottish Terriers. The Maltese and Skye Terrier are also possibilities.
-------------------------------------
The ONLY reference I have (and others have found) to the Maltese being used was a pronouncement by a "dog writer" (a reporter of sorts) of the day (cira 1880's). In one of his critques of a current dog show......he remarked as to the extreme improvement in the "silk coated Yorkshire Terrier" of the previous 20 years or so. There is mention of the reporter and his proclaimation in Joan and Janet Gordon's book...."The Yorkshire Terrier". And when I saw this in the book.....I researched and found the original article.....this "reporter" was basicly just making note of the "improved silk coat". He could not believe ordinary breeders had been able to accomplish such a feat.....they just had to use the Maltese blood. <G> I have many books from the early years of the Yorkshire Terrier....and none of the breeders of that era agree that this was done.....after all....how in the heck would they retain the saddle pattern....a Maltese does not have a saddle....it is all one color. And a Yorkie does have a unique body style.
-----------------------------------
In 1865, the foundation sire of the Yorkshire Terrier breed, was born. Huddersfield Ben was owned by M.A. Foster, and he enjoyed a very public life, to popularize the breed in England. He demonstrated that he was very successful in the rat killing contests (these were quite popular in the 19th century), and he won more than 70 prizes as a show dog as well.

Ben was also proclaimed and widely known as the "best stud in England" in that era. He sired many wonderful Yorkies during his lifetime....short as it was. He was the first stud of note.....whom was able to pass his genotype onto his get.
-----------------------------------
In 1872, the Yorkshire Terrier was introduced into the United States, and was recognized by the AKC in 1878. But it wasn’t until the 1930’s that the Yorkshire Terrier took on its modern look. It is important to note that the Yorkshire Terrier up until the 1930’s usually weighed approximately 30 pounds, not the 3 to 7 pounds it does today

I mostly agreed with your post until this statement....nope not true. Even in the 1860-1870's there were classes of Yorkies divided by size......1) over 5 lbs and 2) under 5 lbs. By the 1870's this dog had already been discovered the the elite/rich ladies and was highly desired as a lap dog. The dogs which arrived in England from Scotland during the great famine.....HAD to be able to fit thru a 7 inch hoop. You see the pheasants (surf crop tenders) of the country side in Scotland (cir 1830's to 1860ish)....by law were not allowed to own a larger hunting type dog. So they developed their own small dog.....to run the fields for rats AND to sleep in bed with them at night to protect the "surfs" from rats. The Sheriff would come by quite frequently to test the size of the "little rat/vermit killers" any who could not fit threw the hoop were taken away.....and yes these dogs were largerly developed from an assortment of Terriers of the day....but when they arrived in England....they were still called "broken haired terriers". I have the FIRST stud and show records from the AKC....era 1872 - 1886.....and even then here in the United States they were still be shown in two classes.....over 5 lbs and under 5 lbs. I can send some of these records if anyone wishes to see. they are very interesting. <g>
----------------------------------------

So if I understand this right - eventually we will breed these dogs down to less than a few oz. It used to be that 7 lbs was OK and now we are into the 3 or 4 lbs. At what point do we stop? With the mass breeders doing it for the $$$ and people paying top $$$$ these dogs will get smaller and smaller and smaller.

Someone the other day made a comment about the standard just saying it couldn't be over 7#'s but what people are forgetting is there is a height requirement.

According to the offical written standard (you can view it on the AKC and YTCA website) there is no height requirement in the "standard" and never has been since the very first written standards of the Yorkie...going back into the early years when they were first accepted as Yorkshire Terriers. It's important to note there are no disqualifications (DQ's) in the Yorkie written standard....as there are in other breeds...this is one of the reasons breeding Yorkies is so difficult.....The only reference at all to height is

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.
and
Weight
Must not exceed seven pounds.

Maybe the below is a written standard from another registery....APRI...CKC ?? dont know.....but it's certainly not included in the YTCA approved written standard.

Size and Appearance
The Yorkshire Terrier is a long-coated small-size toy dog. The weight of these dogs should not exceed 7 lb., the height should be 6-7 inches. The long body coat is glossy, fine, silky and straight. Hair on the muzzle is very long.

Very good points tho....
D

[livingdustmops]

I stand corrected ... thanks.

[Jo-Jo]

[QUOTE=YorkyKids]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

It is guessed that the Yorkshire county miners crossed the Black and Tan English Terrier, this dog was rough-coated, and the long-coated, blue-gray Waterside Terrier breeds were infused in the Scottish Terriers. The Maltese and Skye Terrier are also possibilities.
-------------------------------------
The ONLY reference I have (and others have found) to the Maltese being used was a pronouncement by a "dog writer" (a reporter of sorts) of the day (cira 1880's). In one of his critques of a current dog show......he remarked as to the extreme improvement in the "silk coated Yorkshire Terrier" of the previous 20 years or so. There is mention of the reporter and his proclaimation in Joan and Janet Gordon's book...."The Yorkshire Terrier". And when I saw this in the book.....I researched and found the original article.....this "reporter" was basicly just making note of the "improved silk coat". He could not believe ordinary breeders had been able to accomplish such a feat.....they just had to use the Maltese blood. <G> I have many books from the early years of the Yorkshire Terrier....and none of the breeders of that era agree that this was done.....after all....how in the heck would they retain the saddle pattern....a Maltese does not have a saddle....it is all one color. And a Yorkie does have a unique body style.
-----------------------------------
In 1865, the foundation sire of the Yorkshire Terrier breed, was born. Huddersfield Ben was owned by M.A. Foster, and he enjoyed a very public life, to popularize the breed in England. He demonstrated that he was very successful in the rat killing contests (these were quite popular in the 19th century), and he won more than 70 prizes as a show dog as well.

Ben was also proclaimed and widely known as the "best stud in England" in that era. He sired many wonderful Yorkies during his lifetime....short as it was. He was the first stud of note.....whom was able to pass his genotype onto his get.
-----------------------------------
In 1872, the Yorkshire Terrier was introduced into the United States, and was recognized by the AKC in 1878. But it wasn’t until the 1930’s that the Yorkshire Terrier took on its modern look. It is important to note that the Yorkshire Terrier up until the 1930’s usually weighed approximately 30 pounds, not the 3 to 7 pounds it does today

I mostly agreed with your post until this statement....nope not true. Even in the 1860-1870's there were classes of Yorkies divided by size......1) over 5 lbs and 2) under 5 lbs. By the 1870's this dog had already been discovered the the elite/rich ladies and was highly desired as a lap dog. The dogs which arrived in England from Scotland during the great famine.....HAD to be able to fit thru a 7 inch hoop. You see the pheasants (surf crop tenders) of the country side in Scotland (cir 1830's to 1860ish)....by law were not allowed to own a larger hunting type dog. So they developed their own small dog.....to run the fields for rats AND to sleep in bed with them at night to protect the "surfs" from rats. The Sheriff would come by quite frequently to test the size of the "little rat/vermit killers" any who could not fit threw the hoop were taken away.....and yes these dogs were largerly developed from an assortment of Terriers of the day....but when they arrived in England....they were still called "broken haired terriers". I have the FIRST stud and show records from the AKC....era 1872 - 1886.....and even then here in the United States they were still be shown in two classes.....over 5 lbs and under 5 lbs. I can send some of these records if anyone wishes to see. they are very interesting. <g>
----------------------------------------

So if I understand this right - eventually we will breed these dogs down to less than a few oz. It used to be that 7 lbs was OK and now we are into the 3 or 4 lbs. At what point do we stop? With the mass breeders doing it for the $$$ and people paying top $$$$ these dogs will get smaller and smaller and smaller.

Someone the other day made a comment about the standard just saying it couldn't be over 7#'s but what people are forgetting is there is a height requirement.

According to the offical written standard (you can view it on the AKC and YTCA website) there is no height requirement in the "standard" and never has been since the very first written standards of the Yorkie...going back into the early years when they were first accepted as Yorkshire Terriers. It's important to note there are no disqualifications (DQ's) in the Yorkie written standard....as there are in other breeds...this is one of the reasons breeding Yorkies is so difficult.....The only reference at all to height is

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.
and
Weight
Must not exceed seven pounds.

Maybe the below is a written standard from another registery....APRI...CKC ?? dont know.....but it's certainly not included in the YTCA approved written standard.

Size and Appearance
The Yorkshire Terrier is a long-coated small-size toy dog. The weight of these dogs should not exceed 7 lb., the height should be 6-7 inches. The long body coat is glossy, fine, silky and straight. Hair on the muzzle is very long.

Very good points tho....
D

Thank you for clarifying the height requirement information Yorkykids...I just started a thread asking about the standard.

[LIL MIS' MAGIC]

I think breeding for tinies is cruel and should not be tolerated!! Smaller yorkies have more health issues not only when they are younger but throughout their whole life....they should not have to add to that the harshness of breeding!! I think breeding any dog that is less than five pounds is just asking for trouble....