IF people WERE consistently breeding 7 lbs and under then that probably WOULD be the case.
But there are so many people breeding dogs that don't meet it...

Already answered but I will just echo --- too many people are breeding any two dogs irregardless of standards. On any given day, you will find posts right here on YT where people are breeding dogs that are out of standard. Over 7 pound dogs are bred all the time -- probably even more often than the tiny ones. It is a small window of female yorkies that should be bred -- 5-7 pounds.

Then there is also the case I mentioned where people are registering their cross-bred dogs with poor registeries and then breeding them. Suddenly a litter of pups all come out over size -- why? 2 or 3 generations back, someone bred a yorkie with a standard poodle, a cocker spaniel, or another dog that runs larger. Then when one of the puppies looked all yorkie, a new owner decides to send in a pic and get their dog some pure-bred papers. This pup may look all yorkie and may even be under 7 pounds, but suddenly a litter of pups from this pup wind up being throw-backs and are really large and/or look like the other breed.

There are going to be some well-bred yorkies weigh in over standard -- just as some people are larger than their family line. But, when you talk about these really large 20+ pound Yorkies -- there is poor breeding going on and maybe some other breed in the history.

When did yorkies start getting AKC registered? Because there are certainly plenty of AKC registered yorkies that are 15 pounds +.

The extreme difference in size is surprising to me if there weren't some larger terriers to begin with. I could see maybe going 50% over the max weight limit, but 3x is a lot to attribute to careless breeding. That would be like have German Shepards that weigh between 40 and 120 lbs.

I don't understand though... because the dog Huddersfeld Ben was basically the "founding father" for Yorkies of today and he was 9-12lbs. But apparently he produced alot of smaller puppies.

Also, the Border Collie is one of those breeds that ranges a lot. I met one the other day that was only about 25lbs but on the flip side, I've seen a male that's like almost 60lbs. They also come in sooo many different colors, pretty much anything is acceptable. I think that's kinda cool!

I personally like the variety. I would love to see Yorkies have classes. Like maybe mini being under 7lbs and standard being up to 12lbs or something. I know it'd never happen but I think it'd be cool. I love having the Yorkie in a larger package! Whenever I get my next one, I won't go under 10lbs and I'd like to have another Yorkie, but to go through a reputable breeder, sometimes that's difficult.

This is true. I think it's terrible what they've done to the bulldog simply for aesthetics.

This was a bulldog in 1790.
File:Philip Reinagle - Bulldog.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was 1889.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...27s_mascot.jpg
Looking more like today's Bulldog but a better figure and not such a smooshed face.

To todays bulldog...
File:Racibórz 2007 082.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same with Pug's. Their faces were 'smooshed' simply because breeders wanted a more human-like expression.

What about the cocker spaniel with the small head? So small that there is no room for its brain?

Oh yeah! Was that the cocker or the Cavaliar spaniel? Cavalier's are full of health problems. I think most get diagnosed with a heart problem by the age of 5. So it's SUPER important to look for a breeder who has done extensive testing and knows their lines with those dogs.

You're right, it's the cavalier.

Every established breed has some aspect that can be labeled as a health issue, or potential health issue. (The vet bills I racked up this past week will vouch for that! :rolleyes:) But the solution to the 'problem' is not to cross breed them--that would not be improving the breed, it would be eliminating it altogether. :( You don't improve a breed by integrating another one into the mix.
I would think those aspects would need to be first addressed by the parent breed club. Health issues that continually arise, when in relation to the physical aspects called for by the standard, would need to be addressed, and the standard modified to correct the problem. From there, it's the responsibility of the breeders to fall in line and address the issues within their own programs. And it's not an overnight solution. It would take many many many years to fix.
Aside from there, there are always going to be breeders who disregard those aspects and breed for those 'extremes' anyway. You already see it being done with Yorkies--breeding dogs that do not adhere to the standard because of some preferred variation in physical appearance. And often, those variations present a bigger risk for health issues. And for some reason, that type of breeding is supported here all the time! :confused: Makes no sense.

Misty,

As long as human nature fits into the equation it makes perfect sense. There are those that will always attempt to capitilize on something. In this case providing a demand to the buyer's market. These type of people are only concerned with that issue; do not put the time and effort into whatever project they undertaking. Only looking at the short term not taking into consideration the long term outcome of what they are doing. The almighty $$$ has always been a powerful driving force.

Here's a little something I found about a couple of examples of cross-breeding.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"In dogs, closed registries and a ban on crossbreeding may be the rule, but the rule is not universal. Under the right circumstances, even major dog registries can accept crossbreeding.

About fifteen years ago a researcher crossed a pointer with a Dalmatian and then back-crossed to Dals in subsequent generations. He successfully met his goal of eliminating inherited urinary problems that are present in almost every Dalmatian. The board of the breed club petitioned AKC to admit some of the products of this breeding program � dogs which had only one Pointer in a five-generation pedigree full of Dalmatians. Two of the dogs were admitted, but the breed club�s membership raised a hue and cry, voting to rescind the request. AKC refused any further registration of the �cross-bred� dogs.

The membership of the breed club rejected these dogs because they were often mis-marked, allowing a cosmetic problem that might have been corrected in subsequent generations to take precedence over the elimination of a significant breed health problem.

Another crossbreeding effort received a registry sanction � this time from the Kennel Club. The English registry is at least as conservative in its practices as the AKC. Another scientist wanted to create Boxers which did not need to have their tails docked. He crossbred to a Corgi. (The bobtail gene in Corgies is different from that in Aussies and does not produce serious defects.) After five generations he had Boxers that looked like Boxers and produced like Boxers but had naturally bobbed tails. Those dogs were allowed to be registered."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's the link... Australian Shepherd Health & Genetics Institute, Inc.

This article is primarily about Australian Shepherds, but the same logic could be applied to any breed with endemic health issues. If a given problem can't be solved within the breed, going outside the breed can be a viable option.

Just want to add that, to me, it depends on the purpose of the cross breeding. There are dogs like Lurchers or Border Jacks that are crossed for a reason and done responsibly for a specific purpose, which are vastly different than crosses like the Maltipoo, Chiweenie, etc that were just made up to have a cute name and which are cranked out to make money without any higher plan or standard. It's not the mixing that makes them bad, per se. Mix breeders get a bad rep because most of them are just doing it for a quick buck, they couldn't care less about the quality of their dogs and don't have any logic behind their crosses besides making 'cute puppies to sell'. It wouldn't matter if they bred purebreds; that kind of behavior is irresponsible either way.

Many people will own farm dogs for years and years and they will be bred, but they're not sold for hundreds of dollars, they prove themselves to be great farm working dogs that live long lives and stay in the family or are only given to other close farmers. To me, I don't feel they are contributing to the overpopulation of pets. They are working dogs who live on a farm all of their lives. Sure, they are not being bred to a certain standard, they are not show dogs, but they prove themselves as good quality working dogs. Just like a Border Collie is bred specifically to have good instinct, herding drive and control. BC people don't usually breed dogs that have good structure and good temperaments, the key point is the purpose which in this case is to herd.

I keep on seeing references to Hudderfield Ben being around 30 lbs. Does anyone really know how much he weighed?

I also find this statement on the BBC website: BBC - h2g2 - The Yorkshire Terrier

"It's difficult to believe that before the 1930s, the Yorkshire Terrier usually weighed around 30 lbs, rather than the three to seven pounds of today's Kennel Club Standard for the Yorkshire Terrier. However, as the popularity of the Yorkie has expanded, the breed has started to become larger again; most of today's family pet Yorkies are somewhat bigger than the Breed Standard. In large part due to their size, Yorkshire Terriers are actually classified as toy dogs rather than terriers by the Kennel Club."

I think it is clear that prior to the 1930's there were plenty of the "under 7 lb" Yorkies around, so I'm not sure that I agree with the word "usually" in the first sentence. But I do think it is interesting that they point out that there were plenty of larger Yorkies around in the past, and even more interesting that they are noting a trend to today's Yorkie increasing in size.

ETA: I would love to see Yorkies moved into the Terrier group by the AKC and allowed to officially compete in Earthdog trials. My first Yorkie would have made an incredible earthdog.

Very well put.

I do think that, for purpose of this conversation, we're talking about breeders that are just throwing 2 dogs together with no forethought or intelligent goal. However, there are exceptions with everything and, on the subject of cross-breeding, there are enough exceptions to make some blanket statements invalid. ANY type of breeding has its pros and cons and it's the breeder's intent (or lack of) and knowledge (or lack of) that speaks loudest.

I don't recall ever seeing Ben's exact weight, but the breed was developed from dogs weighing usually between 10 to 15 pounds. There were some smaller dogs even at that early date. In Joan Gordon's book, there is a page from an old book, copyright 1872, that shows the standard for the "Yorkshire Blue-Tan Silky Coated Terrier" and the weight range is given at 10-18 pounds.

There is mention of Ch. Ted, a great-grandson of Huddersfield Ben, that was a top winner in the 1880's. Ted weighed 5 pounds.

Found this a while ago in a book published in 1897:

"The Yorkshire Terrier is a cross between a mongrel Skye and a Black-and-Tan Terrier. The coat is very long and silky, and abundant over the whole body, head, legs, and tail; its color is a silvery blue, the ears and legs are of a dark tan shade, and the long beard is of a golden tan, the top of the head almost fawn-colored. This dog is a modern invention and is only fit for a toy"

Wow that seems to read as a rather damning statement of the toy group:(

History of the Yorkshire Terrier by Joan Gordon

History of the Yorkshire Terrier by Joan Gordon:)

Don't forget this was published in 1897 -113 years ago:aimeeyork

I believe for some people no matter what you say, they will go their own way. Be it buy from a pet store, a byber, or a puppy mill.

I personally can't refer anyone to a "reputable cross breeder", because I don't know any people that breed crosses. And I would by nature distrust anyone who is breeding for the "flavour" designer dog of the year. I would be quite surprised if they truly do all the health checks necessary. They appear to me to be playing russian roulette with puppy's lives and health at stake.

One small story, despite hours of conversation that my hubby had with a co-worker, about our breed, about what his needs are, about how to select the breed right for you, he went out and got a "labradoodle". Fast forward six months later and his 8mth old pup is almost uncontrollable. High nervous energy, goofiness personalified, and has turned out to be a rather large dog. Also the coat does shed, and requires a fair bit of maintenance (this he was assured from the breeder that would not be the case).

He has asked for help. They did do one round of puppy classes, and that was it, for training. That is of course paramount problem one. But he did not see the parents of said puppy, did not inquire into their temperaments, and wonders why he has this goofy nervous dog. Dah gee could it be that most Labs don't settle down to about 3yrs old (even with ongoing training and at least 2 hrs of moderate to vigorous exercise a day), poodles can be notoriously high strung and with their sharp intelligence, need lots of mental and physical stimulation. Bah humbug. By the way he was told to look at the characteristic temperament of every breed to see what would fit his lifestyle. And this dog cost him over $1000 dollars. Some deal.

For me it is purebred dogs from a reputable breeder that I will always choose to support.

:yeahthat: :bravo: I whole heartedly agree!

The Yorkshire Terrier was first registered with the AKC in 1878. It was one of the first 25 breeds approved for registery with AKC.

As far as so many being AKC registered at over 15 pounds....I actually don't see that where I am at all. I had not realized there were so many large yorkies until coming on YorkieTalk. My guess for the reason would be that puppymillers are much more prolific in their breeding than the respectable breeders that only breed those good representations of the breed. Maybe some of the 15 pounders did not come from mills, but looking through their family history may tell the tale. None of my puppies ever went over 15 pounds! Actually so far, all of mine have stayed within standard on weight. I think if people are being careful with the dogs they choose to breed, that will only rarely happen.

That site is INCORRECT. I do not know where in the world they came up with that 30 pound statement. This is how so much dis-information gets spread online. Another site will pick this up and use it as their source reference and before you know it they are trying to rewrite history. Have to be careful wht you use as a reference.

The Yorkshire Terrier Standard of 1890 divided the weight into two classes, one under 5 pounds and the other over 5 pounds but not to exceed 12 pounds.

Best to read respected experts on Yorkshire Terrier history like Joan Gordon. The link I listed earlier in this thread to the YTCA.org will give a nice history synopsis. For more, you can check out Joan's books.

I have one that has a picture of a 3 pound show winner from the 1800's. I have not found a definitive weight for Huddersfield Ben. He did not live long, but was very prolific and had a lot of winners among his pups. But to be fair there were not very many registered to compete at that time! Huddersfield Ben's owner, Mrs. Foster showed Yorkshire Terriers in both of the classes of the time: Toy Terrier under 5 pounds and Class XXXII Broken Haired Scotch. Ben was shown in the latter so we can assume he was over 5 pounds but I m guessing no where near 30!

:thumbup:
And no where in the standard does it state 3 to 7 pounds. It says not to exceed 7 pounds. What the AKC does reference too (and not in the standard) the purpose of conformation showing; to gain approval of our breeding stock. So, common sense would lend to the fact we would not breed a 3 pound dog.

Thanks for the info, Debra. Some other questions for you if that's okay: how did the dogs that were originally registered qualify? Did someone write a letter stating, "my dog is a yorkie"? Did it have to be shown and judged? Do you happen to know how many yorkies were registered in the first few years?

I'm confused. If a 3 lb dog was a show winner, wouldn't that indicate it was going to be bred?

Here is a Wikipedia quote: "In the early days of the breed, "almost anything in the shape of a Terrier having a long coat with blue on the body and fawn or silver coloured head and legs, with tail docked and ears trimmed, was received and admired as a Yorkshire terrier".[16] But in the late 1860s, a popular Paisley type Yorkshire terrier showdog named Huddersfield Ben, owned by a woman living in Yorkshire, Mary Ann Foster, was seen at dog shows throughout Great Britain, and defined the breed type for the Yorkshire terrier.[21]"

By 1890, there was a written standard much as we have today. You can read it here: History of the Yorkshire Terrier by Joan Gordon It compares the 1890 Yorkshire Terrier standard with the Clydesdale Standard showing how close they were.

As to how many, I found this on site I mentioned before: " The early pioneer breeders registered their dogs in two classes in the 1st studbook, Class XXXII – Broken Haired Scotch and Yorkshire Terrier dogs and bitches. Seventy-six dogs were registered in this class. Of these 52 were owned or bred by known early Yorkie fanciers. The second classification was XL Toy Terriers (Rough and Broken Haired), 45 dogs were registered as such. Twenty-five of these appear in early Yorkshire pedigrees, some of these even registered their dogs as being sired by Ben. In Huddersfield Ben's registration, Mrs. Foster included all of Ben's pedigree and this was in 1874."

and "In 1890 there were 26 exhibitors, a statistic that could now be traced due to the AKC printed records of dog shows and registrations. In 1900 there were 22 exhibitors with 11 new registrations. 1909 found 69 exhibitors and 30 registrations. By 1939 there were 69 registrations, 1940 just a year before WW11 saw 91 registrations. But by 1943 there were only 33 registrations. "

As far as how many were registered with the modern-day AKC (which took over from the National AKC in 1884) I did not find that information. I have several books but they are boxed up. Maybe someone else knows how many original yorkies were registered at that time. Seems like the number originally registered with AKC should be in the history! There were only 25 original AKC breeds so, that info should be available. If I run across it, I will come back to add it in.

When I listed about the 3 pound show winner (I think he was actually Best of Show) he was competing in the old classification 5 pounds and under. They were breeding them at that weight back then. I know some are now, but reputable breeders and the YTCA all recommend not breeding under 5 pounds. Hopefully we have learned a LOT since the old days. That probably has everything to do with the dissolution of the 5 pounds nad under classification and going to "not to exceed 7 pounds" as we have now.