Reputable cross breeder?

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

it seems like if people were consistently breeding 7 lbs and under for 100 years, getting three times that simply wouldn't happen nowadays.

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...

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

I'm honestly asking: if this is the case, why are there so many large yorkies at this point, some even exceeding 20 pounds? Generally speaking, small dogs produce small dogs. I know that's not a law, but it seems like if people were consistently breeding 7 lbs and under for 100 years, getting three times that simply wouldn't happen nowadays.

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.

[QuickSilver]

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.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

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.

[CJxDanielle]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

But then it wouldn't be a bulldog or a pug. It would be a mixed breed. That's NOT improving the breed. The only responsible way of improving the breed is to take only the healthiest and best representatives of the breed to continue the lines.

Right, but when there is nothing healthy with the breed anymore maybe that is the only option we have. I have yet to see a even remotely "healthy" dog that is even remotely close to the extreme face of a bulldog, but if you know one please let me know. You can't possible promote the breeding of a breed that is so unhealthy just because
it's a purebred. I for one couldn't support that and don't.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by CJxDanielle

Right, but when there is nothing healthy with the breed anymore maybe that is the only option we have. I have yet to see a even remotely "healthy" dog that is even remotely close to the extreme face of a bulldog, but if you know one please let me know. You can't possible promote the breeding of a breed that is so unhealthy just because
it's a purebred. I for one couldn't support that and don't.

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.

[DvlshAngel985]

Originally Posted by Britster

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?

[Britster]

Originally Posted by DvlshAngel985

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.

[DvlshAngel985]

Originally Posted by Britster

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.

[BamaFan121s]

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! ) 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! Makes no sense.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

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! ) 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! 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.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by CJxDanielle

Right, but when there is nothing healthy with the breed anymore maybe that is the only option we have. I have yet to see a even remotely "healthy" dog that is even remotely close to the extreme face of a bulldog, but if you know one please let me know. You can't possible promote the breeding of a breed that is so unhealthy just because
it's a purebred. I for one couldn't support that and don't.

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.

[Britster]

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.

[OwnedByJezebel]

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.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Britster

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.

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.