Some of you have rather large yorkies-- whats the biggest pure yorkie ever?
 

Hey, I was wondering... as I recall people in here having rather unusually large yorkies... (though I believe they were much larger in the past) are there breeders who specialize in larger yorkies-- is that a thing?

What's the largest yorkie you guys ever had or heard of (well that's not before the 1950's)?

For size comparison. Sasha happens to be 21 pounds (she's a cockapoo), my dog is 11.14 pounds(or 12.14-- I forget).

I know someone in here has currently a 16 pounder or an 18 pounder... But have there been 20pounders or even 30 pounders?

I found these videos on large yorkies but I feel as if they're all probably 16-18 pounds... Except that really big one that clearly looks like a mix.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tTMIezcFQY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQKpoRtEnpo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6dq66yaFFE

My now passed girl was pure yorkie and AKC registered she weighed in at 17 pounds, passed at 17 years old. We have a member whose yorkie weighs 18 pounds, there was another member his yorkie weighed 20 pounds.

My adopted boy weighs 12 pounds.

A reputable breeder breeds for "standard Size" 5 to 7 pounds. That is not to say a reputable breeder could not have a larger or smaller then standard in a litter.

Anyone that breeds for larger or tiny yorkies is not a reputable breeder.

http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...apot-club.html

This is a thread on joining the teapot club for the bigger yorkies. You will see the weights there. There are some beautiful doozie.

Pretty sure I've read of over 30lb pure blood yorkies, in the past. The original Yorkshire yorkie was a bigger dog than nower days.

The small yorkies are gorgeous, but I love the bigger ones personally (my two are teapots) just for safety reasons. Pip thinks she's a goat, the thought of her being tiny and zooming around like that would give me a heart attack.:)

Reputable breeders breed to the standard which is not to exceed 7 pounds. So I would guess that any breeder breeding outside of that would be non reputable.

I get what you mean. Just thought it might be a bit healthier if it was bigger. Mostly because of those reports that say tea cup yorkies are unhealthy because they're extremely fragile, get sick easily, etc.

But then again a big dog doesn't necessarily mean healthier. As generally small dogs are longer lived than big dogs(which to this day I still do not understand why that is).


As for age, what is the oldest living(or dead) yorkie that has ever lived? For that matter, why are cats much longer lived than dogs? They're both captive bred or "man made"/domestic sort of...

I mean apparently there are cases of larger dogs that lived up to 29-30 years (australian cattle dog, and a kelpie- plus a whole list of dogs that lived up well to 20-25 years).

So what did those people do to have those super dogs live that long? Is it just a genetic- and if it is, why haven't they purposely bred them? I mean if they're longer lived and healthier- wouldn't that be a trait to breed into all dogs? Sure wished a dog could last as long as I could(healthily and happily-- without being a potato).

Thank you, much insight. Kind of weird to imagine a yorkie that big. But would love to see and pet one. lol. Just can't really imagine a yorkie being bigger than 10-12 pounds(it's the biggest I've personally seen usually they end up on the way smaller scale).

I mean, a reputable breeder could very well end up breeding two dogs and somehow one of their puppies end up being a giant(healthily though). Would love to play with a bigger one. Small ones are cute too(the regular sized ones), it's one of the things that yorkies attract to me. It's just a curiosity to see one get that much bigger than 10-12 pounds. Kinda want to see a video of people showing their dogs together by sizes/weight and on the highest scale being a 20-30pound dog and then you see it next to this small 5-7 pound yorkie.

Makes me wonder, how the gene pool is kept "Fresh" if dogs are bred to a specific standard and certain lines being used. I mean how many yorkie lines are out there? Do people ever breed lines from different countries to their own for the sake of replenishing the lines and keeping the lines safe? I dont know much about genetics- it's why I ask.

Bigger doesn't mean healthier it's all about the breeding. There is no such this as a teacup so if a breeder using that word they are not a good breeder. The word was made up by bad breeders to make more money.

Occasionally there are "throw backs" but they are not breed for.

I understand. That's what I mean though, throwbacks. As for the tea cup- it's just a term it's not an actual thing just easir to make a point

Most yorkie enthusiasts hate the word. It has been damaging to the breed.

My boy Théo is oversize at 14lbs. He's huge! Maybe a touch overweight and could lose half a pound or so, but that's it. What's really odd is that his littermates are all like half his size. His parents were 5.5 and 7 lbs. He was expected to be about 7lbs, but he just grew so much. It was like he never stopped growing. I've talked to many breeders about it, and apparently that can sometimes happen.

A lady in town who works at a pet store has a purebred registered yorkie who is 23lbs. Same thing happened to her. Her yorkie just grew unbelievably, and the littermates she said are right around the 5-6 lb range. So I don't know if that's what's called a throwback, but it's just something that is obviously there genetically. I think it's weird that one in the litter ends up growing like that and the others don't. I'd love to pick the brain of a geneticist and really get into the science and a thorough explanation for how and why this happens.

I see, I understand

maybe a recessive gene? would love to meet a 23 pound yorkie. lol.

I suppose it could be a recessive trait. I doubt it's that simple though. I wouldn't be surprised if it went the other way too - a couple large yorkies might occasionally produce a little 5 pounder. Lol. Who knows.

I think you're touching on one of the issues with purebred dogs. Genetic diversity. Something that I understand is very desirable and can possibly be lacking with purebred dogs. And yes many breeders I believe do breed new lines/pedigrees of a dog from a different country. That can be something done in a breeding program to increase genetic diversity.

There's a number of issues with the breeding of purebred dogs. For example, you'll often see the same dog in tons of pedigrees. It's like a stud dog that is highly desirable, and has been sent all over the country for breeding. All of a sudden those genes are flooding a big part of the gene pool - and that can be dangerous and it also reduces genetic diversity. And then you look at line breeding, and you wonder how related are they. What's acceptable. Keeping in mind that most of the contributed genetic material comes from the first few generations back, I think maybe it can be done without too much genetic overlap. I'm just saying maybe for now because I haven't quite yet gotten around to picking the brain of a geneticist.

Any experts here on yorkietalk that can set me straight? It was years ago I took one course in genetics. I remember how against purebred dogs my instructor was. But I don't think he considered the knowledge of genetics and application of that knowledge that good breeders have. I think a good breeder can pick breeding pairs and match them up in a way to really reduce the issues that exist with breeding purebred dogs.

If you breed dogs at the top of the standard spectrum with each other, then over time, the resulting pups will naturally get bigger and bigger. Many breeders actually like for the female to be larger for more pups and easier births, they just mate them with a smaller male and the pups sort of end up on a spectrum.

Honestly, there is no valid reason for yorkies to be bred to be so small. Its sad to see dogs that are so tiny they can't really live and be dogs. In my opinion, if a dog's legs break from jumping off of a standard couch, they are too small. If anything, the standard needs to be shifted to include larger dogs to discourage folks from breeding these tiny, fragile, sickly animals that suffer in life. True, not all small dogs are sickly, some are rather sturdily built, but the reality is when you breed such small animals, so many moire things pose a threat to them.

The standards that people speak of are for aesthetics and vanity only but those are the rules for showing and competing, if you are not doing either one of those things, don't worry about it.

Also, "reputable" is a ridiculous term, that means nothing, but many people try to stuff whatever they want under the umbrella to be "right". It's just a word that was created by PETA and other radical animal rights organizations to shame people for breeding dogs and cats(in general) and narrowing the definition of a good breeder to cut into the domesticated animal birth rate by vilifying breeders. Their goal is to eradicate all domesticated animals as well as any animal that relies on human beings for anything. be careful who you align with if you love dogs and believe in pets!

I have to disagree with you. Reputable breeders or good breeders what ever you want to call them do genetic testing and follow the genes back and everything else they can to make sure they are having as healthy puppies as possible. Yes they maybe hard to find but they do exist and they are much better for maintaining the breed we all love so much. We put to sleep 2 million dogs a year. People need to stop just breeding for the heck of it because it gives other dogs a death sentence. If you support a puppy mill or bad breeding then you are keeping them in business and letting them continue to bring unhealthy dogs that some suffer their whole lives. There is a place for good breeding!

I mean I find small yorkies cute- but then again I find almost all dogs to be cute. I agree about not breeding for dogs that if they fall or jump off a standard couch and get hurt...

As for reputable... it seems to be a word that's tossed around a lot... I know we're talking about dogs-- but I used to own a reptile room (full of large enclosures for reptiles and amphibians) and I'd buy reptiles from reputable breeders, and by the time I'd get them they'd be sick, dead or died within the month.

With that, I followed everything that was said to me. The way reptiles are bought- they either ship it to you or you go to one of these reptile expos/conventions. Not everytime you get screwed over, but do you know how it feels to spend 100-600 dollars on a reptile and have it die the next day or on the way back to your house(in the expos), and you can't really ALWAYS tell if the animal is healthy or not because the illnesses that are really obvious are usually beyond help. The ones that don't appear easily can still kill them if they get stressed out even a little bit.


I've never had a problem with the frogs/toads I've bought (they typically were short lived -- about the same lifespan of a great dane for some, and some lasted for almost a decade, and others still alive with a friend-- I've moved several times and long drives for reptiles is stressful- you can ship a herp if its made so it arrives within 24 hours of shipping it out, kept warm (during cold season), and cooler during extreme heat situations(which is easy).

Anywho, that being aside, even for fish-- going to a reputable local mom and pop petstore can still be troublesome sometimes... even if its a reputable petstore-- which btw, the closest "reputable" pet store (which is not a chain- but a local shop) they keep cane toads, with friggin' skinks(cane toads are highly toxic- a drop of their toxins could easily kill 10 fully grown men). Their bufotoxins are within their large bean shaped warts(usually 2 behind the eyes-- sometimes 2 behind the eyes and 2 near the legs if I recall for the rococo toad), most toads are harmless but these ones should be kept by their own species. They've kept the toads in really poor conditions(too dry) with a heat lamp on top (toads actually are nocturnal- usually).

They've kept mice in very small quarters- with too many mice to begin with. Their other reptiles are usually sickly looking, and I bought a toad from there once out of pity (Big mistake) and it died within a few hours, as it hurled a big white blob which turned out to be a parasite load. They wouldn't accept responsibility either for it.

These are toads that are really resilient... so much that even in australia(where they are an invasive species as well) they kill them en masse... because they wreak havoc on the local ecosystem.. They virtually have no predator and are also known to eat dog and cat food- or virtually anything... even if it stands still(which is weird because amphibians in general rely mostly on movement to catch prey-- but these are opportunistic feeders). These toads could probably live in the sewers and still somehow survive(ok thats an exaggeration, but what I am saying is they're extremely sturdy, they eat like champs, etc so for them to die at the hands of a petshop is kind of saying something).

Before I knew any better- we would go to petstores and look at dogs. We always wanted to buy one of the dogs because they were so cute, and fluffy and playful. But somehow we never ended up ever buying a dog from a petstore. I guess it was our luck.

As for PETA, they are essentially extremist activists... They seem to also almost always include some inappropriate (mature) subject into their ads, etc... if you go on the PETA website and search through their mounds of entries, and ads, you will see what I mean...

They're so stupid they even try to mess with pokemon, by claiming it promotes animal cruelty. I didn't know a game where every creature has little resemblance to no an actual animal, or some resembling tools, or whatever... is supposedly animal cruelty. I mean it's completely fiction, if a child somehow gets into their head that they should torture animals from just playing or watching pokemon-- then there's something very wrong with the child in question and not so much as the game.

How did they mess with it? Well there was a PETA ad game of a poorly designed pokemon remake, I think it had pokemon and some other characters... and I am not sure if I am remembering correctly.. but the game has you play as the "animal" characters and to win the game you have to kill people. I mean, the game is essentially promoting actual violence, and I am not sure if they intended it for children to play it... but it's messed up because it's full of gore and just disgusting scenes.. (I had the "pleasure" of trying it out once out of boredom)

PETA is actually out of control, and they're probably the ones who got that law to ban petstores from selling dogs- which is fine... but on the other hand whose to say they wont try to extend that law to private breeders-- actually good breeders who don't try to breed a dog more than 1 a year if even? whose to say they wont try to make dog breeding in general illegal- thus effectively destroying domesticated dogs in the US? What then?

I think they should keep that law, but they shouldn't really be listened to that much...

They had an article that compared people who eat meat, to the nazis --- and they had two photos there, one with the jewish people in cages from the holocaust, and another of cows in their pens... I mean I love animals as much as the next guy- but first off we're omnivores and secondly we should all be given the option to eat animals or not without any sort of prejudice-- as long as the animals are treated with respect and given a quality of life until the very end I don't see that much of a problem. Wolves, lions, and any carnivore hunts/kills/eats animals.. and even omnivores like apes... there are apes that hunt....

There are good breeders and bad breeders. perhaps 'reputable" needs to be changed with responsible. Some of these supposed "reputable" breeders are savages. They treat animals as products that can easily be traded like playing cards. I do not understand how someone could put down a perfectly healthy puppy for having eyes a shade off of the standard or ears a little too big. Or raising a dog for 5 years and just giving them away when they are too old to breed anymore to make room for more "stock" How traumatic for the poor dog, no matter how good a home they go to.

Anyways, gene testing is still pretty new and anyone with money can have that done. Pretty sure dogs were bred for centuries without it. It's a good aid but knowing a bit about the background of your lines will suffice in most cases. Funneling everyone to the handful of "reputable" breeders advertised will almost certainly hurt the breed in the long run because those lines and the cross breeding of smaller and smaller pools will eventually start to create new genetic issues we can't test for yet. hey will be free of the issues on the books, they will just have new ones that will rock the new families just as hard as the old ones.

My issue is whenever someone goes to looks for a puppy they get sent in the same direction, its better to give folks a broad idea of the types of things they should look for in a breeder, and really teaching them to get knowledgeable on their own because I have seen so many people come here posting about the 17 pound dogs they have gotten from "reputable" breeders who swore up and down the dog would only be 5 or 6 lbs..... The reason why these are occurring is partly because the pools of "reputable" dogs in areas are actually bringing forth genes that were bred back to the point of being recessive. Negative recessive traits can stay hidden for dozens of generations, they pop up when the lines that folks cross insect with inbreeding, even if they share relatives several generations back. So inn theory, even if a breeder has knowledge of the bloodline sever generations back you can still end up with a surprise, good or bad.

Every state should have laws banning dogs from being sold in stores unless it is a rescue. All dogs sold in pet stores do not come from good places. Most come from puppy mills and the ones that don't and come from breeders are not good breeders because good breeders want to meet who they are selling to and ask lots of questions and would not put a puppy in the situation of a pet store. Dog breeding will never be completely illegal but we have to do something about all the puppy mills and bad breeders out there.

What you just said at the regaining is not a good breeder. SO please don't confuse them into it. Also a good breeder can never 100% guarantee what size a pup will be they normally know based on the lines. The people who come on here and say that normally are buying from a bad breeder. It can be very hard to find good breeders. Just because they are show breeders doesn't make them good either. A good breeder breeds to better the breed which means to make great examples of the breed so they do there homework persay but that is their job so when they feel that a dog is done breeding some times they will rehome them but they ask just as many questions as when they sell a new puppy. Some keep them. I notice a lot of what you think is a good breeder isn't so many that's why your so about it jaded I'm not sure. The issues is we can not continue to by from puppy mills and from bad breeders or we keep them in business and that's not good for any dog.

I 100% agree with what you said that each state should effectively make it impossible to make dogs en masse via puppy mills and kept in gross conditions.. I really do, I don't think it should ever be allowed- for any reason.

However on a related note, I recall being told by other dog enthusiasts (not from this forum- and some offline people) have mentioned to me that this law that has been going on since last year-- they want to add an amendment to it to basically limit how many times a breeder can breed per year(like how many different individual dogs from the same breed) however it also extends to a maximum of 10 dogs being allowed to sell.

Which begs another question, while the rule seems more than sufficient for yorkies, chihuahuas, maltese, and other toy breeds which only produce 1-2 (and at most 5) pups per litter... but what about those larger breeds whom can produce in just one litter 7 at least in one litter- but it's not even limited to 7... if I recall the larger breeds can potentially carry up to 15 puppies! It makes me wonder- how rare is it for a dog to produce such a big litter?

My point is, why (if this is true) instead of just limiting per number of puppies-- why not make it more efficient and less restricting? Instead of just saying the amount of numbers of puppies-- why not just say instead a limit to the numbers of dog bred per year? At most, I'd say 2-3 separate litters. Depending on how many of that said breed decide to breed them. Here in NJ there are from what I checked no brussels griffon breeders. I mean there were-- but they retired. I went on to their site a month or two ago and found out. I contacted everyone on that list and everyone told me the same thing "We retired". While we should limit the amount of dogs being sent to shelters- we should still keep breeding "Somewhat" so that the lines don't get too limited in the genetic pool. IF everywhere in the world had that kind of restriction we wouldn't see that much dogs in shelters- but we would still keep the gene pool big enough to be replenished.... I dont understand genetics- but that much I do know.

Also, they should keep track on owners. If a person is adopting dogs and constantly returning them- do you really think they should be allowed to still adopt or purchase from a breeder? What I am saying is, if the person is picking up puppies, or even adults and they're eventually sick of the dog and later in a few months get another dog- only for the same thing to happen, and then a few months from then, they get another dog... (it's not that frequent but I wonder if it happens).

Or how about the people who get dogs and now when they're much older they dont want to keep them, and essentially trade them off for a new puppy (i.e. dropping him off in a shelter or in the streets, and then purchasing or adopting a new dog elsewhere).

Because I will be perfectly honest when I say this. From what my brother told me (he worked at this no-kill shelter) older dogs rarely get adopted and if they are in a kill shelter they end up being put down to make room for more...

Or what about those people who breed dogs and sell them off low key.

Essentially there should be laws on how many dogs you have and that way you could limit puppy mills and big back yard breeders.

Well yeah, I think at most - at the very tippy top maybe allowed to keep 5-6 dogs if the residence is big enough, they show they have enough time, and money for it. Anything else could only be there until they were sold or given. Like it wouldnt apply to the litter if they dont plan to keep the puppies (i.e. they're selling or finding them a home somehow). The one they do keep from the litter for themselves would count for the overall count.

This should be so that small time breeders can still help keep the gene pool fresh(somewhat).


Does make me wonder- does it make any different if the dog is a mutt? does it mean they're less likely to inherit some genetic disease?

No it makes them more likely to get the genetic issues from each breed.

Huh, that doesn't make sense. I don't understand much about genes, just that when you add different genes you end up getting healthier dogs/animals/people/etc. So wouldn't two different dog breeds bred together be healthy? Especially if both have been tested and lack any genetic issues? I don't know I thought it would add more to it. I forget how yorkies were made, but wouldn't breeding the breeds that made the yorkies together(doing the same process) add new lineage into the gene pool? Thus replenishing it? Like I said, my knowledge on genetics is rather limited- and I want to understand better so I can know what essentially makes a great dog.


I mean one question that's been bugging me and I haven't wanted to ask because I was afraid of offending anyone.

I love dogs, don't get me wrong. But I rarely seem to hear of cats needing to be put down at their later stages(I knew a lot of people with older cats and the cats end up passing away naturally without need of much intervention), so why do dogs end up getting severely ill when they get much older? I dont know much about cats, but it's just what I am going off from a comment a friend told me today. (she is however a cat addict)

Is there something that could be done to fix much of dogs health problems? Like dogs in general end up getting cataracts at a later state or so I've been reading. Isn't that something that could be prevented? Not sure if the same happens to cats. What about going deaf, or poor hearing quality?

Why were there some dogs that have lived 20-30years? What separates those dogs from the every day dog you see now a day? And apparently size doesn't even matter, because according to the Guinness world record- the oldest dog is an australian cattle dog named bluey(he died at age 30).


If I recall those are medium to large dogs? Below that, there was another one which was a kelpie and it lived 30 years as well. Apparently there were authentic records for these things.

There are other dogs who made it easily to age 20-25. So why are these dogs living longer? Is it their diet? Do they have a cup of wine ? (a joke) It just makes me wonder, how these things work. It probably has to do with genetics- but if it is, is there anyway for them to make it a thing they can pass on?

I mean life expectancy can be trivial as it doesn't count for accidents or sickness but it's the best thing we have. Also, bluey died peacefully in his sleep according to a few websites that reported on him.

Wrong

I'm tempted to go down to the library to get access to some academic journals just so I can read up on a bunch of stuff related to genetics. I'm pretty much 100% certain though that this idea that they'll be more likely to get genetic issues from each breed is wrong.

I wouldn't personally know, as I have limited knowledge. But wouldn't it the theory be null if both dogs from the respective breed were genetically tested and were the "best" (health wise) examples of the breed? Or is it something that'll just hide in their genes until newer generations?

I think I worded it wrong it makes it where they could get the issues that each breed has. Like say breed A has issues with LP and Breed B has issues with their hips then if the breed together they could have issues with LP and their hips. Is that worded better?