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

[PlatinumYorkies]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

Not to pick on you at all Megan...but just to throw the question out there....

What makes it common sense to be okay to breed a 5 lb yorkie but not a 4 or a 3.5 lber? Where does the common sense come from and where is the line drawn? And who drew it?

The person who draws the line is someone with intelligence, and some common sense. Someone who know's that breeding a toy bitch under breeding healthy specified weight, is just morally wrong!!!

[MeganS]

Originally Posted by StewiesMom

I'll answer that...

Whether or not it is agreed upon, the unspoken Yorkie standard is 4-7lbs.
Studs are almost always, when bred responsibly, smaller than bitches.
Therefore, if we are trying to conceive STANDARD Yorkies, the bitch would logically be within the standard AND large enough to mate with a standard stud who is presumably (and responsibly) smaller than her.

The common sense is that if you bred a 3.5lb bitch to a... let's say... 1lb stud (do they even exist?? can the produce sperm??) chances are the puppies will not be standard.

Thank you Kristy. The common sense is pretty obvious to most. Its dangerous! I understand that no matter how big they are there's a risk, I don't need to hear that again. But really, if it could be dangerous to a 5 lb female, how would you expect it to not be more dangerous to a smaller one? Thats what the common sense part is, if its dangerous for a bigger one, its MORE dangerous for a smaller one.

[PlatinumYorkies]

Originally Posted by MeganS

Thank you Kristy. The common sense is pretty obvious to most. Its dangerous! I understand that no matter how big they are there's a risk, I don't need to hear that again. But really, if it could be dangerous to a 5 lb female, how would you expect it to not be more dangerous to a smaller one? Thats what the common sense part is, if its dangerous for a bigger one, its MORE dangerous for a smaller one.

Veey well said, Megan.

[Midge5353]

Originally Posted by MeganS

Thank you Kristy. The common sense is pretty obvious to most. Its dangerous! I understand that no matter how big they are there's a risk, I don't need to hear that again. But really, if it could be dangerous to a 5 lb female, how would you expect it to not be more dangerous to a smaller one? Thats what the common sense part is, if its dangerous for a bigger one, its MORE dangerous for a smaller one.

You said it! I completely agree!!

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr
Not to pick on you at all Megan...but just to throw the question out there....

What makes it common sense to be okay to breed a 5 lb yorkie but not a 4 or a 3.5 lber? Where does the common sense come from and where is the line drawn? And who drew it?

SoCal, I don't want to start something, but from your posts, I get the impression that you think that Yorkies shouldn't be bred at all. What makes it common sense to be okay to breed a 5lb Yorkie and not a 3.5 lber is the fact that the 3.5 lber has so many more risks! Yes, all Yorkies ARE small, but some are better to breed than others. If you breed a 7-8 lb female, the probability is much less for her to have a complication than for a 3 lber to have a complication. That's just the way it is. That's the common sense!! It just ISN'T SAFE FOR THE TINIES!!! Yes, complications can happen with any size dog, but as I said before, the risks are sooo much for for a tiny. I think Megan said it prefectly!! "Thats what the common sense part is, if its dangerous for a bigger one, its MORE dangerous for a smaller one."

[MeganS]

Originally Posted by PlatinumYorkies

Veey well said, Megan.

Thank you.

[Itspuppyluv]

The line hasn't been drawn and probably never will be drawn. That is the sad part. You can now find people breeding two lb females. Where do you draw the line? Saying they are all toy size and you don't think it's safe to breed any of them just doesn't cut it for me. If you stand by that, why risk any female yorkie for your gain? Why not choose a larger breed? I hope that doesn't sound rude because that is not how I mean it.

[red98vett]

Originally Posted by PlatinumYorkies

The person who draws the line is someone with intelligence, and some common sense. Someone who know's that breeding a toy bitch under breeding healthy specified weight, is just morally wrong!!!

PERFECTLY SAID and you too Megan and Midge...

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

Originally Posted by StewiesMom

I'll answer that...

Whether or not it is agreed upon, the unspoken Yorkie standard is 4-7lbs.
Studs are almost always, when bred responsibly, smaller than bitches.
Therefore, if we are trying to conceive STANDARD Yorkies, the bitch would logically be within the standard AND large enough to mate with a standard stud who is presumably (and responsibly) smaller than her.

The common sense is that if you bred a 3.5lb bitch to a... let's say... 1lb stud (do they even exist?? can the produce sperm??) chances are the puppies will not be standard.

I have never heard of an "unspoken yorkie standard". This is new to me.

The breed standard according to the YTCA and the AKC if "not more than 7 lbs". Are we now making up a new standard because I, for one, am all for it? I think while we are at it we should ban docking of tails, put in a few paragraphs about temperament and take the emphasis off the outward appearance and back on the terrier attitude.

This thread is not about the "standard". This is about whether ot not it is "cruel" or "bad for the female" or overly risky or dangerous.

The members arguing that it is common sense not to breed tinies are not saying it is because they don't agree with dogs under 4 lbs being in existence but rather that there are health reasons not to breed them.

So, unfortunately your argument does not address the issue as presented and debated in the last 8 pages but it sounded good on the surface.

[red98vett]

Actually.... I've always heard that yorkie standard is 4-7 pounds. When I started looking for a yorkie.... I remember also seeing it in books - I think many of us use that as a guideline for when we choose our yorkies - people USED to be happy with 4-6 lbs....a yorkie under 4 lbs is just plain SMALL.

I think most of us stayed on track with our feelings about breeding tinies....

[PlatinumYorkies]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

I have never heard of an "unspoken yorkie standard". This is new to me.

The breed standard according to the YTCA and the AKC if "not more than 7 lbs". Are we now making up a new standard because I, for one, am all for it? I think while we are at it we should ban docking of tails, put in a few paragraphs about temperament and take the emphasis off the outward appearance and back on the terrier attitude.

This thread is not about the "standard". This is about whether ot not it is "cruel" or "bad for the female" or overly risky or dangerous.

The members arguing that it is common sense not to breed tinies are not saying it is because they don't agree with dogs under 4 lbs being in existence but rather that there are health reasons not to breed them.

So, unfortunately your argument does not address the issue as presented and debated in the last 8 pages but it sounded good on the surface.

It is one thing to condone breeding of tiny females, but to simply say let's not breed Yorkies altogether is absurd. The breed standard might not say 4-7, but I bet you they wouldn't condone the breeding of a 3lb bitch. I also don't understand why one have to be rude when no one share their opinion. Breeding tinies is just horribly, morally, and just plain WRONG, IMO!!!
It is more than common sense, it's tack, moral's, care and love for the bitch. So, when someone else brings up standard it is wrong, but ok when it fit's someone else's views...I understand now...Sorry, I am done!!

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

Originally Posted by MeganS

Thank you Kristy. The common sense is pretty obvious to most. Its dangerous! I understand that no matter how big they are there's a risk, I don't need to hear that again. But really, if it could be dangerous to a 5 lb female, how would you expect it to not be more dangerous to a smaller one? Thats what the common sense part is, if its dangerous for a bigger one, its MORE dangerous for a smaller one.

Megan~

This does make sense to me. Thank you....leave it to you to have the most logical explanation. I can accept this, but I still will not find it okay or acceptable to badger breeders who choose to breed smaller or to say they are "just in it for the money" or they don't give a hoot about their dogs because L know otherwise.

I have not hidden the fact that I feel breeding should only be undertaken by the most experienced and educated people who have the very best vets and reproductive specialists at their disposal and that all tests are performed and that all risks are minimized. Minimizing the risks would proably include not breeding a tiny, fragile dog or a larger fragile dog.

So, no I am not totally opposed to breeding but, imo, the people who breed should be the best of the best and should have a mentor who is the best of the best, etc.

I think this has been a good debate and we all learned something.

[Midge5353]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

The members arguing that it is common sense not to breed tinies are not saying it is because they don't agree with dogs under 4 lbs being in existence but rather that there are health reasons not to breed them.

Exactly!! This is what we are saying! I do not think that tinies should not be in existence. I think that they shouldn't be bred or be bred for. If the runt of the litter is a tiny but the parents were standard weight, than that is fine with me. I personally think that it is CRUEL to breed a tiny to get more tinies! There are just too many risks for a 3lb and under Yorkie to have puppies. It is just common sense not to endanger the mother or the puppies!!!

[red98vett]

I don't know that I learned anything personally - I haven't changed my feelings one bit...I AM surprised that 3 people voted PRO breeding tinies. Too bad...That's 2 more than I expected to see in this poll.

[livingdustmops]

Nope, only 2! One of the members said they read the question backwards and really was opposed...

[Breeze]

I have not hidden the fact that I feel breeding should only be undertaken by the most experienced and educated people who have the very best vets and reproductive specialists at their disposal and that all tests are performed and that all risks are minimized. Minimizing the risks would proably include not breeding a tiny, fragile dog or a larger fragile dog.

Then why do you defend places that many of us clearly see as puppymills and bad breeders like Jeff Dane....? Or do you really feel that these places/breeders really do the proper testing, use the best vets and give the best care and would never put their dogs at risk ...... I'm trying to understand your point of view.