Poodle Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was just wondering if anyone else thought that maybe the Poodle standard makes a mistake in not indicating minimum size (for the toy) and maximum size (for the standard). It only says that a toy should be under 10 inches, with no min, and the standard over 15, with no max. Surely if it was clearer in sizing the current problem of tiny toy or teacup and oversize or royal standard would not be so big. What does everyone else think? Anyone know why the standard didn't specify size a little more clearly?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,645 Posts
Around here huge dogs win. It's that Texas mentality I think but I think a minimum toy size is a good idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
This is compensated for in the breed standard by the overall structure of the dog. As long as the dog conforms to the requirement to be squarely built (foot to withers/breastbone to rump), the dog will fit into the breed standard. Generally when you see oversized or undersized poodles, they have lost the proportionality that is required. Most "Royal" standards are very leggy, and thus rectangular vs square. The teacups, in general, lose all of the physical requirements the smaller they get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
This is compensated for in the breed standard by the overall structure of the dog. As long as the dog conforms to the requirement to be squarely built (foot to withers/breastbone to rump), the dog will fit into the breed standard. Generally when you see oversized or undersized poodles, they have lost the proportionality that is required. Most "Royal" standards are very leggy, and thus rectangular vs square. The teacups, in general, lose all of the physical requirements the smaller they get.
I can see that... But I still think not having a minimum or maximum height could allow some breeders to claim their dogs are "within standard" even though really they would be considered either grossly oversized or undersized. It just makes me wonder if when the standard was written, they never foresaw the royals/ teacups of the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,155 Posts
I agree completely with you Cdnjennga . The tee-cup and Royal are not only "not pretty" - but their health is affected too:eek:hwell: Well, it is affected also by the fact that those sizes are bred by people who are truly BYB !!!!! :wacko:

No reputable breeder would breed tea-cup or royal EVER !!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
I think it's a bit odd that it's by height, not weight and that weight isn't even mentioned. However, many toy breeds don't include a minimum and if they did, I think it would give fodder to the "teacup" greeders. As it stands now, a two pound Maltese/Yorkie/Chihuahua is still standard size b/c their standards say 7lbs and under (6lbs for the Chi). Same w/ Poodles a 4" toy poodle is still within the standard and if they cut it off an 5", the greeders would be able to say the 4" dog is different. Right now the best argument against these people is "What is a teacup?" You can ask 10 different "teacup/tiny toy/pocket/micro" breeders and get 10 different answers. With breeds like Shih Tzu that have a min weight of 9lbs, the "imperial" just say anything under 9lbs is an "imperial."

I do agree with the standard sizing. It seems like the average height is 20" to 30" (that may be a bit broad), not 15" to however big you can get them. The toy breeds I mentioned have preferred weights so the Poodle standard could include something like that. Maltese Standard: "Under 7lbs with 4-6 preferred." The Poodle standard could say 22" to 26" is preferred. A lot of other breed standards also mention that a well put together dog shouldn't be faulted for it's size alone. For example if you have a Rottweiler that's 3" over the standard, but is perfectly in proportion and better than every other dog, then he should win. So the short answer is yes, I think the standard is too vague.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
I actutally like the fact that there is no minimum/maximum weight for breed, but instead it has to be a well balanced dog that structurally confirms to the standard. The Havanese Club of America used to have the weight range of 7 to 13 lbs (I think) in the old standard. The problem with such a large hight range (3") is that a lot of breeders couldn't get the larger dogs to fall within the standard and underfed them and the dogs were too thin. Once the club got rid of the weight range it all kind of fell into place.

Also, Maltese standard clearly states that while the dogs can be up to 7 lbs, the preferred weight is 4 to 6 lbs, which is sooooo tiny already. Why would anyone want a dog under 4 lbs, might as well have a hamster.

According to the American Shih Tzu Club, there is no such thing as an Imperical Shih Tzu. It's the same thing "greeders" use as "tea cup", "tiny toy" or "royal". Here's the quote from the breed standard regarding the size:

SIZE
Remember that in most countries the Shih Tzu is not shown in the Toy Group, but in the Non-Sporting Group, and that the AKC breed standard states that the ideal weight for the Shih Tzu is 9 to 16 pounds. There is NO such thing as an officially recognized “Imperial,” or “Teacup,” or "Stained Glass” Shih Tzu in the United States or abroad. Very tiny Shih Tzu are often small because they have health problems. Those who are breeding very tiny Shih Tzu and charging a premium price for them are breeding to make money, not to better the breed. The best advice for someone determined to have a really tiny dog is to consider another breed. One of the finest attributes of a Shih Tzu is that it is solid and sturdy, despite its relatively small size, and ethical breeders work to keep it that way.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top