Teacup Australian shepherd--12lbs!!!

[Albino]

I personally ADORE the toy aussies. A GOOD one looks just like an australian shepherd, just smaller. Heavier bones are favorable, toyish look is actually a severe fault and is punished heavily in shows. Bulging eyes, tiny bones, these things aren't favorable. They are also supposed to behave just like an aussie, have a strong herding instinct, pretty high energy, just like a normal aussie. There are some BEAUTIFUL toy aussies out there, and I don't think they're a corruption of the aussie breed, I think they're wonderful. A properly bred one is all aussie in a 12" package. They're obtained through selective breeding of smaller dogs, not by crossing them with anything. And a good breeder will ALWAYS try to make their dogs look as aussie as possible, and not sacrifice conformation and personality for size. When breeders start trying to breed them smaller than 10 inches, you do start seeing more toyish features and they look more like papillions, but that is considered faulted, since they are supposed to be bred to look like aussies as much as possible. Hate me as much as you want, I personally adore them.

Also, let me just say about the breeders, from what I've seen, they love their dogs as much as anyone else. Its not like every breeder is a puppy mill just out for money. There are some really wanting to breed quality dogs who will do well in the show ring, agility, herding, and just being a family pet. They make sure the dogs go to quality homes, not just somewhere that they'll be abandoned. They care about their dogs. Not every breeder is just making some novelty for a quick buck. I'm not even a breeder, and never will be, but even I'm a little offended by how many people think that just because someone breeds a dog that they aren't concerned about the health of the puppies. Yeah, there's some out there who aren't and who are just greedy, but there's still such thing as good breeders.

Just out of curiosity, were you guys this outraged when they started shrinking the poodles to toy sized?

Seriously, you guys are acting like these dogs are some kind of monstrosity or something. For a community that is supposed to love dogs, I'm kinda surprised to read this thread.

[Karen]

Seriously, you guys are acting like these dogs are some kind of monstrosity or something. For a community that is supposed to love dogs, I'm kinda surprised to read this thread.

It is not like anyone thinks these dogs are the monsters. We - along with you, I am sure - think people who are irresponsible breeders are the monsters, not considering anything but their own pockets. Breeding a small dog to another closely related small dog just because of size, and ignoring other congenital issues the dogs may have ... Not checking for hip, eye, and other problems ... it is not a dog's fault how he or she is born, but in some cases problems can be avoided if folks take care.

All breeders are not irresponsible. There are great, responsible breeders out there. They are who I respect.

[shepgirl]

I'm not saying these dogs are monstrosities but their health problems just might be in the long run. I think only people interested in the almighty $$$ would breed something like this...and we all know there was no health checks done either.
Just because someone owns a dog doesn't mean it should be bred and just because someone thinks their dog is special doesn't mean it should be bred...that's the BYB way of looking at things.
I feel sorry for these poor pups.

[Albino]

I'm not saying these dogs are monstrosities but their health problems just might be in the long run. I think only people interested in the almighty $$$ would breed something like this...and we all know there was no health checks done either.
Just because someone owns a dog doesn't mean it should be bred and just because someone thinks their dog is special doesn't mean it should be bred...that's the BYB way of looking at things.
I feel sorry for these poor pups.

I've been looking into the toy aussies for a while now. The breeders I've seen first of are show breeders(yes, there are shows for these dogs) and therefore are breeding for the proper temperments and build. I haven't seen a single one that doesn't do hip and eye checks on both the parents and the puppies when they are old enough. I have read contracts, and the ones I have seen are very reasonable. They require vet checks, and proof that you've taken the dog in. They require pictures and documentation if you show them. VERY few even allow the dogs they sell to go unspayed. The ones who do, most of them only allow breeding quality dogs to go to showing families who will breed with care. That way, no one will breed a dog that is not TOP quality, just because its their special little pet and they want more puppies.

Just because a dog is small and not the conventional standard doesn't mean the breeder is irresponsible. I think that until you guys pass your judgement on these breeders, you should take a look around and see how many of them truly do care about their dogs and the puppies. Just because the dog is small doesn't mean that anyone who breeds them is just a puppy mill.

Just like with ANY breed of dog, you will have those bad breeders, the one who won't check their dogs for certain health issues before breeding, or the ones who just breed for size and ruin the integrity of the breed. Just like any other breed of dog, there are those good breeders out there looking to better the quality of their dogs. When looking for a Cavelier King Charles for my brother, it was heartbreaking to see that even that breed has fallen victim to poor breeding. But for every bad or mediocre one, there was plenty of good breeders out there too. But just like with any breed, you have the good breeders and the bad. Its not the dog's fault, its not the breed's fault, and its not the size of the dog that is at fault.

Its not bad that people are breeding these dogs. They are GREAT little dogs when bred right. What's bad is when STUPID people breed these dogs. Toy aussies, when bred right, are wonderful dogs.

There's nothing wrong with people breeding toy aussies, its just like people breeding toy poodles or any other type of dog. Its no different from any other breed of dog in the way its bred. Like I said, just because they're small and cute doesn't mean they're just some puppy mill novelty. There's still good breeders of them.

A bit off topic, but what does "BYB" mean?

[Karen]

A bit off topic, but what does "BYB" mean?

BYB is shorthand for back yard breeder - not the top-notch breeders you are referring to, BYB usually refers to people who do no research, just let their un-neutered dogs breed with some other dog, to get puppies. They are a few steps up from puppy mills, but still don't do genetic testing, consider bloodlines, check pedigrees, etc. They just breed for fun or profit.

[lute]

I agree that there are responsible breeders out there, but why make up a new breed? There are PLENTY of other breeds to put all this time, money and energy into that are accepted by registries such as AKC or UKC. This just does not make sense to me.

[Albino]

BYB is shorthand for back yard breeder - not the top-notch breeders you are referring to, BYB usually refers to people who do no research, just let their un-neutered dogs breed with some other dog, to get puppies. They are a few steps up from puppy mills, but still don't do genetic testing, consider bloodlines, check pedigrees, etc. They just breed for fun or profit.

Ah, I see. Then yes, I can see you guys' points now. Those people bother me a bit, since they, like you said, don't pay attention to things that make a pure bred dog worth buying, such as bloodlines and pedigrees. And I can see why toy aussies from these people would be a low quality that would be a disgrace to aussies, in a way. However, from breeders that pay attention to the important details to breed quality, but small, dogs, I have no problem with them. When I'm looking for dogs, I only look for people who have show quality dogs, not someone with their pet, which is how it should be for any breed.

But there are 'backyard breeders' for any breed(probably moreso for more common breeds), not just the mini aussies. The breed itself shouldn't be hated because of the lousy breeders, cause then, no purebred dog would be any good.

I agree that there are responsible breeders out there, but why make up a new breed? There are PLENTY of other breeds to put all this time, money and energy into that are accepted by registries such as AKC or UKC. This just does not make sense to me.

Toy and mini aussies have been around since the 60's. They're not just some brand new fad. Why is any breed or size variation of dog made? What could POSSIBLY be the reason for toy poodles, or miniature pinschers? I mean, standard poodles were bred to hunt! Could a toy poodle or even a minature ever hunt? Toy aussies are a high energy, intellegent dogs with a strong work ethic, but in a small package. They're easily trained, great for agility, eager to work. I think that if they are small but with the same nature and look as a standard aussie, only smaller, then I say, why not? Its just like any other breed they've made a size variation of.

There are tons of dogs out there you might question the reasoning behind making them in the first place. Take the Cavelier King Charles for example. Adorable dogs, smart, sweet, great if you just want a small house companion lap dog. You know what they were bred for? They were the royalty's flea magnents. They sat under their skirts so the fleas would bite the dog and not the royalty. They were bred as a luxury item to keep as a show of wealth. But you know what, they're AMAZING dogs. Their purpose is a bit pointless, just as you seem to think the toy aussie's is. But that doesn't make them any less wonderful of a dog.

Also, you mention the AKC. Standard Australian Shepherds weren't even recognized by them until they 90's. Just because a dog isn't accepted by the AKC doesn't mean its not worth breeding.

[Giselle]

You have to assess the context of the situation. What is the purpose for creating new breeds in TODAY'S society? In a society of over 400+ breeds (not just AKC, but ARBA, FCI, UKC, etc.) and HORRENDOUS overpopulation (almost an epidemic, if you will) and vastly diminishing resources, what is the purpose of creating a dog that fills an already filled niche in the dog fancy?

Take undersized Aussies: The impetus for creating an undersized Aussie lies in attempting to create a small, coated herding dog with drive, intelligence, biddability, relatively unitarian conformation (fairly square), and, well, herding ability. Sound familar? I've just described a Sheltie. So what purpose does a small Aussie fulfill that Shetland Sheepdogs or regular Aussies do not?

This is the same argument that we use to debunk the "wonders" of designer dogs. What purpose does a Labradoodle serve? The Seeing Eye program fell through; they found out genetics isn't quite that simple or clear cut. So, what we have are shedding, albeit curly coated, Retrievers. Oh wait, I've just described Curly-Coated Retrievers. But if you're going more generic and are simply looking for a curly coated sporting dog, well, there's the Portuguese Water Dog. And the Irish Water Spaniel. And the Standard Poodle, if you still believe they are sporting dogs...etc. etc.

The point is: If the niche has already been fulfilled, then there is no legitimate reason to create a new breed. About the only niche that is void that I can think of, off the top of my head, is a small-medium, coated sighthound. No such dog existed prior to the Silken Windhound. Ergo, the Silken Windhound has gained enormous support from the entire sighthound community and even the AKC (at least, that's what their latest updates tell me). Why? Because the breed has *legitimacy* - prior to the Silken, no such coated sighthound of small-medium stature existed. It was either 1) get a Whippet and deal with abnormally thin skin exceptionally prone to rips and tears or 2) get a gigantic Borzoi. Silkens fill that niche. That's why Silkens have garnered so much public approval. But this is also why we generally do not agree with new and/or designer breeds.

In today's society, there needs to be a valid reason for a breed to be created. It must be legitimate. It must be filling a void, a niche, in a manner that no other breed can. Every dog (barring mental or physical afflictions) can do agility or obedience. Every dog can be a great companion. Any dog can pass hip/eye/elbow tests with flying colors. My dobe, Ivy, passed her PennHip with .28. That means that her hips are better than 100% of all other dogs tested. But that doesn't give her a ticket to be bred. Indeed, not every dog can herd. Not every dog can run and chase like a sighthound. Not every dog can track. So, if such a dog does not exist and there is a sincere need for it, you can create it - but ONLY if that niche has not already been filled. So, that's the ethics of it!

ETA: I do want to add that I am deliberately staying out of the "emotional" aspect of breeding. There are some people who do believe that they're doing right by their dogs by breeding them. Some may health test. Some may show. Some may work their dogs. But I'm deliberately disregarding how much they care or love their dogs. I just want to talk about the ethics of this matter in the big picture of dog fancydom. Also, don't assume I'm an AKC/conformation/purebred fanatic, either I have qualms about dog shows that you don't even want to hear about LOL!

[lute]

Took the words right from my mouth Giselle! There needn't be any other breeds if there is on to perform their job properly already. If you want a smaller herding dog there are Shelties, Corgi's. Vallhunds, etc.

Yes, I am aware that Aussies have only been accepted since 1991. They were a breed long before being accepted by AKC. If you want to point at me saying why not to breed dogs accepted by AKC, UKC, etc. Aside from Aussies, I also show Swedish Vallhunds. A Swedish herding dog. Only accepted fully by AKC in 2007. These dogs were bred long before either of the Corgis. Swedish Vallhunds are most likely part of the foundation of both Corgis. These dogs only reached the U.S in the early 80's. You see I agree with the breeding of dogs not accepted by registries.I just don't agree with making up new breeds.

[shepgirl]

Very well put Giselle and you took the words out of my mouth also. Big deal if they do the testing (which I don't buy anyway) but I think we have enough breeds for everyone and creating new ones is irresponsible in itself. I'm a Shepherd lover and some breeders are trying to destroy that breed with designer dogs too..... doesn't make it right.

[MonicanHonda]

The way I see it... any purebred dog was once a mutt. They bred dogs to suit their owners back in the day and we'll continue to do that no matter who likes it. Why sit here and whine about it? We aren't going to stop it. Change is inevitable and one day labradoodles and puggles will be registered in the AKC. Heh....

[Albino]

Giselle, you make some very good points. I guess its just a matter of opinion about whether or not dogs should be bred for a working purpose to fill a niche, or if they can be bred regardless of them not fitting into a niche. Though your point about over population seems a bit irrelevant, because that would mean ANY dog, AKC registered or not, is irresponsible to breed. And I know, there are some people who believe that too. Once again, a matter of opinion, I suppose.

Very well put Giselle and you took the words out of my mouth also. Big deal if they do the testing (which I don't buy anyway) but I think we have enough breeds for everyone and creating new ones is irresponsible in itself. I'm a Shepherd lover and some breeders are trying to destroy that breed with designer dogs too..... doesn't make it right.

What makes you think that just because you don't like the dog that obviously the breeder doesn't care about the health? Its one thing to be skeptical and want to look more into seeing if they're being honest, its another to flat out say that they more than likely are lying. A breeder of any other breed has just as much of a chance of lying about testing or not lying. Just because they breed a breed you dislike does not mean they don't care about their dogs. Also, what is a designer dog? A dog without a purpose for being bred? Because most dogs now days aren't used for their original purposes. If someone has a labrador who does shows, breeding, and a family pet, but no hunting and retrieving, does that make it a 'designer dog' just because its not living up to the breed's purpose? No. A dog is a dog. There's such thing as a deigner hand bag or designer clothes, but there is no such thing as a designer dog, dogs are not objects. Regardless of if you like the breed or not, they are not objects.

[lute]

Change is inevitable and one day labradoodles and puggles will be registered in the AKC. Heh....

You honestly think that? If I'm not mistaken all AKC registered dogs have had a job or a purpose. Not just to be cute. Yes, all AKC registered dogs were mixed breeds at one point, but there was a reason they were bred. The breeders were selectively crossing dogs to perform a job or have a purpose.

[Giselle]

Lute, I wouldn't say that all AKC dogs were created for actual purposes, as is demonstrated by virtually the entire Toy group.

Albino, you're right; absolutely not all (or even most) dogs today are bred for any purpose other than companionship. However, we are not talking about the propagation of a breed already in existence. We're talking solely about the creation and establishment of a new breed in itself. And I wouldn't say the issue of overpopulation is irrelevant at all. Rather, because we have horrendous overpopulation, it is imperative that a "new" breed be legitimate. Example: Labradoodles. Labradoodles, as was demonstrated by the failure of the Seeing Eye program, have no other actual purpose for creation than companionship. In an underpopulated world, that's fine and dandy. But because our society is so darn overpopulated (really, bursting at the seams!), it's just downright unethical to create a new breed, the Labradoodle, when there are so many companion-quality dogs already in existence and languishing in shelters and when there is a breed that already fulfills that niche of a curly-coated retriever. Again, I'm not talking about the continuation of breeds already in existence because that will just take you on a never-ending tangent. I'm only talking about the validity of creating a new breed in our day and age, which is the sole issue of all these "designer dog" and "new breed" discussions.

Like I said, I have nothing against a new breed if it actually does fulfill an unfilled niche, like the Silken. In fact, that's the general sentiment of most people. However, when the dog is merely adding to an already fulfilled niche, well, there's going to be pretty severe backlash.

[MonicanHonda]

Not all dogs had a purpose, for example, Italian Greyhounds were bred purely for companionship as a lapdog that resembled their greyhound cousins.