How big is a "big" dog?
- Thread starter Gempress
- Start date
I am used to having large dogs. At 1 year old, Cody is 18" at the shoulder and 40 pounds. That seems like a small dog to me, but I guess by the standards he is a medium sized dog. He is extremely solid though. Rya is only 5 months old and she is already a hair taller than Cody, but she is much thinner. I understand that at 5 months old she hasn't filled out yet.
I've always considered Midnite, our mix, a medium size, but people tell us she's big. She's about 60-65lbs and about 22" at the shoulder. Gunnar is verging on large, he's about 27" and 90lbs. I guess when a dog can sniff the counter with all 4 feet on the floor, that is probably a large dog. 
Large to me always meant Great Dane, St Bernard, etc, but maybe that is more jumbo.
Large to me always meant Great Dane, St Bernard, etc, but maybe that is more jumbo.
While I can't pick the Grrrrls up and carry them, they do spend a great deal of time on my lap cuddling (or crushing). They don't eat as much as you'd think. Charley's Dobermans ate twice as much. They are easy to transport - I rode all the way to Charlotte, North Carolina (about 5 1/2 hours) with Shiva sitting at my feet in the 928 (not saying it was comfy, you understand) and no one seemed to think she was terribly invasive . . . well, except for two of Tom's dogs
To me, a medium-sized dog weighs 20-50lbs, a large dogs weighs 50-80lbs. A small dog weighs about 10-20lbs. Anything smaller or larger is, in my opinion, a bad idea.
I think that the variability of people's idea of 'large' is part of the continuing trend for larger dogs. People are downgrading their idea of 'large' partly from sheer familiarity. The more Mastiffs you see in a neighborhood, the smaller the Labs look. I think it's ludicrous to call a 30lb dog small, and a 12lb dog a toy, simply to accomodate giant breeds. But owners of the 80lbs+ breeds have clearly rejected the 'giant' label. I suppose it's the same impulse that would lead the owners of a Silkie to reject the term 'dwarf' for their breeds. Personally, I feel that both terms are more truthful about the breeds involved. Both types of breeds - the enormous and the tiny - are extremes of human tinkering with canine DNA. I think that the size extremes - along with the extremes in types like the Basset's dwarfed legs and the Sharpei's wrinkled skin - are morally suspect.
I think that the variability of people's idea of 'large' is part of the continuing trend for larger dogs. People are downgrading their idea of 'large' partly from sheer familiarity. The more Mastiffs you see in a neighborhood, the smaller the Labs look. I think it's ludicrous to call a 30lb dog small, and a 12lb dog a toy, simply to accomodate giant breeds. But owners of the 80lbs+ breeds have clearly rejected the 'giant' label. I suppose it's the same impulse that would lead the owners of a Silkie to reject the term 'dwarf' for their breeds. Personally, I feel that both terms are more truthful about the breeds involved. Both types of breeds - the enormous and the tiny - are extremes of human tinkering with canine DNA. I think that the size extremes - along with the extremes in types like the Basset's dwarfed legs and the Sharpei's wrinkled skin - are morally suspect.