haha i guess i'll be an exception here in that in my experience paw size has been a pretty good indicator of how big our dogs got.
1) first dog ever was a lab, got him as a puppy, had huge paws, ended up being a tall and lean 85lb dog
2) rescued a lab mutt, had very moderately sized paws, grew to be about 60lbs, just about what was expected
3) rescued a pure bred walker coonhound who was only about 2 months at the time. Had huge paws and grew to be a a lean and well built 80lb hound.
4) Now have a 5 month old gsd with huge paws, everyone comments on it, and on the day he turned 5 months he weighed 60lbs. So we still have to wait and see what happens with him.
When you post stuff like this you'll often get replies that concern only the extremes (its why no poll on the internet saying "Is Obama doing a good job running the U.S.? Click yes or no," is at all publishable, because only the extremes reply. So, likely, you're going to get people here saying either "my dogs paws were huge and they're a small dog" or "my dog had tiny paws as a pup and grew to be huge."
I would assume that the case is, in most instances, that a puppy will usually grow to fit their paws proportionately. BUT, big or small paws is operational to the breed. So, what's big for a schnauzer is obviously not comparable to what is big for a gsd. Maybe there is a real study out there that proves or disproves paw size as an indicator of adult size??
I know that for people foot size IS an indicator of height.
Last edited by Dr89; 12-05-2010 at 03:35 PM.