# First time litter - what age is too old?



## Kaida (May 5, 2010)

Ugh, my bitch's seasons are not co-operating with our non-dog-life plans, and DH has put his foot down and said "This time, [big] human plans come first." So... how old is too old for a first litter? She's in season now, but we've not finished all her health tests so can't breed her yet. But her next season (expected in 8 months) is clashing with major human-life plans which would make having a litter... something I couldn't give my full attention to. The season after that she'll have JUST (that month) turned 3 years old. Is that too old for a first litter? My instinct says it's not, though it's not ideal, but I thought I'd solicit more expert opinions. What about the season following, where she'll be 3 years 8 months? She's a cocker spaniel, btw.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

If she's just turned 2 now, I would say that's the very earliest for a first litter, so no at 3 she would not be too old. Personally, if they hadn't had a first litter by 4 to 4 and half I would say you've missed the boat, by 5 at the very latest.

Edited to add, if her seasons are every 8 months, then she must be under 2 in which case she's too young yet this season anyway.


----------



## Kaida (May 5, 2010)

Thanks Rocco33.

According to my contract with her breeder I can't breed her after 4 anyway, at all, let alone for a first litter so I knew that would be too old. I thought 20 months old was too young for a litter too, but was assured by two decent cocker breeders that since they're a breed that mature fairly quickly, and their health tests can all be done at a year old, then any time after 18 months old was fine. But I'll wait anyway. Thank you for your advice.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Kaida said:


> Thanks Rocco33.
> 
> According to my contract with her breeder I can't breed her after 4 anyway, at all, let alone for a first litter so I knew that would be too old. I thought 20 months old was too young for a litter too, but was assured by two decent cocker breeders that since they're a breed that mature fairly quickly, and their health tests can all be done at a year old, then any time after 18 months old was fine. But I'll wait anyway. Thank you for your advice.


blimey - that's quite a tight window if you are not allowed to have a litter after she hits four 

I really wouldn't take a litter off any bitch until she is gone two - I took a litter from my chocolate girl at 2 years 3 months, she was born old - but it didn't sit right with me, I would say 3 is a better age.

You have to bear in mind that bitches don't always catch on a mating and might need to go back the following season. Is there a reason why you can't take a litter off her after she hits four?


----------



## Oenoke (Oct 17, 2009)

Skye had her 1st litter earlier this year, she was 4 years old on 13 January, mated 3 & 5 February and the pups were born on 3 April. 4 years old is the oldest I'd have a 1st litter and no younger that 2 years old.


----------



## Kaida (May 5, 2010)

swarthy said:


> blimey - that's quite a tight window if you are not allowed to have a litter after she hits four
> 
> I really wouldn't take a litter off any bitch until she is gone two - I took a litter from my chocolate girl at 2 years 3 months, she was born old - but it didn't sit right with me, I would say 3 is a better age.
> 
> You have to bear in mind that bitches don't always catch on a mating and might need to go back the following season. Is there a reason why you can't take a litter off her after she hits four?


2 mistakes made here, both mine, one a mistake in expressing myself clearly and the other in my facts. I meant "after 4" as in, I couldn't breed her when she was 5, rather than "not after her 4th birthday". As it turns out, though, I was misremembering the contract, I've got it out to have another look and it says not after she turns 6, so I have another year to fit my third litter in if I need one even without breeding her until she's 3, as long as she doesn't miss or her seasons go haywire or something.

Thanks all!


----------



## Bellasmaid (Aug 18, 2010)

My bitch is expecting her 1st litter and she's 3yr old. Bella is a gsd and before that she may have been physically mature but mentally she wasnt.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Why do you want to breed your bitch? Is she a top working or show dog? Have you done the health checks? Do you have a list of homes for the puppies? Are you prepared for the upheaval if it goes right and the heartache if it goes wrong?
I don`t see why anyone would want to bring more puppies into the world unless they are a professional breeder. 
JMO


----------



## Amy&Ted (Jul 14, 2010)

Kaida said:


> 2 mistakes made here, both mine, one a mistake in expressing myself clearly and the other in my facts. I meant "after 4" as in, I couldn't breed her when she was 5, rather than "not after her 4th birthday". As it turns out, though, I was misremembering the contract, I've got it out to have another look and it says not after she turns 6, *so I have another year to fit my third litter in if I need one even without breeding her until she's 3, *as long as she doesn't miss or her seasons go haywire or something.
> 
> Thanks all!


That's providing her first litter goes well


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

We breed Cockers and I wouldn't mate a bitch before she's 2 years old, there is no rush to breed from a bitch .


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> Why do you want to breed your bitch? Is she a top working or show dog? Have you done the health checks? Do you have a list of homes for the puppies? Are you prepared for the upheaval if it goes right and the heartache if it goes wrong?
> I don`t see why anyone would want to bring more puppies into the world unless they are a professional breeder.
> JMO


Pray what exactly is a "professional breeder?"

I can't believe how much comments like this get up my nose - to me, I would deem a professional breeder to be a PF - many breeders are hobby breeders - if there are no new responsible breeders coming through - a wealth of knowledge and experience will be lost with those breeders.

Exactly how many top dogs do you think there are in the show and working world? very few - if you want to throttle a gene pool and expand the growth of BYB and PF, then yep, your suggestion is exactly the way to go about it in numerically high and popular breeds.

Breed responsibly for temperament, health and purpose (show, working, agility, therapy dogs and of course, where the majority go - pet homes) - anyone who believes the demand for puppies will fall by the wayside in favour of rescue dogs is living in cuckoo land for all sorts of reasons.

If there are no responsible breeders - people who don't want rescue won't suddenly change their plans, they will buy in desperation, further increasing the pressure on rescue.

====================

Having said all that - OP - I wouldn't bother looking past your first litter for a fair while yet.


----------



## Kaida (May 5, 2010)

Amy&Ted said:


> That's providing her first litter goes well


I covered that with the "as long as she doesn't miss or her seasons go haywire or something." 



ClaireandDaisy said:


> Why do you want to breed your bitch?


http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/100207-cavalier-recreation-project.html



ClaireandDaisy said:


> Is she a top working or show dog?


She's a top working dog, doing what toy spaniels are intended for - lapdog and affectionate companion. She's been assessed by a full member of the UKRCB, with a result of "I wouldn't hesitate to breed her, she's a lovely dog, really lovely," and "She's got a really nice temperament."



ClaireandDaisy said:


> Have you done the health checks?


If you're going to comment, please read the OP. I stated there that I wouldn't breed her without health tests.



ClaireandDaisy said:


> Do you have a list of homes for the puppies?


Yes.



ClaireandDaisy said:


> Are you prepared for the upheaval if it goes right and the heartache if it goes wrong?


No, I'm going into this completely blind, and haven't been researching intensively for the last 3 years.



ClaireandDaisy said:


> I don`t see why anyone would want to bring more puppies into the world unless they are a professional breeder.
> JMO


I agree with Swarthy above on an assessment of "professional breeders".


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Sorry little confused here, are you breeding your cocker to a papillon? are you a member of the project shown in the link provided? surely if you are you would be fully aware of the breeding ages that the projects code of ethics indicate? if you have been "researching intensively for the last 3 years" I know I would certainly KNOW what the breeding age is in the contract from my breeder, on one of the projects pages it states you will get all the help you need if you are involved in it with regards to advice etc,so if you dont mind me asking why come on a forum like this asking how old is too old for a 1st litter? if you are involved with the project, which by your earlier response indicates you are?

*"Originally Posted by ClaireandDaisy 
Why do you want to breed your bitch?

your response.

Cavalier Recreation Project*

Mo


----------



## Guest (Sep 1, 2010)

I would much rather see two cavalier's that are less ill be bred together to create a better health in the breed than cross breeding a toy dog that has its own health problems with a working dog that also has some health problems.

Is this project kennel club approved? Otherwise there will be MORE dogs being rejected 1) for being cross's and 2) for not having papers. I dont want to seem rude but thats just the way the world works.

I am a cavalier owner, he is very healthy....more healthy than other dogs I have come across I do agree Cavaliers need help but letting them die out to replace them with cross's in my opinion isnt the way to do it.


----------



## Kaida (May 5, 2010)

moboyd said:


> Sorry little confused here, are you breeding your cocker to a papillon? are you a member of the project shown in the link provided? surely if you are you would be fully aware of the breeding ages that the projects code of ethics indicate? if you have been "researching intensively for the last 3 years" I know I would certainly KNOW what the breeding age is in the contract from my breeder, on one of the projects pages it states you will get all the help you need if you are involved in it with regards to advice etc,so if you dont mind me asking why come on a forum like this asking how old is too old for a 1st litter? if you are involved with the project, which by your earlier response indicates you are?
> 
> *"Originally Posted by ClaireandDaisy
> Why do you want to breed your bitch?
> ...


I am indeed involved with the Project, but I'm aware of course that there are 101 opinions on breeding, and my Mentor is a little busy right now with a family tragedy, so I wanted to explorie another avenue of advice. The comment about breeding her this season was a throw-away comment meant to forstall possible suggestions that I breed her this season (someone else I asked suggested this) by pointing out I hadn't health tested her fully yet (I didn't want to get into this whole argument again about the merits or not of the Project).

I have been researching intensively for 3 years, but mostly my focus has been on population genetics, coefficients of inbreeding, the comparative heritability of various traits, looking at how the Cavalier was created in the first place (the main founder was probably a cross between a King Charles Spaniel and a Papillon, and the whole process only took a couple of decades), threshold traits, talking with geneticists and other breed recreationists, etc, not staring at a contract I signed a long time ago, so I was a year out in my memory.

ShetlandLover, you'd rather breed two ill dogs together ("less ill" is still ill) than two healthy ones? You'd rather produce sick puppies than healthy ones? Really? For your other comments, I'd prefer it if you read more about the Project (either from the thread I linked to or the homepage) and population genetics as effects the Cavalier (I'd recommend Canine Diversity Homepage and Cavalier King Charles Spaniel - Health & Genetic Diseases) before I answer, as, as you can imagine, I answer a lot of the same basic questions and objections over and over.


----------



## Guest (Sep 1, 2010)

Kaida said:


> .
> ShetlandLover, you'd rather breed two ill dogs together ("less ill" is still ill) than two healthy ones? You'd rather produce sick puppies than healthy ones? Really? For your other comments, I'd prefer it if you read more about the Project (either from the thread I linked to or the homepage) and population genetics as effects the Cavalier (I'd recommend Canine Diversity Homepage and Cavalier King Charles Spaniel - Health & Genetic Diseases) before I answer, as, as you can imagine, I answer a lot of the same basic questions and objections over and over.


I do believe that if the kennel club restricted breeding ill cavaliers then this problem would solve itself. Take a cavalier with no health problems, breed it to another cavalier with no health problems.

I dont see how you can justify cross breeding to better a breed when you are not even using a cavalier in the first place, thats like saying I will breed a monkey with a rat to get a pug.....there is just no logic.

Better the breed by only breeding from health tested, good health cavaliers.

I dont see how letting a breed die out is helping better it.

I dont mean to sound rude but we already have labradoodles and all those other fancy cross's what will these be? Papacockers or papaspaniels?

I do question this as I said before are the kennel club involved in this? I dont trust any "freewebs" site telling me to breed two different breeds together. I would much rather hear that from a kennel club personal or a vet than a website anyone could have made.

I am all for improving a breed, not wiping them out. 
Its the human's mistake breeding ill dogs, we should fix it and not by chucking it away and starting a fresh.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> ShetlandLover, you'd rather breed two ill dogs together ("less ill" is still ill) than two healthy ones?


a bit 'black and white' - after all you don't really know if your own bitch is healthy until you test and you most certainly won't know what problems they might throw up in future generations - there is after all no such thing as a completely heathy living organism

What you are doing is deliberately breeding crossbreeds but selling them by pretending they are like Cavaliers - they will NOT be Cavaliers not in looks or in temperament and it is in my opinion dishonest to use the Cavalier name in this way.

Breed cross breeds if you want- and kudos to you that you intend to helath test) but for goodness sake don't try and hoodwink puppy buyers into thinking they wil be getting something they will not !


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> a bit 'black and white' - after all you don't really know if your own bitch is healthy until you test and you most certainly won't know what problems they might throw up in future generations - there is after all no such thing as a completely heathy living organism
> 
> What you are doing is deliberately breeding crossbreeds but selling them by pretending they are like Cavaliers - they will NOT be Cavaliers not in looks or in temperament and it is in my opinion dishonest to use the Cavalier name in this way.
> 
> Breed cross breeds if you want- and kudos to you that you intend to helath test) but for goodness sake don't try and hoodwink puppy buyers into thinking they wil be getting something they will not !


 somehow missed all that - mmmmm


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Bijou said:


> a bit 'black and white' - after all you don't really know if your own bitch is healthy until you test and you most certainly won't know what problems they might throw up in future generations - there is after all no such thing as a completely heathy living organism
> 
> What you are doing is deliberately breeding crossbreeds but selling them by pretending they are like Cavaliers - they will NOT be Cavaliers not in looks or in temperament and it is in my opinion dishonest to use the Cavalier name in this way.
> 
> Breed cross breeds if you want- and kudos to you that you intend to helath test) but for goodness sake don't try and hoodwink puppy buyers into thinking they wil be getting something they will not !


Rep coming your way.

I slept on this last night and have found the perfect thing to say.

Leave Cavaliers alone, yes they need help but all you and that stupid project are doing is bringing more cross's into the world and pretending they are Cavaliers, how does that help Cavaliers? It doesnt.

You want to cross breed, fine do it. But get your own damn name because at the end of the day Cavaliers are amazingly friendly, gentle and caring dogs and you will find no other breed that everyone agree's is great with children.

So make your own stupid name for this next designer cross breed, but leave Cavaliers out of it.

I notice how no one has answered my question on the kennel club, so they will be Cavaliers online on pet add sites but not in the show ring, not on paper and not in the minds of 1000's of people who own the real cavalier king charles spaniels.

Its like those Pom's that are not really Pom's but some other dog bred with Pom's to make them taller but they are still not really Pom's and you can only come across them when they have DLR papers, never kennel club.


----------



## Kaida (May 5, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I do believe that if the kennel club restricted breeding ill cavaliers then this problem would solve itself. Take a cavalier with no health problems, breed it to another cavalier with no health problems.


For whatever reason you don't want to read the links I gave you, so I'll keep my answers brief. You cannot restrict breeding ill cavaliers. By age 10 99.9% of cavalier have MVD (i.e. they very very nearly all carry the genes for it). The genes are everywhere in the gene pool. New research shows 1/3 of cavaliers have hip dysplasia. Somewhere around 50% have SM. Add into that there are around 40 diseases that Cavaliers as a breed are prone to. You wouldn't be able to find enough healthy cavaliers, even worldwide, to give you a big enough gene pool to make the breed viable, especially since the breed started with only 6 founders and has bottlenecked since. Trust me, I wouldn't be starting something so hard, expensive and so likely to make a group of people vindictive towards me (though I get plenty of support too, thankfully) if there was a simple option like importing new, healthy bloodlines!



shetlandlover said:


> I dont see how you can justify cross breeding to better a breed when you are not even using a cavalier in the first place, thats like saying I will breed a monkey with a rat to get a pug.....there is just no logic.


Well, not quite, since monkey, rat and pug [dog] are species, dog breeds are not, but I will just point out that in the 1920's and 30's they bred Charlies (a completely different breed to cavaliers, more pug-like in conformation, different temperament) with each other and probably with a Papillon to make the Cavalier. So far from being no logic to it, that's how it was done in the first place! Your own cavalier is living proof that temperamentally and conformationally, it works! Unfortunately, they didn't know what we know now about genetics and health.



shetlandlover said:


> Better the breed by only breeding from health tested, good health cavaliers.


Read what I said above about the health of the cavalier and why this won't work.



shetlandlover said:


> I dont see how letting a breed die out is helping better it.
> 
> I dont mean to sound rude but we already have labradoodles and all those other fancy cross's what will these be? Papacockers or papaspaniels?


The first cross is just the start, and not only Papillons and Cockers will be involved. Are you aware of the Victorian Bulldog, or the Irish Wolfhound, or any of the other recreation breeds? You certainly don't just do a first cross and leave it at that.



shetlandlover said:


> I do question this as I said before are the kennel club involved in this? I dont trust any "freewebs" site telling me to breed two different breeds together. I would much rather hear that from a kennel club personal or a vet than a website anyone could have made.
> 
> I am all for improving a breed, not wiping them out.
> Its the human's mistake breeding ill dogs, we should fix it and not by chucking it away and starting a fresh.


No, the Kennel CLub are not involved. I haven't asked them to be. They presided over the causing of this mess, and they value breed purity over health, so why should they have anything to do with something that takes the opposite view, and puts the welfare of the dogs over the new concept of breed purity?

As for vets, we have a vet on board, and I spoke to several others who are experts in the field of genetics and Cavalier health.

If something (a piece of technology, say) is broken so totally that it cannot be fixed, and the Kennel Club rules themselves prohibit you buying new parts for it even (which would be equivalent to bringing in new blood), then you have to start again and build them so they don't have the weaknesses of the first. Dog breeds are manmade, Cavaliers in particular were made by us in less than 30 years less than 100 years ago. We're lucky enough that we pretty much know how they did it, it's not a complete mystery like some landrace breeds. Why not restart the whole thing, properly this time, so they dogs don't suffer?



Bijou said:


> a bit 'black and white' - after all you don't really know if your own bitch is healthy until you test and you most certainly won't know what problems they might throw up in future generations - there is after all no such thing as a completely heathy living organism
> 
> What you are doing is deliberately breeding crossbreeds but selling them by pretending they are like Cavaliers - they will NOT be Cavaliers not in looks or in temperament and it is in my opinion dishonest to use the Cavalier name in this way.
> 
> Breed cross breeds if you want- and kudos to you that you intend to helath test) but for goodness sake don't try and hoodwink puppy buyers into thinking they wil be getting something they will not !


Yvonne, I understand that for whatever reason ShetlandLover doesn't want to read and understand either the Project or population genetics, but you _know_ that I won't be just breeding first generation crosses, you've had the Project and why it should work explained to you several times, and I have already explained to you several times (as have several other people) how we will get the temperament and looks we're after - the same way anyone gets anything they want out of breeding - they select for it! And we've explained to you that there's one heck of a difference between the health of the cavalier breed and any probelms likely to come up in a new breed made up of healthy, health-tested dogs (please, LOOK at the website I linked to, read the SM studied, listen to the Cavalier Club who say breeders must KEEP breeding from affected dogs because otherwise the gene pool will be too small, you can't breed away from these problems like you would in a normal breed).

I can only assume that you got fed up of having multiple people defend me and the Project elsewhere, and explain to you what your misconceptions are, and decided to attack me here where there are no supporters to correct you?

As for "hoodwinking" puppybuyers, trust me, everyone will know exactly what they're getting. The title "Cavalier Recreation Project" is a short-hand way to tell people what we're doing - trying to recreate the original toy spaniels, like the Cavalier was intended to. It gives an idea of the temperament, exercise needs, grooming needs, and look we're aiming for. The eventual breed, when it is mostly achieved, will obviously be called something else - Beverly Cuddy of Dogs Today suggested Queen Elizabeth Spaniel, which I think is lovely. And it will be more like the original toy spaniels in looks, I think; a bit less restricted. After all there was no reason to restrict the Cavalier breed to it's four colours if the aim was as stated at the time - to reproduce the original toy spaniel, which came in pretty much all colours, especially solid black (with no tan points).


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

There are many reasons I think this Project is silly.

I have read another thread on here and I agree with what I read on there, it seems like another cross breed that the industry doesnt need. 

As I said before you cant justify crossing any dogs with "trying to improve" the breed by letting the REAL cavaliers die out, well I know for a fact that cavalier breeders and showers will not let that happen.

The kennel club are not on side. I cant see how you would get anyone do breed their dog for you, with a website...no official anything. Have you any qualifications in the genetics of dogs? Are you a vet? 

I have already had a look round the site and to be honest it comes across like your saying "Cross breed your dog for me" thats it....

Cavaliers are in need of help, however I dont see why you cant breed into the Cavalier line rather than create more UNWANTED cross breeds. 

Pups from health tested parents dont always turn out to be healthy so what will you do with the unhealthy ones? Keep them in your backroom out of sight? Or put them to sleep? 

I honestly cant see this project getting much support or getting very far. 

Will your project pay for the vet costs when a bitch needs a c-section? 
Will your project be able to support a family that lost their bitch through birthing?

Now if you were to cross a cocker with a cavalier or a cocker cross pap with a cavalier then fair enough.

I can only guess why you would want to bring more cross's into the world and cover it using the Cavalier name but I would love to see your suggestion on how to fix pugs and bull dogs. 
:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Amy&Ted (Jul 14, 2010)

So let me get this straight... this project takes 2 dogs that aren't Cavaliers... and breeds them, then passes them off as Cavaliers?  

Ok excuse my confusion but isn't that like crossing Ozzy Osborne and Beth Ditto and coming up with Brad Pitt? It's just not right.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Kaida said:


> F) As for "hoodwinking" puppybuyers, trust me, everyone will know exactly what they're getting. The title "Cavalier Recreation Project" is a short-hand way to tell people what we're doing - trying to recreate the original toy spaniels, like the Cavalier was intended to..


So what will you be calling them? Because surely there will be law suits over the term cavalier....so will you be telling them they are getting a cocker cross?


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Amy&Ted said:


> So let me get this straight... this project takes 2 dogs that aren't Cavaliers... and breeds them, then passes them off as Cavaliers?
> 
> Ok excuse my confusion but isn't that like crossing Ozzy Osborne and Beth Ditto and coming up with Brad Pitt? It's just not right.


My point exactly. 
Its just a cross breed they plan to tag to the cavalier name.


----------



## Amy&Ted (Jul 14, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> My point exactly.
> Its just a cross breed they plan to tag to the cavalier name.


Think i might start one.

The Walt Disney recreation project... this is all very la la land after all.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Amy&Ted said:


> Think i might start one.
> 
> The Walt Disney recreation project... this is all very la la land after all.


:lol:

I may now cross a sheltie with a cavalier and call it the spaniel sheepdog project.

I have never seen such silly logic in my entire life. Oh well, I always knew people had different ways of thinking just never thought crossing two breeds to replace another breed which has qualities that neither of the two other breeds do is a logic I will never understand.

Want to cross a cat with a parrot and see what happens? We can call them parrocat.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> :lol:Want to cross a cat with a parrot and see what happens? We can call them parrocat.


Or maybe a crap? 

I've read the links, and to be fair I'm really not up with breeding of dogs as I have no intentions of ever doing it. I don't know enough about it and there are plenty of dogs out there that need homes without me adding to it, but to breed 2 different types of dogs, then try to pass them off as another is a bit, well, f****ng stupid if you ask me. (pardon my french!)

Perhaps I should go around telling everyone that Rupert is, actually, a Cairn Terrier...


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> Or maybe a crap?
> 
> I've read the links, and to be fair I'm really not up with breeding of dogs as I have no intentions of ever doing it. I don't know enough about it and there are plenty of dogs out there that need homes without me adding to it, but to breed 2 different types of dogs, then try to pass them off as another is a bit, well, f****ng stupid if you ask me. (pardon my french!)
> 
> Perhaps I should go around telling everyone that Rupert is, actually, a Cairn Terrier...


I agree completely. 
I am so disgusted by this seriously. Its a cross breed damn it. That really annoys me because no matter how much you call it a cavalier its always going to be a cross of two different breeds.

Its like those that call their cavadoodle or whatever a full breed, its not...its a cross of two breeds. I love cross's however dont doll them up!

There are already enough cross's in rescues all over the UK and infact the world. Any rescue worker will tell you that they dont need more adding to it.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I love cross's however dont doll them up!
> 
> There are already enough cross's in rescues all over the UK and infact the world. Any rescue worker will tell you that they dont need more adding to it.


Exactly. I think my nan has only ever had one full pedigree breed, and even he was unwanted by his owners.

The rest have been mutts, a fair few staffy crosses, GSD mixed with something (god knows what, he was huuuuge!), a common heinz 57 and a heeler crossed with a corgi...

Someone near us is selling lancs heelers x JRTs. They look awesome...can't get one just yet though, got enough with Rupert!


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> Exactly. I think my nan has only ever had one full pedigree breed, and even he was unwanted by his owners.
> 
> The rest have been mutts, a fair few staffy crosses, GSD mixed with something (god knows what, he was huuuuge!), a common heinz 57 and a heeler crossed with a corgi...
> 
> Someone near us is selling lancs heelers x JRTs. They look awesome...can't get one just yet though, got enough with Rupert!


Alot of breeders of cross's dont health test so be careful you dont want a pup that could end up sick later in life. The problem with cross's is that they are at risk of getting both breeds problems not just the one.

Oh no we took over another thread.:arf:


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Alot of breeders of cross's dont health test so be careful you dont want a pup that could end up sick later in life. The problem with cross's is that they are at risk of getting both breeds problems not just the one.
> 
> Oh no we took over another thread.:arf:


Yeah, I know. Like I said, I'm not bothered about getting one yet anyway, they just look soooooo cute on the poster in Booths!!

I was a bad person, Roo's parents were not health checked...well, hadn't been in the past few years...they had been initially but nothing recent. To be frank I didn't realise the importance of it at the time, as I was under the illusion that crosses were healthier!

You live and learn, this website has certainly taught me a lot!


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> Yeah, I know. Like I said, I'm not bothered about getting one yet anyway, they just look soooooo cute on the poster in Booths!!
> 
> I was a bad person, Roo's parents were not health checked...well, hadn't been in the past few years...they had been initially but nothing recent. To be frank I didn't realise the importance of it at the time, as I was under the illusion that crosses were healthier!
> 
> You live and learn, this website has certainly taught me a lot!


Yeah, 
It doesnt make you a bad person. 
I thought the same a few years back.

Back to the subject though, the idea of crossing two breeds to create a breed that already exists is daft. :arf:


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Came across these thought people would like to see them.

This is acceptable... then just breed that to a papillon. 
Cockalier, Cockaliers, Cavalier Cocker Hybrid

Also, I cant find proof anywhere that Cavaliers are infact Cocker spaniels cross Papillons. Could you please source this information?

Cava-lon, Cavalier Papillon Hybrid, Cava-lons

If not I can ask the cavalier club, they should know.


----------



## Kaida (May 5, 2010)

swarthy said:


> somehow missed all that - mmmmm


You didn't miss that at all, Swarthy. I will say this just once, because it shouldn't even need saying at all, since I've never once even implied I would:

I will NOT pass them off as Cavaliers, I will NOT call them Cavaliers, and I will not simply cross one breed with another and then say, "That's it, we're done!"

This is the start of a decades long project, like all new breeds have always been. Yes, Cockers and Papillons are a good place to start, since they have attributes that will contribute, but it would be madness to just cross one to t'other and say, "That's a Cavalier!" There will be many many many years of development, other breeds probably added, and individuals bred to one another to move on in generations.

ShetlandLover, you are being rude and hurtful with little understanding of the problem that exists, or exactly what we are trying to do to solve it. I have no problem with genuine questions from people who are willing to read a little about the problem, and willing to ask me, politely, what I'm doing and why, but you are making up things that you're claiming I'm going to do (though Bijou had a hand in that too, I accept) with no hint of that from me. Most of your accusations have been dealt with already on the previous thread, or on my website, or I'm happy to answer if they're put to me politely, but please desist from any futher baseless nastiness.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Kaida said:


> Yes, Cockers and Papillons are a good place to start, since they have attributes that will contribute, but it would be madness to just cross one to t'other and say, "That's a Cavalier!" There will be many many many years of development, other breeds probably added, and individuals bred to one another to move on in generations.


But that is, in essence, what you are going to do?! Breed 2 different dogs and then claim they are another breed of dog, which already exists?! The fact you won't do that for another 10 years makes no difference, surely?

Or is the idea to breed 2 different dogs and come up with a new, completely different breed then, that is not a cavalier?

I seriously don't get it? Why not concentrate on breeding 2 healthy cavs?


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Kaida said:


> You didn't miss that at all, Swarthy. I will say this just once, because it shouldn't even need saying at all, since I've never once even implied I would:
> 
> I will NOT pass them off as Cavaliers, I will NOT call them Cavaliers, and I will not simply cross one breed with another and then say, "That's it, we're done!"
> 
> ...


If you think I am nasty then you have not been on this forum long enough.
If they are not to replace cavaliers then why are you naming them as such on your website.

As I have already asked can I please see the source for the information you or one of you gave for Cavaliers actually being a mix of cocker and papillon, because I cant find this information anywhere.

I have said 3 times now I understand Cavaliers need help but as I keep saying cross breeding two other breeds have nothing to do with it.

I would also like to know why you cant cross Cavaliers to Cockers and then cross that with Pap's? 
I see cocker cross cavaliers are beautiful and still keep a cavalier image too.

I fail to see the point in more un-necessary crosses.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> I seriously don't get it? Why not concentrate on breeding 2 healthy cavs?


As she keeps saying there are no healthy Cavaliers.
However I fail to see why she cant cross cavaliers with cockers until the health problems are gone then breed them with Paps...that way they are still Cavaliers of some sort.

But if they are not going to be called Cavaliers what will they be called seen as this project is called the cavalier Recreation Project


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

Hi
Is the intention towards the end of the project to bring the new breed back to the cavalier mate a pup cavalier to one of the new breed pups and hopefully in time rid the cavaliers of the brain condition


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

I can not believe what im reading here
I think the way forward is to make all breeders health test and do lots of research on the lines...not to cross the breeds.
I will carry on breeding my HEALTHY cavs


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

cav said:


> I can not believe what im reading here
> I think the way forward is to make all breeders health test and do lots of research on the lines...not to cross the breeds.
> I will carry on breeding my HEALTHY cavs


Rep coming your way. :thumbup:


----------



## Kaida (May 5, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> Or is the idea to breed 2 different dogs and come up with a new, completely different breed then, that is not a cavalier?


The idea is to breed several (the scope of the project in the future would determine the number) different dogs, of a variety of breeds (whichever are healthy, of an appropriate temperament, and have characteristics we want), until we get a consistent breed, which would be very similar to Cavaliers, but not, of course, called Cavaliers. They would most likely be called, as Beverly Cuddy of Dogs Today suggested, Queen Elizabeth Spaniels.



shetlandlover said:


> If you think I am nasty then you have not been on this forum long enough.
> If they are not to replace cavaliers then why are you naming them as such on your website.
> 
> As I have already asked can I please see the source for the information you or one of you gave for Cavaliers actually being a mix of cocker and papillon, because I cant find this information anywhere.
> ...


I have not named them as such. I have merely used the name to explain what we're aiming for. I have at no time said, nor would I ever say, that the new breed will be Cavaliers.

I have explored the option of adding in some Cavalier blood, and may yet do so, but there is of course then the risk of bringing in the exact genes that caused all these problems in the first place. I would certainly consider using an elderly, healthy, MRI-scanned chiari-malformation free, heart-tested clear, eye-, hip- and knee-tested Cavalier stud. Considering the genetics that make up the various parts of the Cavalier "look", however (e.g. big eyes, short-ish muzzle, spaniel ears set fairly high), it is perfectly possible to get that from various other breeds with no Cavalier input. As I said before, it has been done before, therefore it is definitely possible. There were no "Toy spaniels of the old type" when Cavaliers were created to be a recreation of such, they were created from the dome-headed, pug-faced, cobby, shy Charlies, possibly with some Papillon input (and some even claim Welsh Springer and Cocker input too). A summary of the Cavalier history (with the claim I mentioned in the previous sentence) can be found here. It's not my original source, that I'll have to dig further to find. It was an old book on the history of the toy spaniels, but since I've read several, and half of them were downloaded to my old PC, I'll have to go hunting.



shetlandlover said:


> As she keeps saying there are no healthy Cavaliers.
> However I fail to see why she cant cross cavaliers with cockers until the health problems are gone then breed them with Paps...that way they are still Cavaliers of some sort.


Health problems do not just "go". MVD, for example, is thought to be a polygenetic threshold trait, similar to hip dysplasia, so a dog can be free of the disease (because it carries fewer deleterious alleles than the threshold number) but can, when mated to another similar dog, produce pups with the problem (because if the pup inherits them from both sides, their deleterious alleles together go over the threshold in the pup). I've not explained that very well, but this page gives a better explanation with an example: Under the Spyglass : Genetics In-Depth.

As I said above, and further up the thread, it is perfectly possible to get the "look" and temperament of a cavalier without any cavaliers involved - it's been done before, your cavalier is living proof.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

There is no guarantee you will breed dogs that have the same temperament as a Cavalier though.

Its taken 100's of years of breeding Cavaliers to get them to the temperament they have. 

You also need to take into account, you have not stated in the ethics of your site that the parents have to be mentally/temperamentally sound.

Cockers have a name for nipping and Papillons have a name for being loud, neither of which are what the Cavalier has. Both Papillon and Cockers are both active dogs, Cavaliers are not. These are all going to be things you need to sort out.

A cocker cross Papillon would be even more so hyper because both breeds have hyper tendency's. 

Who will carry on the project once you pass on? After all it will take 100's of years to get them to the standard of which they would be Cavalier like in temperament and mind.


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

So what is the Ultimate aim, if its not to bring the breed back to the cavalier in a healthier form Im being a bit lazy here i will go back and read all the info on your project, im just dipping in here and so i cant realy hold any real meaningful conversation but it does sound lets say complicated


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> As she keeps saying there are no healthy Cavaliers.


:confused1:

Jaysus, my brain is mashed.

I don't get it anymore.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> :confused1:
> 
> Jaysus, my brain is mashed.
> 
> I don't get it anymore.


Will explain next weekend, seen as holly and grace will be around too so two Cavaliers.

The jist is that a high number of Cavaliers get sick at some point, weather it be young or really old. However look at Scorcher shes sick and shes old, shes not a cavalier.


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

Gosh very interesting I will go back and read somemore

But if im picking up from what iv read right about the project, you are taking the dogs originaly crossed with each other to create what we now know as the cavalier but through the new project you will ensure all health problems of the cav at present are not a factor, i hadnt realised how badly affected the Breed was with health complaints, i would not have imagined it would be such high proportions of dogs affected like this

Im going to stick my neck out here and say my initial response to what iv read is that its a very noble and dedicated thing to do, it doesnt seem like your wanting the breed to die out, more like bring it back to its roots and start again at the point before some breeders obviously didnt breed quite ethicaly enough or that breeders way back just didnt know of the very sad health problems 

Its obviously not just a gimick to create more crosses, I think your very brave and may be slightly mad LOL but definitely you care about the breed to go this far to bring it back to its core roots. Id like to see how this takes off and how things progress, youv clearly got the health and best interest in the dogs, it doesnt seem to be for any profit. Good on you thats what i say. The cavalier would in the end become a more sickly breed by the sounds of it if nothing was done and youd find that people would opt for different breeds to have as pets rather than opt for a cavalier, so in effect the breed would in the end die out, to re create what it was at the begining of its breed life must be something to support or indeed at least consider to be of real benefit, if done ethically :thumbup:


----------



## Kaida (May 5, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> There is no guarantee you will breed dogs that have the same temperament as a Cavalier though.
> 
> Its taken 100's of years of breeding Cavaliers to get them to the temperament they have.


No it hasn't. It took less than 30. From Roswell Eldridge coming over and saying, basically, "Gee, I prefer the look of the old toy spaniels I've seen in paintings to the squashed-faced ones you have now. I'll offer a cash prize to any breeder who can breed me a dog like this painting" in 1926, to the prize being won by this dog







was only 2 years, and the breed club was formed in that year (1928). In 1946 the breed was awarded champion status, and this dog became the first Cavalier champion:









That's less than 20 years later, they're pretty darn close to modern Cavaliers, looks-wise, and the breeders and show-ers at the time certainly considered them typey enough to call them a new breed. From nearly the beginning their temperament was considered the special thing about them. Even if you discount that, then we know for certain (people I know who kept the breed then) that in the 1960's they had the modern temperament, and that was only 40 years since the breed's beginning.



shetlandlover said:


> You also need to take into account, you have not stated in the ethics of your site that the parents have to be mentally/temperamentally sound.
> 
> Cockers have a name for nipping and Papillons have a name for being loud, neither of which are what the Cavalier has. Both Papillon and Cockers are both active dogs, Cavaliers are not. These are all going to be things you need to sort out.


I've stated all over my website and everywhere I talk about it that health comes first, followed by temperament, followed by looks. I've had my own bitch assessed by an expert. That should tell people that no dog that that isn't temperamentally sound gets in. I've also not said that I won't beat my breeding dogs, or half starve them, but people would understand that from what else I've said on the website.

Yes cockers have a name for being mouthy, and _some_ papillons are yappy, but these are breed traits, not 100% of individuals have them. They're also not too hard to breed away from. Ditto activity levels - my cocker is the most laid back I've ever met. She's perfectly happy with a 20 minute off-lead walk. I do give her more than that each day, but she doesn't NEED it. Equally, I've met some cavaliers that would be bouncing off the walls with that little!



shetlandlover said:


> A cocker cross Papillon would be even more so hyper because both breeds have hyper tendency's.


It doesn't work like that. Just because a dog's parents are different breeds, that doesn't mean any trait shared by both parents is increased exponentially in that dog. It doesn't work that way in purebreds, so why would it in crosses? Besides, you get what you select for. Yes, the first couple of generations will be more active, on average, than a typical cavalier. But by selecting for the most cavalier-like in temperament, we'll get there. That's what they did, presumably, to get from the shy, sensitive, one-person-dog temperament of the Charlie to the the-world-is-my-oyster, never-met-a-stranger, everybody-loves-me temperament of the cavalier, because the only other place they could have got it from is the Papillon, Welsh Springer or Cocker, if claims about them being introduced to bring back the long nose etc are true, and you've just claimed they couldn't get the Cavalier temperament from those dogs until about, since they started in the 1920's and 30's... 2230?


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> The jist is that a high number of Cavaliers get sick at some point, weather it be young or really old. However look at Scorcher shes sick and shes old, shes not a cavalier.


But couldn't that be said of loads of dogs though, like Westies are known to be prone to bad skin/liver conditions in some cases?

(I'm so glad I have no intentions of ever breeding dogs...ever!)


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

mitch4 said:


> Gosh very interesting I will go back and read somemore
> 
> But if im picking up from what iv read right about the project, you are taking the dogs originaly crossed with each other to create what we now know as the cavalier.


No proof that these breeds were used, even the Cavalier club do not know what was used to create the Cavalier. Or the king charles spaniel.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> But couldn't that be said of loads of dogs though, like Westies are known to be prone to bad skin/liver conditions in some cases?
> 
> (I'm so glad I have no intentions of ever breeding dogs...ever!)


All dog breeds are prone to health conditions even with health tested parents there is no 100% guarantee. 
This is my point:
1) crosses are then opened up to problems that both breeds get. 
2) there will be health problems with this breed too, after all this breed is going to be no different to every other breed it will develop its own problems and more than likely end up like the Cavaliers are already.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> No proof that these breeds were used, even the Cavalier club do not know what was used to create the Cavalier. Or the king charles spaniel.


I thought Cavs were Cav King Charles Spaniels?

YOU'RE CONFUSING ME, GUY!!!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> I thought Cavs were Cav King Charles Spaniels?
> 
> YOU'RE CONFUSING ME, GUY!!!!


There is two breeds.
Cavalier king charles spaniel.









And the King charles spaniel.









The king charles has a flatter face than the Cavalier.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Ahhhh, kay...

The king charles looks like it has a pug face. 

I don't like it...

(What's Charlie again??!)


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> Ahhhh, kay...
> 
> The king charles looks like it has a pug face.
> 
> ...


Cavalier. 
Look at his pretty face in my sig...

And hey...pugs are cute.:thumbup:


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Cavalier.
> Look at his pretty face in my sig...
> 
> And hey...pugs are cute.:thumbup:


Yeah, especially cute when attached to my Pug Boots.

Charlie is pretty, I'll allow him to sniff me...if he looked like a pug...ohhh no, Rupert would have mega issues!


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> Yeah, especially cute when attached to my Pug Boots.
> 
> Charlie is pretty, I'll allow him to sniff me...if he looked like a pug...ohhh no, Rupert would have mega issues!


Heres a better example using pictures I took.
Cavalier king charles.

















King charles spaniel.









I took them, thats the only King charles one I got because the show finished when I got to their ring.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Quick updated. The cocker spaniel breed club has just contacted me regarding this as I was interested to get their take on it.

I let her view the website and let her make her own opinion on it anyway she put:

"I have never heard of this 'project. nor have the club, we do have in our constitution the rule that No Member should purposely breed cockers with any other breed. for deliberate gain.

I have to say Lucy who ever she is has no idea about genetics as you can only get Caveliers through breeding with them. Perhaps she would be better by getting a fit and healthy cavelier to start with.

I used to breed Cavs they are sweet little dogs. but like cocker before them they were commercially bred with no thought of health etc. it will be like the cocker and take a long time to put right all the harm that has been done.to the breeds. Designer dogs wont solve the problems.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Regards
Penny"


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Deffo prefer the cavs!


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> Deffo prefer the cavs!


Yeah. Me too but they are both nice dogs.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Bijou said:


> they will NOT be Cavaliers not in looks or in temperament


Crystal ball, Bijou?



shetlandlover said:


> Now if you were to cross a cocker with a cavalier or a cocker cross pap with a cavalier then fair enough.


I don't see why you regard outcrossing as more acceptable than recreation. Personally I think outcrossing would be a boon to many or most breeds but most of the objections you have raised about the Project would also apply to outcrosses. Perhaps you would clarify.



shetlandlover said:


> Back to the subject though, the idea of crossing two breeds to create a breed that already exists is daft. :arf:


Is it still daft if the breed in question is broken?



cav said:


> I will carry on breeding my HEALTHY cavs


Are your cavs free of MVD?

Quoting Penny from a Cocker spaniel breed club shetlandlover wrote...


shetlandlover said:


> "I have to say Lucy who ever she is has no idea about genetics as you can only get Caveliers through breeding with them. Perhaps she would be better by getting a fit and healthy cavelier to start with."


I would be interested to learn how Penny thought Cavs came to be in the first place. Where she thinks healthy, fit ones are to be found would be interesting, too.

There is a great deal of ill-considered breeding in both purebreed and crosses. We have an over-population crisis and we have another crisis in the genetic health of our dogs which has been swept under the carpet for far too long. No breeding should happen at all unless the breeder undertakes every reasonable measure to ensure their pups will have a healthy, secure future. All breeding stock should test satisfactorily for all available health tests, homes should be lined up before matings and the breeder should undertake to accept back any dog at any time should need arise.

These are the important issues, imo, and they are ones that the Cavalier Recreation Project appears to satisfy and, indeed, in these regards the Project's standards are considerably higher than the Kennel Club's.

A 'breed' is a name. Nomenclature by which we organise dogs into groupings according to their physical characteristics or lineage. I could not condone the continued breeding of dogs, dogs condemned to suffering, illness and foreshortened lives, simply to preserve a name. It just doesn't make sense to me. If breeders wish to continue to restrict themselves to a limited, diseased gene pool that is their affair but, if projects such as this are successful, they will find themselves isolated from the market.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

As all dogs are mongrels at heart, coming from cross breed stock originally, I am sure if it was possible to research and label the different DNA of any breed you may be very surprised at what breeds you would find in the mix.

This project sounds very commendable in light of the health problems Cavaliers are having and if the statistics are correct as to the incidence of genetic disease that is in the breed.

Some diseases are just too common in breeds, some diseases are difficult to manage as they are late onset, or variable in expression, so it is not until pups are born or suffering that the extent of the disease is appreciated in the parents and by that time it is too late to prevent.
I do believe that some breeds are past the threshold of using existing animals to improve the health of the breed, 
Cavaliers are probably one of those breeds.

Temperament as has been found in the famous fox experiment is all about selecting good temperaments and culling poor temperaments so is really quite easy compared to the selection processes and work necessary to produce consistently healthy dogs, with a consistent look similar to the Cavalier. With work, then a healthier Cavalier lookalike and actalike could be formed and that would be fantastic if it could be achieved.

This is a quite different scenario to the usual crossbreeder pleas of "because I breed my lab to a poodle it is automatically healthier", or "I have a pet lab and my mate has a pet poodle and now we have labradoodles which we will want a huge sum for". (I could just as easily have used Chis and Pugs or Akitas and Malamutes it is just an example, no irate Labradoodle people please.)
The basically first cross breeding by all and sundry, for essentially money is not what is being proposed here, so this is a completely different thing.



Johnderondon said:


> A 'breed' is a name. Nomenclature by which we organise dogs into groupings according to their physical characteristics or lineage. I could not condone the continued breeding of dogs, dogs condemned to suffering, illness and foreshortened lives, simply to preserve a name. It just doesn't make sense to me.


I agree.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Lucy the reason I belive your project to be misnamed is that with your proposed COI limit of 0.6% you will have to out cross to such an extent that you will never achieve predictable Cavalier type .

Unless the Cavlier Recreation Project follows the same breeding protocols as the original it seems impossible to say that you will achieve dogs that consistently have Cavalier characteristics....and so cannot in all honesty be called a recreation of the breed .

That the Cavalier in it's present from was created by cross breeding is true but the following generations were very tightly line bred to ensure that cavalier type characteristics were reliably passed on and stud books subsequently closed to retain type - this is how all modern breeds were created look here at how the Irish Wolfhound was resurrected



> Of the hounds bred by Graham throughout his career, an examination of the pedigrees shows the
> constancy with which he adhered to the principle expressed in his brochure - that it had always been
> his "steadfast endeavour to get crosses from such dogs of acknowledged Irish Wolfhound blood as
> were to be found, in preference to simply crossing opposite breeds to effect the desired object". Except
> ...


early Cavaliers with the desired characteristics such as Daywell Roger were used very extensively and his progeny bred back into the line - Eurasiers, Silken Wind Hounds, Klee Klai and even working' breeds such as Patterdale terriers were similarly line bred extensively at the start of their development and their registry then closed to protect 'type'

You will be starting with one bitch - at most you will have 8-10 pups - probably less - you will presumably select for all the qualities you - this first generation will need to be cross bred again as there will be no other recreated Cavaliers for them to mate to and the second generation will be mated to what ? - their own half siblings ? their grandad ? if you DONT line breed but cross breed again then all you will have achieved is three generations of cross breeds with a widely varying range of type and temperaments and certainly not a recreated Cavalier !....

here's an extract on how the Cesky Terrier was created - note the very close line breeding involved !



> In 1950, I repeated my experiment. Just as in the first litter, I crossed a Scottish Terrier bitch (Scotch Rose) with the Sealyham Terrier dog, Buganier Urquelle.
> 
> 
> 
> > This time there were six puppies in the litter, but only one (Balda Lovu zdar, #2) had the dropped ears that I wanted. Again, he was brindle, like his dam. Balda became the Foundation sire of the breed. First I mated his litter sister, Baba Lovu zdar, to Adam (her half-brother), but none of the puppies were suitable for breeding; then I mated her to Balda (brother x sister) but likewise, these puppies were not what I wanted. Then I put Balda to his dam, Scotch Rose. This was successful, because this time there were two puppies with well-dropped ears - a dog, Dareba Lovu zdar, and a bitch, Diana Lovu zdar. I gave Dareba (who was brindle) to a hunter, but he died shortly after, so was never used for breeding.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Bijou said:


> You will be starting with one bitch - at most you will have 8-10 pups - probably less - you will presumably select for all the qualities you - this first generation will need to be cross bred again as there will be no other recreated Cavaliers for them to mate to and the second generation will be mated to what ? - their own half siblings ? their grandad ? if you DONT line breed but cross breed again then all you will have achieved is three generations of cross breeds with a widely varying range of type and temperaments and certainly not a recreated Cavalier !....


I would presume if this is a serious attempt at recreating a healthy breed then there would have to be a lot of different lines and a lot of dogs created to make sure that inbreeding was not a feature.

The breeding of lookalike dogs together who are unrelated is as good as inbreeding to lock in traits and type, so I would assume that the old ways of inbreeding, inbreeding again and yet again would not be tolerated in a breed that was trying to minimise health problems.

The use of foundation typey dogs again and again and the closing of registries is the source of many breed issues as those founding dogs had their own problems and those surfaced as the breeds became more and more inbred down the generations.


----------



## casandra (Aug 1, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Its like those Pom's that are not really Pom's but some other dog bred with Pom's to make them taller but they are still not really Pom's and you can only come across them when they have DLR papers, never kennel club.


Just to clarify, this is kinda wrong. You have the Pomeranian.

Then you have both the German Spitz Mittel

AND the German Spitz Klein

Three separate breeds all recognized by the Kennel Club. I am fairly sure that my dog, Wookie, is a German Spitz Mittel that has been possibly crossed with a Pomeranian after having recently been thrust into the company of several of these lovely dogs.

As for the Cavalier Recreation Project. I laugh at it. The Ethics page on that website is so...crap. Just utterly WRONG. The Cocker Spaniel is one breed that is prone to Dilated Cardiomyopathy. This is all they want you to test your Cocker Spaniels for:



> Familial nephropathy (DNA test costing around £60), prcd-PRA (DNA test costing around £130) and hip displasia (around £35)


So one of the Cavalier's biggest health issues is their heart disease...but there's nothing about checking your Cocker Spaniel every 12 months for DCM? BOOOOO HISSS BOOOO. So far with DCM it seems all that's needed for the disease to present itself is a dog be a carrier of the gene.

They also expect people to pay to own these mutts? How much are you going to get to charge for a puppy? £500++? For a cross breed that's not fully tried and tested? 

This all screams of "yucky" practices to me. There are breeders out there working to better the CKC breed, they are rare, but beautiful people full of passion for a breed that is full of potential and hope.

Cavalier King Charles Spaniel - Health & Genetic Diseases


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2010)

casandra said:


> Just to clarify, this is kinda wrong. You have the Pomeranian.
> 
> Then you have both the German Spitz Mittel
> 
> ...


I am not stupid, I know the difference between a pom and a spitz.

There are fake pom's you can buy. Like this Pomeranian Puppy For Sale in Tilbury, Essex ( Dogs For Sale )

That never go fluffy and are bigger than poms.

I used to have one...


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> The breeding of lookalike dogs together who are unrelated is as good as inbreeding to lock in traits and type, so I would assume that the old ways of inbreeding, inbreeding again and yet again would not be tolerated in a breed that was trying to minimise health


But Lauren thats my point - Lucy will have NO unrelated dogs to mate her third generation to - they will all have been descended from her original bitch ( I don't believe there are any other foundation lines apart from her own Cocker Spaniel bitch)- Assortative breeding works in breeds like Border Collies where they are many different variations on a theme but does not work for most breeds - tell me ...what looks sufficiently like a Cavalier that could logically be used ? -if it existed would she not already be using it ?

No matter how you cut it - a first generation Papillon Cocker cross will not be a Cavalier and I'm at a loss to know what else she will achieve apart from a series of cross breeds UNLESS she line breeds .


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2010)

I am sorry for my previous post my day has been terrible. 

Back to the subject at hand. 

*Lucy* I believe you are in your early 20's. (I have read on a Cavalier forum that she is only 23) What makes you believe you know more than health official's and people who have studied genetics their whole life. What makes you believe this "project" is really going to make it? I have found subjects on this from as early as 2008 so in 2 years what linage have you achieved? 

I understand projects like this take time however three things let this down drasticly. 

1) Lack of support from club's such as the Cavalier club, kennel club or even Cocker spaniel club (Which may I add is extreamly upset that you are using a cocker in the way that you are). With out these club's backing I highly doubt you will even make a slight impact on Cavaliers if any at all.

2) The lack of official website, one forum I went to actually stated that no one would take you seriously with a "free webs" website for such a project.

3) The Cavalier club and the kennel club are working very closely to try and find out were the health problems came from, it could be from all the line breeding. What makes you think your breed will not encounter into the same problems? Like I keep saying, even pups from health tested parents can be ill, what will be done with these pups? 

I believe being loyal to a breed is important, for a cavalier owner I feel you really are being selfish. I notice these two breeds are what you own, is it that you just wanted to breed from your bitch and this is your way of justifying cross breeding? There are already as much being done for the breed as possible. 

I am going to attend a health seminar in October held by the Cavalier club and the BVA and Kennel club officials talking about whats next for the Cavalier and how health tests can help. After making the club and the kennel club aware of your project it would be interesting to see when this is brought up what the kennel club genetic researchers make of this and what substance this has to it.

I have said all I need to say to make my point clear. No doubt this subject will be something I come across next week as a friend with a Cavalier is coming over for a Cavalier play date. 

*lucy* if you are as into this as you say, I will be seeing you at the seminar.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I have just ploughed my way through all this and am amazed by it. 

One young woman decides to cross breed her pet dog - who has not yet even been health tested - and she thinks she can replace one of the most popular breeds in the country by calling her mongrels a recreation of the established breed.
And yet she has apparently no breeding experience whatsoever, has not liaised with any of the relevant breed clubs and has invented the whole daft idea.

And people on here are taking her seriously!


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

And not just here, Blitz!

You'll find the Project commended by, among others, Carol Fowler. 

(Would she qualify as experienced in the breed?)


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

Pffff... what a load of old twoddle!!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2010)

I am glad I am not the only one who thinks this is stupid. :thumbup:


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

I'm still hoping, shetlandlover, that you'll explain why outcrossing is acceptable but recreation isn't.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

John - unless Lucy is able to explain how she will get passed the lack of avaliable gene pool, I think it completely wrong to use an established breed's name to imply that puppy buyers that they are getting something they are not - don't you ?


Think about her plans logically what will she use to mate her resulting pups with in order to increase their desired Cavallier like characteristics ? another Cocker or Papillon - if she does then the pups wil lbe even FURTHER from her intended goal being 3/4 Cocker or Pap rarther than half 

in answer to your meassge to Shetland Lover, she will neither be outcrossing OR recreating but cross breeding with each generation - fine if she's up front about it but not if she's pretending to be producing recreated Cavaliers !!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> I'm still hoping, shetlandlover, that you'll explain why outcrossing is acceptable but recreation isn't.


How can you even think it is recreation.

Why not forget about it and if cavs have to be mentioned just say that as they have a lot of health problems she is trying to create a breed that can take their place in the pet market. But as there are loads and loads of little crossbreeds around I dont really see the point of it. If she thinks a cocapap or whatever will take off then join the other designer producers and breed them but dont pretend they will magically become another breed!


----------



## Kaida (May 5, 2010)

It seems there has been a lot of confusion and misinformation on this thread, and in fact in some other places too, so I have made a new page on my website to address your concerns.

Please see What We Are Not - The Cavalier Recreation Project aims to re-start the cavalier breed with a healthier, broader gene pool to stop the suffering..

I think I have answered all of the concerns raised, and I'll add any more I come across in time.

Bijou, just FYI, the COI I'm working to is equal to or below 6.25%, not 0.6%, and is equivalent to mating cousins together. It's the COI below which an individual lives a normal lifespan, and above which lifespan starts to be reduced. That's on the website too.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Bijou said:


> John - unless Lucy is able to explain how she will get passed the lack of avaliable gene pool,


You are confused, Bijou. The Project will have a open registry so it will not suffer from a limited gene pool. You must be thinking of those breeding under the KC and breed club auspices. _There_ you will find a strictly limited gene pool (and a sickly one, at that).



> I think it completely wrong to use an established breed's name to imply that puppy buyers that they are getting something they are not - don't you ?


There is no such implication. The Project is admirably transparent in its aims, methodolgy and progress. Can you quote anything from the website or elsewhere that makes the implication you allege?



> in answer to your meassge to Shetland Lover, she will neither be outcrossing OR recreating but cross breeding with each generation - fine if she's up front about it but not if she's pretending to be producing recreated Cavaliers !!


I don't know what question you are answering, Bijou, but it's not the one I posed.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

As a layman I am following this thread with great interest.

Having seen, earlier this year: Panorama - Pedigree Dogs Exposed. I have to say that looking at those Cavaliers with heads too small to incorporate the size of their brains, The GSD's with backs so sloped that their hocks touched as they hobbled to walk, The Pugs with faces so squashed that they could barely breathe and the Bassets with so much loose skin they looked abnormal - something HAS to be done. Whether that is outcrossing in order to regain the original looks of these dogs or importing lines from abroad that don't have the fixation our own Kennal Clud has (or should I say had - hopefully) I really don't know.

One thing I DO know is that these dogs were suffering! Suffering it seems to conform to breed sandards. Standards set by people who want a certain look - never mind what this brings to the dog, or it's owner's for that matter!


Very worrying too was the reaction of some breeders on the programme, so set in their ways that they could blatantly deny there was even a problem at all - disgraceful! I am not talking about BYB's or PF's here either.

Some call it scare mongering but i'll take the withdrawal of the Crufts sponsers and the reaction from the RSPCA along with my own eye's to make my decision. Added to that, that the Kennel Club have now started to alter some breed standards (apparently) and informed judges likewise, goes to show there is a problem within some breeds.
Saying that having seen Crufts this year, I still saw dogs winning their groups who were far from the "new" standards, even though there were some in the groups who looked far healthier, both in looks and movement.

So maybe - just maybe the OP has a point which I can view with an open mind.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I
> 
> 
> > think it completely wrong to use an established breed's name to imply that puppy buyers that they are getting something they are not - don't you
> ...


Hmmmm..well let me think ...could it be the words *CAVALIER* recreation project - does this not imply that the resulting pups will have some likeness to Cavaliers ??

Far from being up front and honest about what is likely to be produced the her website uses the huge popularity of another breed to 'sell ' itself - why not call it by it's cross breed name in the first place ? -



> Some call it scare mongering but i'll take the withdrawal of the Crufts sponsers and the reaction from the RSPCA along with my own eye's to make my decision.


Pedigree's withdrawal from Crufts was based on economics not ethics ( many top breeders/exhibitors are now sponsored by other food firms which broke Pedigree's exclusivity in the uk show scene) on the continent the firm is still a major sponsor so it has hardly turned it's back on the show world.
..and as for the RSPCA - don't make me laugh - this is the animal welfare charity that killed 10 GSD with bolt guns !!! - am I going to take a single word they say seriously - NO !


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

You've spent 3 years researching but your bitch is nearly 2 so you researched for one year to get the bitch to start this project, we've been breeding Cockers for nearly 7 years and I'm still finding things out, it would probably take me at least a year to find a well bred puppy that was suitable for me if I was looking to get one. You learn alot about breeding very quickly when you've actually had a litter .


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Bijou said:


> Pedigree's withdrawal from Crufts was based on economics not ethics ( many top breeders/exhibitors are now sponsored by other food firms which broke Pedigree's exclusivity in the uk show scene) on the continent the firm is still a major sponsor so it has hardly turned it's back on the show world.
> ..and as for the RSPCA - don't make me laugh - this is the animal welfare charity that killed 10 GSD with bolt guns !!! - am I going to take a single word they say seriously - NO !


Oh really?

Well I wonder what The Guardian, the BBC and the RSPCA are talking about then! 

Pedigree pulls sponsorship of Crufts | Life and style | guardian.co.uk
BBC NEWS | UK | RSPCA withdraws from Crufts show
Kennel Club changes breeding rules after BBC suspends Crufts - Telegraph

Based on that I think i'll continue to draw my own conclusions thank you very much. I know what I saw and anyone who condones this sort of breeding practice is simply not in it for the welfare of the dog - rosettes maybe - but not the dog!


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Bijou said:


> Hmmmm..well let me think ...could it be the words *CAVALIER* recreation project - does this not imply that the resulting pups will have some likeness to Cavaliers ??


It defines the Project's aim to create pups that will have such likeness but it does not imply, as you have alleged, that buyers "will get something they are not." Nobody on this thread has been so confused as to believe the Project is producing CKCS. The website is absolutely transparent in this regard.

When Susan Boyle said, at the outset of her media adventure, that she wanted to emulate Elaine Paige was she making false implications? Cashing in on Paige's success? Of course not. It is simply a stated aim, an aspiration. If the Project did _not_ mention the Cavalier, if it did _not_ detail its intentions _then_ we could complain of ambiguity and elusiveness but such is not the case. In your attempts to besmirch this Project you are grasping at straws and claiming deceptions where none exist.



> Far from being up front and honest about what is likely to be produced ...


Since neither you (nor I) know how the Propject's breeding programme will develop I am puzzled how you have determined what is "likely" to be produced.



> why not call it by it's cross breed name in the first place ?


I don't know what the "it" that you refer to is. Do you mean the first generation? If so then that is _exactly_ what they will be called. Happy? If you mean the final result, should the Project be successful, it would seem unecessary and more than a little cumbersome - Louis Dobermann could have called his dogs rottweiller/greyhound/Manchester terrier/plus a few more thrown in crossbreeds but I guess he thought Dobermann was more snappy.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> It defines the Project's aim to create pups that will have such likeness but it does not imply, as you have alleged, that buyers "will get something they are not." Nobody on this thread has been so confused as to believe the Project is producing CKCS. The website is absolutely transparent in this regard.
> 
> When Susan Boyle said, at the outset of her media adventure, that she wanted to emulate Elaine Paige was she making false implications? Cashing in on Paige's success? Of course not. It is simply a stated aim, an aspiration. If the Project did _not_ mention the Cavalier, if it did _not_ detail its intentions _then_ we could complain of ambiguity and elusiveness but such is not the case. In your attempts to besmirch this Project you are grasping at straws and claiming deceptions where none exist.
> 
> ...


What an absolute load of rubbish. If you use another breed's name and say you are recreating them then I think the obvious conclusion for everyone to draw is that the breeder is going to produce cavaliers. 
How can you compare it with someone saying they want to emulate someone else. They are hardly having a baby and saying it will be a different person's baby because they want to recreate that person :lol:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

John you are truly clutching at straws - the very first statement on the project's website says that it aims to 'restart' the *Cavalier Breed *not that it aims to create a new breed that looks a bit similar ! - the words Cavalier Breed are a bit of a give away as to what Lucy is implying the resulting pups will be..

Other designer cross breeders are at least honest in their intentions - after all the Labradoodle has never been marketed as being a 'recreated' Poodle or Labrador



> I don't know what the "it" that you refer to is. Do you mean the first generation? If so then that is exactly what they will be called. Happy? If you mean the final result, should the Project be successful, it would seem unecessary and more than a little cumbersome - Louis Dobermann could have called his dogs rottweiller/greyhound/Manchester terrier/plus a few more thrown in crossbreeds but I guess he thought Dobermann was more snappy


.

That is because the breed was named after him as an acknowledgement that it was a NEW breed .

Listen I have no problem with a new breed being produced but for goodness sake drop the pretence that this is anything to do with Cavaliers - she's mating a blue Roan Cocker to a Papillon - even if she does line breed the resulting pups back they will not ever be like Cavaliers



> anyone who condones this sort of breeding practice is simply not in it for the welfare of the dog - rosettes maybe - but not the dog!


what sort of breeding practices ? - oh I know the kind that enables you to own a* pedigree* Malamute - what hypocrisy !


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Sorry being off topic here, didnt realise Johnderon had a malamute 

Mo


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2010)

Bijou said:


> John you are truly clutching at straws - the very first statement on the project's website says that it aims to 'restart' the *Cavalier Breed *not that it aims to create a new breed that looks a bit similar ! - the words Cavalier Breed are a bit of a give away as to what Lucy is implying the resulting pups will be..
> 
> Other designer cross breeders are at least honest in their intentions - after all the Labradoodle has never been marketed as being a 'recreated' Poodle or Labrador


Could not have put it better myself.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Bijou said:


> what sort of breeding practices ? - oh I know the kind that enables you to own a* pedigree* Malamute - what hypocrisy !


How very niave of you to clump all breeds together like that.
I had no idea that the Malamute breed standard was having to be changed due to health issues - probably because it isn't! 

I also had no idea that when owning a pedigree dog one was not allowed to voice an opinion on the suffering of other breeds!

We'll leave that to the Kennel Club then, so hope no one involved with the new standards own a pedigree dog of their own - how dare they??

Thanks for that very uneducated post - gave me a laugh and brightened my day. :thumbup:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

all pedigree breeds have a blue print ( breed standard) and all are bred within a restricted gene pool to preserve their breed type - if you object to breeders using these 'breeding practices' then logically you should not get a pedigree as this is the way that all pedigree dogs are developed and maintained.


Out crossing is not the answer -


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

The only thing I object to is breeders using *bad* breeding practices. To say all breeders do this would be totally unjust.
If a pedigree dog is a healthy dog, has come from healthy stock and is intentionally bred under those conditions, that is the way forward.

However when a paticular breed is suffering due to the *look* that is desired, then no way should that be allowed to continue, as hopefully is the case with some breeds now.
Looking back on many of these breeds it is clear to see how breed standards have been changed - as the programme itself pointed out. Google old types of certain breeds and you will see what I mean.

The Alaskan Malamute breed standard has not altered and it has maintained the same *look* as it had thousands of years ago, when originally used by the Inuits.

My original post clearly stated that as a layman I did not know if out crossing was the answer for these breeds.


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

I notice you said you wouldn't have a limit on the colours allowed but I would be wary that once it's in the hands of other breeders they'll start breeding for colour over quality. In Cockers there is I think 21 possible colours and yet you'd find it very hard to get a quality version of any liver based colours in show types :001_unsure:.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Blitz said:


> If you use another breed's name and say you are recreating them then I think the obvious conclusion for everyone to draw is that the breeder is going to produce cavaliers.


Not a single person on this thread has concluded that this Project will produce CKCS. I think what is obvious is that the Project will _not_ be producing CKCS.



Bijou said:


> John you are truly clutching at straws - the very first statement on the project's website says that it aims to 'restart' the *Cavalier Breed *not that it aims to create a new breed that looks a bit similar ! - the words Cavalier Breed are a bit of a give away as to what Lucy is implying the resulting pups will be..


You seem to be struggling with the word "restart". When something is started anew then it is distinct from that which is existing. There is no implication that one is the other. What is implict in the words "restart" and "recreation" is that what the Project aims to produce is not what CKCS breeders are currently producing.

What is _explicit_ is that the Project is aiming to create a cavalier-type dog that is free from the terrible incident rate of afflicitions that the CKCS suffers. I don't know how one might go about trying to re-found a breed without mentioning the name of the breed one is trying to re-found.



> Other designer cross breeders are at least honest in their intentions - after all the Labradoodle has never been marketed as being a 'recreated' Poodle or Labrador


Because the Labradoodle was not an attempt to recreate a breed. This is. See the difference?



> Listen I have no problem with a new breed being produced but for goodness sake drop the pretence that this is anything to do with Cavaliers - she's mating a blue Roan Cocker to a Papillon - even if she does line breed the resulting pups back they will not ever be like Cavaliers


You have been repeatedly told on other forums that the Cocker/pap is just the first planned mating in a process that will encompass several breeds and lines within a project that is attempting to achieve a true breeding cavalier-type dog with a COI below 6.25% yet you continually characterise the project as producing cocker/paps. This myopic misrepresentation is innaccurate and misleading and, given the number of times you have been supplied the correct information, begins to look deceptive.



moboyd said:


> Sorry being off topic here, didnt realise Johnderon had a malamute


He doesn't. I'm drowning in dog hair as it is, thanks!



shetlandlover said:


> Could not have put it better myself.


You still haven't tried to tackle my question, shetlandlover. Is it difficult?


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Bijou said:


> Out crossing is not the answer -


For many breeds outcrossing is the only answer.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

I must admit I'm all for improving the health of breeds, but I find I am a little sceptical that such a project is being started by someone who has never bred and doesn't even know when a bitch is too old to breed from is


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> For many breeds outcrossing is the only answer.


For a few breeds - of the many breeds that exist, there are not that many that have the health problems highlighted by the tv programme.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> I must admit I'm all for improving the health of breeds, but I find I am a little sceptical that such a project is being started by someone who has never bred and doesn't even know when a bitch is too old to breed from is


Well how are they going to find out if they don't ask?
You know I am against breeding of any kind at the moment!
But everyone (even the best of em) have to start somewhere!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Well how are they going to find out if they don't ask?
> You know I am against breeding of any kind at the moment!
> But everyone (even the best of em) have to start somewhere!


I'd expect them to be a bit more clued up if they are planning to start the task of recreating a new breed


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

No matter how ethical and healthy the new breed develops into, once it gets into the hands of breeders whose only aim is to make money, then all the good work could go out the door. 

Breeders will apply their own ideas about inbreeding, about using less than healthy dogs. They may ignore poor health tests. They will start breeding for extremes. They may even introduce present-day Cavs with bad hearts or SM to the breed surreptitiously to improve type etc. etc.

Unless the whole breeding culture changes or the project is very controlled, then within few years all the hard work developing the new breed may all end up being in vain.

Bijou you need to start thinking out of the box, your ideas are so entrenched in the breeding world and narrow-minded, that you are not really thinking straight.

A dog breed is merely a collection of genes that differentiate it from another breed, most of these genes are to do with cosmetic appearance. Working ability, temperament, intelligence etc are also important but for the sake of simplicity I will only mention cosmetic traits. The dog ends up with the right coloration, the right length of leg, the right coat and head shape, the right tail etc. etc.

These genes in the main, were sourced from many different places, dogs with longer legs were used to increase the height of an animal, dogs with bigger or smaller jowls, dogs with longer or shorter coats, stockier or more athletic builds etc. to suit the needs of the particular breed, where they lived and what their purpose was.

If I was to take any dog and with the whole range of breeds at my fingertips, a lot of time and a lot of dogs, a lot of effort and the desire to do it, I could turn it into any breed that I wanted, through the selection of animals to suit. The new breed would be indistinguishable from the standard one, I am not saying it would necessarily win Crufts but it would be recognisable as the breed it was meant to be.

Breeds are not set in stone, they may be from a registry and a pedigree point of view but from a purely scientific point of view they are not.

The attempt to recreate a breed, is the only way forward that I can see for any breed that is so enmeshed in disease that there are no clear lines, to breed forward with.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> I'd expect them to be a bit more clued up if they are planning to start the task of recreating a new breed


Well personally I have read many many many books on my breed, as I have breeding, but I still ask the same question time and time again just to get other peoples views on certain topics. Peoples opinions do vary, and gathering as much info as possible (by whatever means - including forums ) cannot be a bad thing.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2010)

Johnderondon said:


> You still haven't tried to tackle my question, shetlandlover. Is it difficult?


Limited internet currently means I dont have the patience to read all the crap you put.

Out crossing is better than starting fresh, at the end of the day you lot say you are not trying to breed cavaliers, but its called the Cavalier project so if you are not trying to breed silly designer Cavaliers then why have you not changed the name?

As I have said before and will say again
1) You have no breed clubs on side.
2) The kennel club dont want anything to do with the project.
3) The project "inventor" is only 23 or so years old with no breeding experience.
4) This project has been up and going since at least 2008 and you have nothing to show for it.

I just cant help but laugh...really.

The cavalier club will be talking about this at their staff meeting, they all think its silly.

So yeah, at least this makes for good entertainment. Yet another idiot breeding cross's that will fall flat on its face once the pups dont sell or dont get as far as they like.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> The cavalier club will be talking about this at their staff meeting, they all think its silly.


I believe all breed clubs think that anything out of the ordinary and that doesn't conform to their traditional view is silly.

Whatever the merits and demerits of this particular project, the idea of recreating any sickly, doomed breed can never be described as silly.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Is this the same Cavalier Club that knows full well they have a BIG health issue within their breed?


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Shetlandlover, I don't think quoting the Kennel Club or breed club's involvement in any of this is going to help the cause of your argument. Both have done little to address the huge problems within the breed - and some might say they've been compliant in doing the exact opposite.

I think Cavaliers are fabulous dogs and given a completely level playing field on choice of breeds when it came to health, they would be my breed of choice. But would I consider having one? Never in a million years.

If - and I know its a big IF - the recreation project is successful over a few decades and, let's face it, that's how long it's going to take with an awful lot of hard work and IF the group of people working within it manage to produce a dog that I considered resembles the current day Cavalier in terms of looks and temperament but without the myriad of health problems - I'd be first in line for a pup.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Limited internet currently means I dont have the patience to read all the crap you put.


Kinda abusive but it's not that that strikes me so much as if you don't have the patience to read that with which you are disagreeing (nor it appears the links that Kaida supplied) can your views be considered informed?



> Out crossing is better than starting fresh,


Yes, you said that earlier. My question was _why_ you feel it is acceptable given that many of the objections you have raised against the Project would also apply to outcrossing? Go on, have a stab at it.



> at the end of the day you lot say you are not trying to breed cavaliers, but its called the Cavalier project so if you are not trying to breed silly designer Cavaliers then why have you not changed the name?


"you lot"?

The Project is not mine nor do I have any interest in it beyond that of a dog lover concerned for the plight of our breeds. I have never even met a member of the Project.



> As I have said before and will say again
> 1) You have no breed clubs on side.
> 2) The kennel club dont want anything to do with the project.


This objection is risible. What breed club would approve a project that, if successful, will supplant themselves? What Kennel Club would approve a project that follows assortive matings? If you could produce an example of either of these things then their absence, in this instance, might be telling. Otherwise....



> 3) The project "inventor" is only 23 or so years old with no breeding experience.


This could be a valid criticism (and it's the closest so far on the thread so well done for that!). The Project leader lacks the experience we would usually consider essential to bring such an ambitious project to fruitition. However, in this instance, the Project has the benefit of highly experienced mentor and veterinary input.

There are a great many pitfalls and dangers that may frustrate such an endeavour but input of highly experienced breeders and professionals bring a feasibility to the Project despite the youth of its leader.



> 4) This project has been up and going since at least 2008 and you have nothing to show for it.
> 
> I just cant help but laugh...really.


Yet earlier in this very thread you said...



> I understand projects like this take time...


Two years is nothing for a breeding programme. It's generally considered unwise to breed a dog before maturity. Earlier you (wrongly) assumed that the CKCS had taken hundreds of years to develop yet now the Project is castigated for not rushing into litter production. Earlier it was understandable but now it's laughable. Is the paupacity of serious criticism so dire and the need so desperate that even such flimsy thrusts must be bought into play?



> The cavalier club will be talking about this at their staff meeting, they all think its silly.


The CKCS Club doesn't have the greatest track record when it comes to appreciating the pre-eminence of health issues. I'm guessing your comment is an attempt to add weight to your position by 'argument from authority' but it works better when the authority in question hasn't had their attitude to health improvements denounced by their own chairman.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> For a few breeds - of the many breeds that exist, there are not that many that have the health problems highlighted by the tv programme.


There are many breeds with drastically reduced genetic diversity. There are also breeds with health problems that are not publically declared as having such 'problem'.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> There are many breeds with drastically reduced genetic diversity. There are also breeds with health problems that are not publically declared as having such 'problem'.


Mmmm far too complicated and dependant on breed, but it is not all as it appears. In my breed, we have the biggest gene pool of all, but that gene pool is divided into pet/show and working, so already you have reduced gene pools. Having said that, a lot of health problems are in certain pockets of the gene pool and not right across the board, so one can't really make sweeping statements about it. Also, with pet passports, more and more breeders are looking abroad to bring new blood in. The difficulty is that there is no general rule that can be applied. So to make sweeping statements is misleading.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Rocco33
Depending on the breed, sourcing outcrosses from abroad may not really be widening the gene pool at all if they are descended from exactly the same dogs as the UK branch of the breed.

I agree with Johnderondon and gskinner123, breed clubs are often closed shops and they do need voices in the wilderness who do not give up like Margaret Carter, to highlight serious issues. She was ostracised by the CKCS breed club for the dreadful crime of outing health problems in the breed.
Problems which had been deliberately hidden away by breeders for years, that were basically ignored and the facts of diseases in the breed were derided as rubbish until they are found to be true and couldn't be hidden any longer.
The Ckcs club will be no different to other clubs, so breeders who are ethical need to realise that and not swallow the healthy breed image wholly for their particular breed, else they may be severely disappointed.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Depending on the breed, sourcing outcrosses from abroad may not really be widening the gene pool at all if they are descended from exactly the same dogs as the UK branch of the breed.


Depending is probably the most apt word. There is no one size fits all regarding the breeding of purebreed dogs which is why sweeping generalisations can be misleading. It's like saying all crossbreeds are healthier.

I wouldn't say that breed clubs are closed shops as such, but it takes a bold person to go against the grain - and some do believe me. And I've always thought if you want to change something the best way to do it is from the inside. We can all stand outside and criticise - it is those that stand firm within that can make the real changes.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Mmmm far too complicated and dependant on breed, but it is not all as it appears. In my breed, we have the biggest gene pool of all, but that gene pool is divided into pet/show and working, so already you have reduced gene pools.


Add to that that, in certain breeds, breeders select for colour/coat length/etc and we have an already limited gene pools being split into ever smaller puddles.



> Having said that, a lot of health problems are in certain pockets of the gene pool and not right across the board, so one can't really make sweeping statements about it.


Yeah, you can. Breeding within a small, limited gene pool creates an increase in deleterious recessive alleles within that population. Remember the "health problem" that you refer to is not the disease but the high incidence rate of disease. It is the limited gene pool that has caused the high incidence in those pockets and it is the limited gene pool that is quietly working to wreck havoc in those other pockets, too. Diseases like PRA or MVD are just the dramatic, clearly visible tip of the iceberg. Underneath the loss of genetic diversity is undermining the health of our breeds in countless different ways.



> Also, with pet passports, more and more breeders are looking abroad to bring new blood in. The difficulty is that there is no general rule that can be applied. So to make sweeping statements is misleading.


It is true that some breeders are making more efforts to preserve such diversity that remains by looking for matches afar. However some breeds, like the CKCS, are globally affected so there is nowhere to escape. In other breeds the practice is restricted to importing champion bloodlines but those lines already share an ancestry with UK lines and so little diversity is gained.

Sure, we can make sweeping statements - breeding within a small, closed gene pool is a bad idea.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Amy&Ted said:


> So let me get this straight... this project takes 2 dogs that aren't Cavaliers... and breeds them, then passes them off as Cavaliers?


No - that's not the way i've read it, far from it.

Don't be confused, many pedigree dogs we have today were crossbred to begin with - lets face it not many look like their ancestors - the wolf.

All designed by humans and then ruined by them - typical! 

Great posts John & Lauren by the way.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> breeding within a small, closed gene pool is a bad idea.


But it's meaningless unless you define 'small'


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

I think the jury is still out regarding an agreed definition for the critical size of a genetically secure population but I'm pretty sure that 100 falls on the wrong side of the fence.



> Calboli et al 2008 identified effective population sizes of less than 100 individuals in nine out of the ten breeds they studied.


http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232712491490&mode=prd

I will concede this much - there is no single approach that will best address the issues of every breed. Some have suffered far worse in their loss of diversity and tailored approaches must be devised. But for most breeds - somewhere down the line - the stud books must be opened or extinction will beckon.

This Project works from an assumption that recreation offers more promise than outcrossing. I couldn't say if that is true (although it appears plausible) but it is the most pro-active and comprehensive initiative that I have seen to address the terrible afflictions that cavalier breeders are currently producing. I wish it every success both in its own ambitions and for the example, inspiration and impetus it will lend to other health initiatives both within and outside of the KC and breed club auspices.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Johnderondon said:


> I think the jury is still out regarding an agreed definition for the critical size of a genetically secure population but I'm pretty sure that 100 falls on the wrong side of the fence.
> 
> http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232712491490&mode=prd
> This Project works from an assumption that recreation offers more promise than outcrossing. I couldn't say if that is true (although it appears plausible) but it is the most pro-active and comprehensive initiative that I have seen to address the terrible afflictions that cavalier breeders are currently producing. I wish it every success both in its own ambitions and for the example, inspiration and impetus it will lend to other health initiatives both within and outside of the KC and breed club auspices.


Very well put. :thumbup:

Someone has to do something and "nothing ventured, nothing gained".


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

[


> If I was to take any dog and with the whole range of breeds at my fingertips, a lot of time and a lot of dogs, a lot of effort and the desire to do it, I could turn it into any breed that I wanted, through the selection of animals to suit. The new breed would be indistinguishable from the standard one, I am not saying it would necessarily win Crufts but it would be recognisable as the breed it was meant to be.


[/QUOTE]

You could create your new breed but how would you maintain it ? how would you ensure that it bred 'true' at each generation ? - take the Red Setter for example - the criteria for coat colour is very defined -the Red and White setter differs only slightly from it but is a separate breed, if your open system allowed for matings between these two similar breeds then you would lose BOTH breeds ! ..... how could you maintain these very specific breeds and still work with an open registry ?

A Dalmation is not a Dalmation without it's spots - Norfolk and Norwich terriers differ only in their type of ear carriage - and a Malamute would not be a Malamute if it had the bone of a Sibe - you would lose the characteristics that essentially define a breed as being what it is if you ditch breed standards and open up breed registries to allow for cross breeding.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

We had breeds before we had closed registries, Bijou. We have breeds today (like JRTs and Patterdales) without closed registries. If maintaining a particular shape of ear carriage necessitates decisions deterimental to the health of the dogs then I would question why ear carriage is valued over health.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

> A Dalmation is not a Dalmation without it's spots - Norfolk and Norwich terriers differ only in their type of ear carriage - and a Malamute would not be a Malamute if it had the bone of a Sibe - you would lose the characteristics that essentially define a breed as being what it is if you ditch breed standards and open up breed registries to allow for cross breeding.


If you select long enough for desired characteristics eg spots, ears, bone etc. then before long the trait is locked in and reproducible. You mate lookalike dogs together and the traits can be worked on.

Of course in your new breed you would not choose very dissimilar dogs to maintain the outcrossing and refresh the gene pool, so if you had just manufactured a new breed Lab or a Cav for instance, a Mastiff as an outcross may not have a lot to offer, however if you perhaps wanted to beef up the "new" breed then a Mastiff may be the way to go.

Of course first generation crosses are not going to be the finished article so there would need to be a lot of thought into which traits you want introduced into your new breed, before embarking on the multi generation grading up which would be necessary.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> We had breeds before we had closed registries, Bijou. We have breeds today (like JRTs and Patterdales) without closed registries.


 Wrong - almost without exception once a breed had been created then a closed registry was kept in order to retain type

here's an example of how most breeds are maintained ( and yes it IS the Patterdale Terrier ! )



> Our Patterdale Terriers are bred to maintain the highest standards for working and hunting.
> Bred from Pure English and Irish breeding stock, absolutely NO curs! The original MQH Patterdales were bred directly from Brian Nuttall, *who wrote the breed standard* for Patterdale Terriers, used all over the world. At MQH Kennel, all of our dogs are at least six generations (most are more) of true black fell terriers, *absolutely NO out crosses to Jack Russels, Lakelands, Borders,
> or Bulls! *
> We believe that Patterdale Terriers should not be corrupted by fads or the desire to own a pocket pitbull. We breed only proven workers who possess gameness, hardness, intensity, and stability. All of our stock is registered with the Patterdale Terrier Club to maintain accurate pedigrees. MQH Patterdale Terriers pedigrees have the blood of five PTCA"Hall of Fame" terriers within a few generations.


so a breed standard and NO cross breeding !



> You mate lookalike dogs together and the traits can be worked on.


what's 'lookalike' enough to outcross with a Red Setter or a Schiperkee or a Great Dane without massively losing breed type ?

if you out crossed a Malamute with say a Sibe for example you would have to spend the next three generations trying to breed out the faults that this would introduce - this would mean that your choices would be even narrower as you would have to choose sires and dams that could correct the faults in addition to having health temperament etc etc that would naturally be on your list of breeding criteria.

the alternative to breed standards and closed registries is to settle for generic types - so no Malamutes, Sibes, Samoyeds, Eskimo Dogs , Greenland Dogs, etc etc - just sled dog types


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Oh, Bijou! Bijou! You have stooped to new deceptions. Things must be desperate indeed!

You have quoted a passage from an American breeding kennel and, although it is not clear what you think it demonstrates, you apparently felt that your assertion that "once a breed had been created then a closed registry was kept" is not best exemplified by an American registry established in 1993 for a English breed with a history that goes beyond that by...oh, quite some way. You must have felt this because you have deliberately altered the quoted passage to obscure its American nature.

Here is the passage as you quoted it...



> All of our stock is registered with the Patterdale Terrier Club to maintain accurate pedigrees.


and here it is in its original form...



> All of our stock is registered with the Patterdale Terrier Club of America to maintain accurate pedigrees.


http://www.patterdale.net/MQH_Breeding_Policy.html

Honest quotation be hanged, eh Bijou? To see such slight of hand in a thread where you besmirch the integrity of others is revealing.

Wanna try again?


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Said I was following this thread with interest and it gets more interesting by the day - thanks guys. :thumbup:


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

Am also following this thread with huge interest, its really provokeing stuff as someone who knows very very little about this area i feel inadequate to make comments other than my first few posts but as a lay person its a thread that keeps pulling me back :thumbup:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> You have quoted a passage from an American breeding kennel and, although it is not clear what you think it demonstrates


,

Does it not demonstrate clearly the way that amost all breeds are maintained once they are formed ? -

and can you or indeed anyone answer the points I have raised - you insist that the way forward is to out cross - 
in the 60's a black GSD was introduced into Groenendael breeding stock ( Noir of Rhodesia) - the faults he introduced ( large wide ears , heavy bone , incorrect coat, light eyes, wrong length/height ratio) were still evident 7 generations later ! - in your eyes all this may be insignificant stuff but once you lose breed type - you lose a breed -especially in superficially similar breeds.

The difference between a Saluki, an Afghan, a Greyhound and a Sloughi may seem fairly slight but are essential to define their breeds.

so..go on tell me just WHAT breeds are similar enough to an Italian Greyhound or a Schpperkee that could be used ?

Or don't you care if we have no defined breeds at all ?


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Just out of interest - are breeds really maintained by the original standars that were set?

It doesn't appear that way at all as so many have changed so drastically, with obvious health issues introduced by striving for "improvement".

IMO health should be of paramount importance and standards should not be changed to the detriment of it.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ,
> 
> Does it not demonstrate clearly the way that amost all breeds are maintained once they are formed ? -


Are you truly asking the readers of this forum to believe that the Patterdale Terrier, a breed with a hundred years of history in Yorkshire, Scotland and the Lake District has been "maintained" by a club established on the other side of the world in 1993? Is that _seriously_ your position?



> in the 60's a black GSD was introduced into Groenendael breeding stock ( Noir of Rhodesia) - the faults he introduced ( large wide ears , heavy bone , incorrect coat, light eyes, wrong length/height ratio) were still evident 7 generations later ! -


I do not know this case and I have regrettably learned that I must treat your representations with care however even if what you write is accurate then I would observe that within eight generations what you considered faults were no longer evident but the benefits of added diversity would have been.



> in your eyes all this may be insignificant stuff but once you lose breed type - you lose a breed -especially in superficially similar breeds.


I'm not saying it's insignificant. I'm saying that physical characteristics, particularly superficial ones, as you put it, should not be prioritised above health.



> The difference between a Saluki, an Afghan, a Greyhound and a Sloughi may seem fairly slight but are essential to define their breeds.


Salukis have existed as a distinct breed for a very long time (as have Afghans and Sloughis). They are possibly the oldest breed in the world, as I'm sure you know. Their example, in keeping their unique identity for literally _thousands_ of years (before being subject to a closed registry less than ninety years ago), illustrates that Salukis did not become generic mongrels in the absence of a Bedouin Kennel Club and Afghans and Sloughis retained their unique characteristics without the 'benefit' of a closed registry.



> so..go on tell me just WHAT breeds are similar enough to an Italian Greyhound or a Schpperkee that could be used ?


I have no idea. That is not to say there isn't one or that a simulacrum could not be produced for the purpose. It's dog breeding, it's not a lost art.



> Or don't you care if we have no defined breeds at all ?


You know my position on this, Bijou. It is tiresome that you persist with these strawmen. Judicial outcrossing does not mean losing breed identity. Ask any LUA Dalmation.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

......sigh....why do I bother ? - you seem competely unable to debate things without trying to point score - yes I AM saying that the example I gave is the way that the overwhelming majority of breeds are maintained once they have been created -the Pattedale breeders I quoted are a clear example of this which is why I used them - irrespective of *where* they are breeding !

there may well have been variations of the sight hound 'theme' in the Middle East but Afghans Salukis etc etc as a separate breed came into being only relatively recently ( in the 19th C along with most dog breeds ) the pattern of retaining and maintaining their distinct characteristics follows exactly that explained by the Patterdale breeders - i. e a breed standard and a closed registry

You can go back to having generalised 'types' if you wish - but don't pretend that we will still have the over 300 different breeds we currently have if we go down the route of using asortative breeding !


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Bijou said:


> .
> yes I AM saying that the example I gave is the way that the overwhelming majority of breeds are maintained once they have been created -


A Patterdale in Parkhead (or Plymouth or Peterborough) today is not influenced _in the slightest bit_ by a nascent dollar-spinning venture in Texas (that is not recognised even by the American Kennel Club). It was not bred under a closed registry nor were its ancestors for the last hundred years nor could they possibly have been maintained, during that time, by a registry that didn't exist until 1993.

Yet it remains a distinct breed.



> the Pattedale breeders I quoted are a clear example of this which is why I used them - irrespective of *where* they are breeding !


I don't believe this and I don't think that you believe it either or you would not have concealed the club's origin.



> .....sigh....why do I bother ?


I assure you the sentiment is reciprocated. In fact I think I'm done.

I disagree with your other assertions too but I'm going to leave the thread at this point and allow my posts to stand for readers to make their own assesment. Feel free to rebut, naturally.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Bijou said:


> ......
> You can go back to having generalised 'types' if you wish - but don't pretend that we will still have the over 300 different breeds we currently have if we go down the route of using asortative breeding !


I do not think this argument is anything to do with generalised types, it is not to do with amassing like breeds together into one breed which is I think what you are implying by your Saluki et al reference. It is also not about "designer" pooches, nor breeding mongrels and crossbreeds willy nilly.

It is about a breed that like some others has probably reached the point of no return as far as true breeding for health is concerned if the gene pool remains closed. Cavalier King Charles Spaniels - Cavalier health

It has reached the point in the breed where healthy individuals are vastly outnumbered by unhealthy ones, how is that recoverable from?

It needs a new tack and perhaps this project is the best hope it has.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

That's a shame John - was loving your posts! 

Anyhow here's something somewhat interesting - does go on a bit at first but from the middle onwards mentions Cavaliers and other breeds with health issues, only on line for a couple more days though.

What's the point of the Kennel Club - indeed! :

BBC iPlayer - What's the Point of ...: Series 3: The Kennel Club


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

Malmum said:


> That's a shame John - was loving your posts!
> 
> Anyhow here's something somewhat interesting - does go on a bit at first but from the middle onwards mentions Cavaliers and other breeds with health issues, only on line for a couple more days though.
> 
> ...


John I also found your posts very informative and open minded, which is something thats at times lacking in dog breeding, Iv enjoyed this thread but can see theres a lot of hostility for the project which im sure was expected but is such a shame, this breed is so badly in need of help and may be theres no going forward for the cavaleir breed but the fact that someone is doing something has to surely be worth a serious look at before scatheing reports are made on it

Lauren also found your posts very interetsing

Malmum i will have a look at the thread thanks for posting it :thumbup:


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

mitch4 said:


> John I also found your posts very informative and open minded, which is something thats at times lacking in dog breeding, Iv enjoyed this thread but can see theres a lot of hostility for the project which im sure was expected but is such a shame, this breed is so badly in need of help and may be theres no going forward for the cavaleir breed but the fact that someone is doing something has to surely be worth a serious look at before scatheing reports are made on it
> 
> Lauren also found your posts very interetsing
> 
> Malmum i will have a look at the thread thanks for posting it :thumbup:


I must be odd man out because I find John's posts, as usual, argumentative and ill informed to say nothing of bigoted. I think he has spoilt a good discussion.

I cannot understand how anyone can think it right that a Cavalier is mentioned in this odd idea of producing mongrels to recreate a pure breed.


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

I dont find any of the posts argumentative from anyone, a little limited in being able to be open minded, possibly stuck in an old school way of thinking regarding this subject from some but none have spoilt the discussion at all In my opinion that is, its good for me as a person who knows very little on this subject to be able to see all view points and see an active discussion with not all agreeing all the time but from what iv read it doesnt seem that the project is going in to things lightly and doesnt appear to be wanting to re create the actual cavalier and why would they with so many health problems, may be cavalier type would have been a better name for the project to incorporate in to its title. It appears that people really want to do something to recreate the type of this breed and appear to be going about it in a very indepth way for them to be just createing mongrels 

Seems like a lot of time and effort is going in to the project so cant be so terrible, especially when the Cavelier is about to implode on itself due to such terrible health problems. which have continued to be bred in to lines, this is in my opinion much more of a concern than someone trying thier level best to re create a type in a healthy way


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Here here Mitch - nothing wrong with a healthy debate - lots wrong with unhealthy breeding!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

if the CKCS as a breed really has reached the point of no return then i really dont think creating even more cross breeds is the way to go, for goodness sake the free ads are full of similar crosses, imo its just a really crafty way of cashing in on the cavs name and popularity.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> if the CKCS as a breed really has reached the point of no return then i really dont think creating even more cross breeds is the way to go, for goodness sake the free ads are full of similar crosses, imo its just a really crafty way of cashing in on the cavs name and popularity.


I have to agree with you. I don't think there is any doubt that a few breeds (and I think it's a few not lots) have reached the point when drastic action should be taken, but inexperienced people trying to recreate it is not the way to go IMO. In theory it may seem like a good idea, but can't see any real benefits myself, except, a lot of crosses being bred for the sake of it.



> It is about a breed that like some others has probably reached the point of no return as far as true breeding for health is concerned if the gene pool remains closed. Cavalier King Charles Spaniels - Cavalier health
> 
> It has reached the point in the breed where healthy individuals are vastly outnumbered by unhealthy ones, how is that recoverable from?
> 
> It needs a new tack and perhaps this project is the best hope it has.


If it has reached the point of no return (and I don't have enough in depth knowledge to know that and I suspect most on here are only going by what they hear or read, so doubt there is the real knowledge here either), but IF it has reached that point in a closed gene pool, then a better answer has to be to open the gene pool not some experiement starting from scratch again. Regardless of the final outcome, the number of crossbreed puppies needing to be bred in order to have any realistic chance of fulfilling their aims is frightening in an age where rescues are overflowing.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I have created a long post and erased it three times, as I am so greatly offended by the post made suggesting that rescues are full of 'my type' or similar crosses, so that is where I should be obliged to go . . . . either that or settle for a breed that is that is such a gamble that insurance companies are thinking about de-insuring it.

I'm trying to be civil in the post, but admit to having trouble. The idea that this type should be allowed to just die out without replacement, 'cuz the people who like it can just get a similar cross from rescue' does not sit well with me to say the least. The lie of it is also greatly offensive.

If one cannot figure it out the post is offensive because it compares the pups that might be produced by this project to *aimlessly bred crosses* found in rescue.

Huskies and Labradors are a dime a dozen in free ads and in rescue. If the latest posters, who have purchased show dogs, can't figure out the difference between an aimlessly bred dog and dog bred with care and an aim and purpose, then maybe they should be told their only resort is to acquire their dogs from rescue as well, and see how that sits.

Rocco, I too sometimes believe that outcrossing would be the better way to go with Cavaliers. If you knew the history of this suggestion in the breed (given by some geneticists in 1998 regarding the heart issues) and repeatedly hashed over on lists and at different health presentations since, however, I believe you'd know that it is not going to happen until thousands of more Cavaliers are birthed toward a life which at least ends too often too young and with a lot of un-necessary suffering.

I know the pedigrees in this breed back to foundation and before that, by heart. I know the somewhat good lines and the somewhat bad. I know which breeders are doing their best and which dogs they are breeding from, and I still would not recommend a pup from this breed to anyone that I know.

My hopes are with the Cavaler breed in that they can pull themselves out of this mess they are in . . . but I've been watching the breed and breeders a long time now, and unfortunately what I see are very few in the breed that are breeding or showing that have the will to do so.

The CKCSC - USA has just parred down their heart testing protocols for Pete's sake.

Editorial

_"Taking a giant step backwards from its May 1998 decision endorsing the MVD breeding protocol, the board of directors of the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club, USA rejected that protocol at its April 2010 meeting. Instead, its board approved a watered down, proven worthless "recommended guideline", calling for the breeding pair to have MVD-murmur-clear hearts at only 24 months."​_
At this point in time I watch this project as it gives me hope that someone might be conscientiously working toward a type that I happen to love, and that one day I, or others might be able to enjoy this type without the *constant* worry of ill health.

I am very much with those who believe 'nothing ventured, nothing gained'.
----------------------

http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.com/cgi/content/abstract/144/12/315

_*Echocardiographic mitral valve prolapse in cavalier King Charles spaniels: epidemiology and prognostic significance for regurgitation *

"This study investigated the epidemiology and prognostic significance of mitral valve prolapse, detected by ultrasonography, in 153 cavalier King Charles spaniels which were screened consecutively during a period of one year. Seventy-five of the dogs, which had either no murmur or a grade I murmur on screening, were re-examined three years later. The screening revealed that 82 per cent of the dogs aged one to three years and *97 per cent of the dogs over three years had various degrees of mitral valve prolapse*. The presence and severity of the condition were independent of gender but correlated positively with age and negatively with bodyweight. The degree of mitral valve prolapse at screening correlated with the regurgitation status (murmur intensity and size of the regurgitant jets) at re-examination and with the percentage increase in the left ventricular end diastolic diameter over the three-year period. The presence of a grade I murmur was not useful prognostic indicator."_​
---------------------

As for overflowing rescues, I believe it is a strawman brought in to deflect in this discussion.

However, if that is your true worry then do something about it. I live where we have, and I was volunteering at rescue when it was being done.

What we DIDN'T DO was target responsible breeders. We DID encourage responsible ownership. No freak'n wonder the problem continues if it is that people believe that the solution to the rescue problem is as simple as 'breed less' . . . such a very wrong belief.

In the USA where the "PET OVERPOPULATION" mantra has been tortured and propogated, anyone with a look at the numbers can see it is an obvious lie. There are homes for the pups bred - in multiples.

The problem is with the older given up on dropped off animals - and that is a pet disconnect and owner responsibility issue, and one that gets ignored too much by those who want the easy out of targetting breeders, up to and including the ones that ARE responsible for the pups they bring into this world for life.

I don't know about the UK, but can imagine the same agenda is at work there, and I'm suspect.










Pet Underpopulation: The Pet Shortage in the US by Loretta Baughan

_"In truth, there is no pet overpopulation problem. The Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy has collected
data about pet population that are striking:

Changes in Animal Population ----1973 -------- 1982 ---------- 1990
US total dogs & cats (millions) --- 65 ---------- 91 ----------- 110
dogs & cats euthanized (millions) -- 13 ----------10 ------------ 5
% of animals euthanized -----------20% ------- 11% ---------- 4.5%"

-- Animalscam: The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights by Kathleen Marquardt, Herbert M. Levine, Mark LaRochelle,
published in 1993"_​
Debunking Pet Overpopulation : Nathan J Winograd

1. How many dogs and cats enter shelters annually? 8 million. (Some put it as low as 6 million, but I am going to use a "worst case" scenario.)

2. Of those how many are savable? 90 percent or just over 7 million.

3. Of those how many will be saved? 4 million.

4. How many of the savable animals are killed? 3 million.

5. How many need to find new homes? If shelters are doing their jobs comprehensively, just over 2 million (3 million on the high end). The remainder should be increased reclaims or in the case of feral cats, TNR'd.

6. Other than those who will adopt from a shelter as a matter of course (those saved above), how many people in the U.S. are looking to bring a new dog or cat into their home next year but have not decided where they will get the animal and can be influenced to adopt from a shelter? *17 million. So, 17 million people for 2-3 million dogs and cats.*

7. *Has this happened anywhere? Yes, there are many communities which have hit the 90th percentile in save rates.*

8. How long did it take them? *They did it virtually overnight* when new leadership committed to the No Kill philosophy and passionate about saving lives replaced long standing bureaucrats mired in defeatism and excuse making.

9. Are shelters doing all they can to influence those people to adopt from them? This is a rhetorical question. Click here (audio) for an all-too-common experience shared with me by a potential adopter when I was assessing a local shelter.

10. Why don't they do better? *A failure of leadership among the national animal welfare groups such as ASPCA and HSUS*,* a crisis of uncaring among shelter managers, **unfettered discretion to avoid putting in place the programs and services that save lives,* *and the built in excuse of pet overpopulation*

The Calgary Model For Success: http://saveourdogs.net/2009/08/09/the-calgary-model-for-success/

Unpacking the HSUS Gravy Train: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4062-unpacking-the-hsus-gravy-train

CC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

sorry youre offended but imo its a disaster waiting to happen i can see this cross going just the same way as the labradoodle exploited to death! it'll have the added sales pitch of the cav but wont have any connection to the breed whatsoever....just another designer breed imo.

and will any consideration be given to the quality of the cockers and papillions used in this project or will any do so long as they pass their health tests?

if the majority of my breed were afflicted by serious genetic conditions i would hope the breed clubs would look to outcrossing to widen the gene pool, i would be horrified if someone came up with the idea of crossing totally different breeds to try to replicate the siberian husky

i totally agree with all Rocco's points, over here rescues are full to bursting there really needs to be less breeding not more.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> . . . .and will any consideration be given to the quality of the cockers and papillions used in this project or will any do so long as they pass their health tests?. . .


You're asking this question now? This has been addressed in this thread many times over already.

CC


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I have created a long post and erased it three times, as I am so greatly offended by the post made suggesting that rescues are full of 'my type' or similar crosses, so that is where I should be obliged to go . . . . either that or settle for a breed that is that is such a gamble that insurance companies are thinking about de-insuring it.
> 
> I'm trying to be civil in the post, but admit to having trouble. The idea that this type should be allowed to just die out without replacement, 'cuz the people who like it can just get a similar cross from rescue' does not sit well with me to say the least. The lie of it is also greatly offensive.
> 
> If one cannot figure it out the post is offensive because it compares the pups that might be produced by this project to aimlessly bred crosses found in rescue.


CC - my post was certainly not intended to insult cross breeds, cross breed owners or anyone else and am sorry if it upset. The point I was trying to make was that the number of puppies that would need to be bred in order to even start to get some sort of 'type' AND maintain a large gene pool AND find homes for all these puppies, would be unrealistic and not good in today's current climate where the credit crunch has seen fewer puppies being bought and existing dogs being sold as people tighten their belts. In order to develop a breed this in the past, puppies were culled - most of them . Only those breeding to type were kept, there rest were expendable. It's how it was done and there were only a relatively few people who were involved in developing breeds - it was seen as the norm. I don't think anyone would find culling of all the excess puppies acceptable today, so these need to be found homes.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> You're asking this question now? This has been addressed in this thread many times over already.
> 
> CC


oh sorry ive only scanned the thread but whatever i wont change my views because imo there really needs to be valid reasons to breed any dog and i personally dont think this 'project' is good enough reason, breeding will be just to supply the pet market and this is totally against my ethics.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> oh sorry ive only scanned the thread but whatever i wont change my views because imo there really needs to be valid reasons to breed any dog and i personally dont think this 'project' is good enough reason, breeding will be just to supply the pet market and this is totally against my ethics.


Where we would have to disagree then is on what are valid reasons to breed. I believe this project is a good enough one and you do not.

I also do not believe in kennels that breed in high numbers to pick through for the best show dog, and you might.

As I have an interest and love of this type and you do not, it is easy to see where our thoughts might differ.



rocco33 said:


> CC - my post was certainly not intended to insult cross breeds, cross breed owners or anyone else and am sorry if it upset. The point I was trying to make was that the number of puppies that would need to be bred in order to even start to get some sort of 'type' AND maintain a large gene pool AND find homes for all these puppies, would be unrealistic and not good in today's current climate where the credit crunch has seen fewer puppies being bought and existing dogs being sold as people tighten their belts. In order to develop a breed this in the past, puppies were culled - most of them . Only those breeding to type were kept, there rest were expendable. It's how it was done and there were only a relatively few people who were involved in developing breeds - it was seen as the norm. I don't think anyone would find culling of all the excess puppies acceptable today, so these need to be found homes.


Rocco, I don't believe today's current climate is any worse than yesterdays, or thirty years ago, or tomorrow's might be. There will never be a 'right' time that everyone can agree on.

I've looked at the very murky UK stats I could find, and fully believe the UK is in a similar situation to the US. I would bet that pet overpopulation is not the problem.

Check your owner turn-in, placement and euthanization records, and you will see that it is larger dogs and Staffies that are the most difficult to place and are most often euthanized. Most of the homes that want a pet spaniel type are deliberately looking for that type, not a larger dog.

As I posted above, I believe the issue with euthanization in shelters has to do with many things. Responsible breeders placing dogs carefully and backing them for life, as is stipulated under the ethics guidelines of this project, are not the problem.

Do I know its going to succeed? No. No-one can. Do I hope it will and do I think it is worth a shot? Absolutely.

CC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Where we would have to disagree then is on what are valid reasons to breed. I believe this project is a good enough one and you do not.
> 
> CC


yeah i think we'll have to just agree to disagree i do feel really strongly about breeding any animal just for the pet trade and to me this project is breeding exactly for that.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

CC - I'm thoroughly aware that staffies and staffie x's are the biggest problem, but that is exactly why they are such a problem - indiscrimate breeding in large numbers.

Having had a quick look at the website, I'm still at a loss to see how serious this project is. One person who has a cavalier with health problems has set themselves the task of recreating a breed. There are requests for people who would be prepared to breed from their cocker spaniels and requests for people to take on these crosses and breed from them! The site seems to have 11 members atm. There is also a reason why the 'grand old ladies and gentleman' of yesteryear who developed breeds could.... they tended to be the landed gentry who could afford to. It is a massive and expensive undertaking.

As well intentioned as it may be, I can't see it as doing anything beneficial. IMO, and cavaliers aren't my breed, if my breed did face that level of health problems, I would be fighting tooth and nail from the inside. Not an easy task by any means but better than someone who has never bred in their life, coming up with a scheme that will involve breeding thousands upon thousands of puppies in the hope that they may create a new breed.



> Rocco, I don't believe today's current climate is any worse than yesterdays, or thirty years ago, or tomorrow's might be.


I can't speak for where you are, but here in the UK, the current economic climate has impacted on dogs, more people giving them up because they can no longer afford them, more people breeding their pets in the vain hope they'll make a few extra quid. I'm not saying it will last forever, but at the moment there are more and more litters being handed into rescue because people can't sell the puppies they thought would bring them in some extra cash.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> CC - I'm thoroughly aware that staffies and staffie x's are the biggest problem, but that is exactly why they are such a problem - indiscrimate breeding in large numbers..


Don't know why you are bringing indiscriminate breeding into this. That is not what the project is about.

As to what might be faced, of course there will be difficulties and pitfalls.

There have been breeds developed over the last three decades, though, and that are still being developed, and not by grand old ladies and gentlemen, so it can be done.

As to fighting tooth and nail from the inside - I've been watching a losing battle and good breeders labelled 'health nutters' and leaving the breed. It is disheartening to say the least. It has totally shaken my faith in breed clubs and the closed registry system. I am very ready to support more clubs, like the JRTCA, that continue with an open registry and in which dogs are not registerable until a full year of age and health tested. I wish we had more like this.

CC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I can't speak for where you are, but here in the UK, the current economic climate has impacted on dogs, more people giving them up because they can no longer afford them, more people breeding their pets in the vain hope they'll make a few extra quid. I'm not saying it will last forever, but at the moment there are more and more litters being handed into rescue because people can't sell the puppies they thought would bring them in some extra cash.


this is so true, and its affecting all rescues right across the country.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> I also do not believe in kennels that breed in high numbers to pick through for the best show dog, and you might.
> 
> only just seen this but i have to reply because i most certainly Dont agree with kennels who breed like this! i despise them.
> 
> ...


.............


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Quote CC: "I also do not believe in kennels that breed in high numbers to pick through for the best show dog, and you might."

Quote Noushka: "only just seen this but i have to reply because i most certainly Dont agree with kennels who breed like this! i despise them."​
Good to know!

Quote CC: "As I have an interest and love of this type and you do not, it is easy to see where our thoughts might differ."

Quote Noushka: "and its because i love all dogs pedigree or cross breed that im concerned that here we could have yet another 'designer breed' to be exploited by all and sundry"​
This makes no sense to me. I cannot equate it. I don't see people deciding not to support Siberian Husky and Labrador breeders that are conscientious and responsible simply because there are mills and BYBs who exploit the names and representative temperaments or likenesses of those breeds all and sundry. This can be said of every purebred breed out there.

As to exploitative breeding, Cavaliers were first AKC recognized in 1995 - _"Since the first year of AKC recognition, the number of AKC registrations of Cavalier King Charles spaniels has increased by over 800%. The Cavalier in 2009 was the 25th most popular breed in the AKC out of 164 breeds, with the same ranking as in 2008 and up from the 70th most popular in 1997."_

THAT is scary, especially when you know the clubs have no health testing demands (just light recommendations that don't cover near the problems) and that the vast majority of the Cavaliers bred are bred by numpties with no clue what they are into.

I will add that some of my very favorite breeders are the non-numpties - but I'm not delusional, and I know they are fighting an uphill battle on a very steep slope.

CC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Quote CC: "I also do not believe in kennels that breed in high numbers to pick through for the best show dog, and you might."
> 
> Quote Noushka: "only just seen this but i have to reply because i most certainly Dont agree with kennels who breed like this! i despise them."​
> Good to know!
> ...


because good breeders of labs and sibes again wont be breeding just to supply the pet trade they will either show or work their dogs or both so will be striving to maintain type and function and breed only when they want a puppy/puppies for themselves to continue their lines.

I feel just the same about people who breed pedigrees just to supply the pedigree market, even if they health test in the majority of cases they have no idea what quality their bitch is they dont get them assessed by independant reputable breeders or judges in the breed they just stick them together with the nearest dog

yeah those cav statistics are scary:thumbdown:


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

The breeders involved in this project will not be breeding just to supply the pet trade either. 

.


CC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> The breeders involved in this project will not be breeding just to supply the pet trade either. Just skimmed the thread still?
> 
> .
> 
> CC


yeah ive still just skimmed it

okay so where will all the puppies go once theyve reached their aim?


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Absolutely agree with kennels breding to find the best show dogs - but in their eyes they are professionals and it's okay - doesn't sit well with me though and if you look in the BRS there are many of them breeding lots of litters - a business is what it is not a hobby!

And wanting to breed for a puppy themselves to show is also lame, as there are always left over pups that are not good enough to show. Again it's "okay for us but not for you"!

Some say "we only breed if we have a waiting list" yeah right - that's why they advertise their pups on Champdogs is it? 

Endoresment can be got round as people advertise "pedigree but no papers" and still bred from them and contracts are not worth the paper they're written on, as they are not legal documents - confirmed by the KC themselves - ring them if in doubt!

They may care about the pups but mostly about rosettes and public acclaim.

Accredited breeders? - My *rse!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> okay so where will all the puppies go once theyve reached their aim?


To those that want them of course - to fulfill the very same purpose that many of our companion and utility breeds have been bred for, and our landrace breeds before that (the Pekingese forebearers, and European Toy Spaniel forebearers,) for thousands of years. That is the very specialized purpose of being an absolutely wonderful companion.

CC


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> There have been breeds developed over the last three decades, though, and that are still being developed, and not by grand old ladies and gentlemen, so it can be done.


yep this is true - but it cant be done without very close line breeding to fix the new breed's type ( see my previous post about the formation of a relatively new breed - the Cesky Terrier ) - and to be honest apart from the dishonesty of calling it a recreated Cavalier it's the logistics of the whole scheme which just doesn't add up - unless there are loads of unrelated first crosses to choose from just WHAT will she mate the resulting pups to ?

I must admit to a vested interest here as I will be getting a Cavalier as my second breed in a couple of months time -here's the breeder I will be going to

Carolus Cavalier King Charles Spaniels

note that her breeding stock are all heart tested clear and MRI scanned for SM - supporting breeders who place a high priority on health and yet still produce high quality Cavaliers is surely a better way forward for this lovely breed ?


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Bijou said:


> yep this is true - but it cant be done without very close line breeding to fix the new breed's type ( see my previous post about the formation of a relatively new breed - the Cesky Terrier ) - and to be honest apart from the dishonesty of calling it a recreated Cavalier it's the logistics of the whole scheme which just doesn't add up - unless there are loads of unrelated first crosses to choose from just WHAT will she mate the resulting pups to.
> 
> I must admit to a vested interest here as I will be getting a Cavalier as my second breed in a couple of months time -here's the breeder I will be going to
> 
> ...


Your interest is obvious Yvonne, and like John, I'm well aware that you choose to take in only what you want to so won't debate those points which I've already read on this thread he's debated with you.

In regards to breeding stock that are all heart tested clear or MRI scanned clear of SM - that is a misnomer isn't it? There is no DNA test, and as has been shown by study, they all carry genes for MVD and it looks like SM as well.

I support breeders of Cavaliers doing their best, but as to whether or not it is the BETTER way forward . . . for the pup produced accidentally with early onset MVD or SM, (or episodic falling, or cushings, or pancreatic insufficiency, etc.) despite the good history behind (and you know full well this happens too often in this breed with clear heart to clear heart producing MVD, and A x A producing SM in litters) I don't think for THAT pup it would be considered the better way forward.

And there lies the crux of what I believe is the dilemna faced by many who would like this breed to find its way forward.

I have no problem supporting breeders wanting to work from both inside and out on this one. If we end up with two similar and healthy breeds that is all the better. I do think there is room for that. After all the Cavalier King Charles and King Charles were originally bred as the same and became specialized as quite different breeds . . . it is truly too bad about the health in both.

This project would not have been a thought, I'm sure, had there been more in the clubs ready to be open and address the health difficulties much earlier on.

Syringohydromyelia in King Charles Cavaliers

_"As soon as Holly's diagnosis was confirmed in 1999, we contacted CKCS assuming that it would want to make its members aware of the burgeoning syringomyelia problem in the breed so that its breeder members could take all possible steps to minimise its spread.

Naively, we took it for granted that the breeders' first thoughts would be of the potential pain and suffering of the dogs which they are instrumental in introducing into this world and that even the most hard-hearted would at the very least want to ensure that their "product" remained desirable and financially viable.

Before long the reality of the situation became clear. Our efforts to learn more about syringomyelia and to disseminate this information were not appreciated. While some individual breeders gave their support and encouragement, others did not welcome our intrusion. Letters and emails to the CKCS and its associated club went unanswered and so we created this website to tell Holly's Story

Within a few weeks the response became almost overwhelming. In the main this came from grateful owners and responsible breeders of Cavaliers whose symptoms had hitherto baffled them and their local vets. Unexpectedly, we also received much hostility from others who felt that their financial interests were being threatened by our stated intention of analysing and comparing the pedigrees of affected and non affected Cavaliers in an effort to find a common source. We even heard of threats to close the website and worse because we had the temerity to disclose Holly's full and proper name on the website. In the meantime the number of cases of syringomyelia was increasing dramatically, as predicted. The facts could not be ignored any longer."​_
CC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Malmum said:


> Absolutely agree with kennels breding to find the best show dogs - but in their eyes they are professionals and it's okay - doesn't sit well with me though and if you look in the BRS there are many of them breeding lots of litters - a business is what it is not a hobby!
> 
> And wanting to breed for a puppy themselves to show is also lame, as there are always left over pups that are not good enough to show. Again it's "okay for us but not for you"!
> 
> ...


of course there are bad breeders in the show world but youre generalising winning isnt the most important thing to most of them! win or lose they know they'll always be taking the best dog home with them...theirs!, since ive been showing ive found there are many fantastic breeders out there who are passionate about their breed and their dogs and strive to do everything right by them..and unbelievably they rarely breed so they certainly dont breed for £££ like other breeders, imo its far easier to find a reputable breeder here than out of the free ads.



comfortcreature said:


> To those that want them of course - to fulfill the very same purpose that many of our companion breeds have been bred, and our landrace breeds before that, for thousands of years. That is the very specialized purpose of being an absolutely wonderful companion.
> 
> CC


so basically just for the pet trade? do you not worry this cross is likely to go the way of the labradoodle? even the founder of them says breeding them is his biggest regret because of all the bybs who have jumped on the band wagon...and this is my biggest fear if this cross takes off..really hope im proved wrong.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> so basically just for the pet trade? do you not worry this cross is likely to go the way of the labradoodle? .


Excuse ME! How is what I said - breeding dogs specialized as companions - the same as breeding just for the pet trade.

If you are one of those that believes companionship isn't a purpose, then how do you support the breeding of Pekes, Pugs, American Cockers, Japanese Chins, Brussel Griffons, Cavaliers, English Toys, Shih Tzus and the myriad of breeds that are not longer bred for anything but that purpose. Many of these breeds have forebearers that have been specialized companion bred by ancestry for thousands of years.

Don't try to translate "purpose bred' to 'working bred' on me. They are a far cry different, and we have had dogs specialized for companionship bred for a very long time. There is no reason that task is a lesser reason for breeding than for someone who wants a dog to pull a sled or pick up a shot bird.

I happen to have a 17 year old retired sled puller here - an Alaskan Husky. I have homed many a working bred cast-off dog in the past. They do not have the specialized qualities of a purpose bred companion dog . . . . far from it.

CC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Excuse ME! How is what I said - breeding dogs specialized as companions - the same as breeding just for the pet trade.
> 
> If you are one of those that believes companionship isn't a purpose, then how do you support the breeding of Pekes, Pugs, American Cockers, Japanese Chins, Brussel Griffons, Cavaliers, English Toys, Shih Tzus and the myriad of breeds that are not longer bred for anything but that purpose.
> 
> ...


ooh chill

sorry but imo its just going to be yet another designer breed exploited to death so i think i'd best leave it there before i get meself banned...again lol


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

Call me stupid, but aren't our dogs first and foremost our pets? 

Why is it deemed ok to breed dogs for the show ring and not for pets?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Excuse ME! How is what I said - breeding dogs specialized as companions - the same as breeding just for the pet trade.
> 
> If you are one of those that believes companionship isn't a purpose, then how do you support the breeding of Pekes, Pugs, American Cockers, Japanese Chins, Brussel Griffons, Cavaliers, English Toys, Shih Tzus and the myriad of breeds that are not longer bred for anything but that purpose. Many of these breeds have forebearers that have been specialized companion bred by ancestry for thousands of years.
> 
> ...


in reply to your last added sentence....i have had various breeds from a maltese cross to my huskies and imo they have all been wonderful companions, some of my sibes are just as much 'lap dogs' as our toy cross was....only bigger


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I don't see people deciding not to support Siberian Husky and Labrador breeders that are conscientious and responsible simply because there are mills and BYBs who exploit the names and representative temperaments or likenesses of those breeds all and sundry. This can be said of every purebred breed out there.


I don't think it has anything to do with that. I would support any good breeding practices that puts the health, temperament and quality of the pups first. I am simply sceptical about this idea. In part because of the lack of experience and support this scheme has (11 members only atm and asking for volunteers to breed their cockers and more volunteers to take on a pup and breed them. The number of people required to even get this off the ground is huge, as is the number of puppies that will be born IF any serious attempt is to be made. I have no doubt that Lucy is well intentioned, but I do think she is naive and misguided.



> Rocco, I too sometimes believe that outcrossing would be the better way to go with Cavaliers. If you knew the history of this suggestion in the breed (given by some geneticists in 1998 regarding the heart issues) and repeatedly hashed over on lists and at different health presentations since, however, I believe you'd know that it is not going to happen until thousands of more Cavaliers are birthed toward a life which at least ends too often too young and with a lot of un-necessary suffering.
> 
> I know the pedigrees in this breed back to foundation and before that, by heart. I know the somewhat good lines and the somewhat bad. I know which breeders are doing their best and which dogs they are breeding from, and I still would not recommend a pup from this breed to anyone that I know.
> 
> My hopes are with the Cavaler breed in that they can pull themselves out of this mess they are in . . . but I've been watching the breed and breeders a long time now, and unfortunately what I see are very few in the breed that are breeding or showing that have the will to do so.


But if the outcrossing will not be considered by those in the breed (breed clubs) there is still nothing to stop someone not involved (even this recreation project) utilising outcrossing IMO a better way than trying to start from scratch again.

I do appreciate that this is a breed close to your heart and am sure I would feel much more passionately about it if it was my breed, but I do think this is an ill thought out (because of the inexperience of the founder) project and there would be better ways to go about it.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Rocco, I'd agree if I thought that anybody with experience in this breed was brave enough to put their head above the parapet and do that outcross . . . let alone the numbers that would be needed.

Meanwhile, I admire Lucy for the thought she has put in, and the work that she has done to get this off the ground. 

I happen to be a cup half full person myself and see this as something that can come out positively with very little lost if it doesn't work out.

Gone to chill (and off to work).

CC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MarKalAm said:


> Call me stupid, but aren't our dogs first and foremost our pets?
> 
> Why is it deemed ok to breed dogs for the show ring and not for pets?


yes my dogs are 1st and foremost my pets but imo there are far too many dogs bred soley for the pet market, mostly by breeders who dont do relevant health testing they just stick their bitch with the nearest stud without even knowing if the two compliment each other they dont know anything about conformation...so in other words they dont really care about the quality of puppies they produce or care enough about their breed.

Its just my opinion and i feel like this about all animals bred for the pet market, ive only bred 1 litter in 10 years and kept 3 of the 4 pups but i wont breed again even though i have 4 unspayed bitches because its such a massive responsibility so my line begins and ends here, and i have quite a few friends in the breed who show &/or work their sibes who have only bred the odd litter aswell and who have kept several litter mates so its not as though they breed very often but they do at least try to breed their dogs with the correct conformation so they are 'fit for purpose'.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Bijou
I note that looking at the parents of the pups, both have the Chiari malformation and dilatation of the cervical canal, the stud also has middle ear infection and infection of the outer ear (other known problems in Cavs), and the dam has definite mild Syringomyelia.

That may be "acceptable" in the closed shop of the breed, however I still wonder how anyone would want to breed from those dogs, knowing the severity of symptoms of those diseases in humans and the great capacity of dogs to hide pain.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Malmum said:


> And wanting to breed for a puppy themselves to show is also lame, as there are always left over pups that are not good enough to show. Again it's "okay for us but not for you"!


Who is saying that? While I struggle to understand why someone wants to breed if they don't want to keep a pup and improve their lines - I do understand that there is a need for good responsible breeders at ALL levels.



Malmum said:


> Some say "we only breed if we have a waiting list" yeah right - that's why they advertise their pups on Champdogs is it?


As any breeder will tell you - science and waiting lists don't always match - add to that human nature, spontaneity and unexpected life changes and ANYTHING can happen.

You can take a waiting list for 8 pups and have 2, or you can take a waiting list for 8 pups and have 14 - you do the maths.

I turned away about 30 people for my last litter - the people who had been waiting had been waiting for nearly a year in some cases - then - in some instances life kicked in - some seized other opportunities for pups, as a well bred pet lab is a well bred pet lab (and then don't tell you!) another had a sudden change of family circumstances etc - and suddenly my oversubscribed waiting list was undersubscribed. It might not happen in the less common breeds - but in the more common ones, it does regardless of who you are.



Malmum said:


> Endoresment can be got round as people advertise "pedigree but no papers" and still bred from them and contracts are not worth the paper they're written on, as they are not legal documents - confirmed by the KC themselves - ring them if in doubt!


Implemented correctly, they can prevent someone registering the pups - if the puppy buying public stopped buying unregistered pups (usually from unregistered parents, otherwise invariably the restrictions would have been lifted) - then - oh - surprise surprise, the market would dry up - once again the puppy buying public plays a role 



Malmum said:


> They may care about the pups but mostly about rosettes and public acclaim.
> 
> Accredited breeders? - My *rse!


As an AB who breeds when I want a pup to show / progress my line, I take great offense at that.

I am just as proud of my pups for making a family happy as I am of them achieving even the most basic awards in the show ring (or field or agility or PAT dog. assistance dog, or any other worthwhile activity which sits beside them being someone's companion) - and virtually every other good breeder I know is exactly the same.

As for the showing itself - it doesn't matter how good the dog is - if the dog doesn't enjoy it - it will seldom make a good show dog. They have to enjoy it probably more than the owner does - if you saw some of the dogs running around the ring with their rosettes and their entire demeanour - they absolutely ooze happiness.


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

Can i ask what is so wrong in breeding good sound well bred healthy puppys for the pet market, most puppys even those bred to breeders who show will go to pet homes, homes that will love them, care for them and enjoy them and wont if they dont make the show grade sell them on at around 6 months

Some and please I say some show dogs have a really boreing life, i do appreciate the most will have lovely lives but i am failing to see what is wrong in produceing pet/companion puppys


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

There is absolutely nothing wrong in having a dog as a pet regardless of breed, as long as you fulfill it's needs and I find it insulting when people in the show world say "oh it's just a pet is it?"! well, yes there are far more pet dogs in this Country than show/working dogs and most are very much loved and cared for.

I have to say this isn't a comment i've heard on this forum, i'm talikng about a completely different forum but all the same it is offensive.

Some pet owners would say it's not fair in their eye's to transport dogs all over the Country and other Countries, in all sorts of weather no matter how the breed of dog tolerates hot climes, in small cages some stacked on top of each other just to parade them in public, especially if some of those "showers" believe pet dogs are not as well looked after.
I can not in a million years understand how anyone could send their dog to another Country to be boarded by a complete stranger (to the dog anyway) for months on end just to be shown there and possibly win a few rosettes. How is that loving your dog? Also if a dog doesn't "make the grade" it is often sold on - dreadful!

I know not all accredited breeders are only in it for either money or recognition but some are as far as i'm concerned. Looking in the BRS you see not only far too many BYB's some who can't even be bothered to name their pups, leaving it to the Kenel Club, who then give them all an affix - or so it would seem to the uneducated buyer such as Kenocto - making it look like they are from a good breeder but also regular "responsible" breeders who have a litter in every quarterly catalogue, from their own kennel - obviously not because they want to keep one themselves but to sell them on.

I am talking about a paticular breed here and it is not your breed Swarthy - so no offence meant to you. What makes me so mad are the "responsible breeders" who condem anyone with a pet who would genuinely want a litter to keep one for themselves, as long as health tests are in place, potential homes vetted an understanding of the breed given , puppy pack and information for raising the pup, possible illnesses, like bloat, exercise limitation and lifelong support is offered, plus the ability to take a pup of whatever age back is in place - I cannot see how that is any worse for a one off litter than flooding the market with known breeders puppies.

I myself had a litter, not my doing and wasn't told till I found out at 7 weeks gestation, I was mortified! Although both dogs were over two and half years old niether were health tested and on doing so were higher than should have been - a great worry to me. I turned down numerous buyers, kept all until 12 weeks of age and spayed the only female and neuterd the last remaing male before going to their new homes. The contracts (although useless) stated all pups must be neutered due to health tests not being what they should be. All carried endorsements and the state of the breed in rescue were also made quite clear to the buyers, who met the pups on several occasions before taking them. A huge folder of information on feeding, raising, socialising, exercise limitations, breed history, training and health issues including bloat - plus two weeks supply of frozen raw food and frozen raw processed veg to add to the meals.
I took a pup/dog back at two years of age and placed him in a new home after two months - he's now on a forum and has a wonderful life with a female of the same breed who is also spayed. I have regular contact with all owners and have met on some occasions.
I don't think I could have done more for my pups and I loved (and still do) each one of them immensely. I am also quite capable of dealing with any problems the owners may have had, as i'd researched thoroughly and have experienced various scenario's myself when raising mine.

Endorsements do not stop people breeding as they can sell without KC registration, the reason I kept the bitch back as no matter how well you vet a home accidents can happen.

I ended up keeping a pup although I didn't intend to as he chose me and just as well I did as this one has HD and has just undergone a hip replacement - the reason I was mortified in the first place, as you never know what the future will bring for your darling babies. Thank the Lord all the other pups to date are not showing symptoms of this awful condition but that's not saying they won't as they are all still only 2 1/2 years old.

I wonder how many breeders would have their bitch spayed to ensure her future and keep them for as long as I did to ensure as much as possible they'd have good homes. Even the most experienced breeders can never guarantee their progency will go to forever homes but I could not have done more for these pups if i'd tried and it makes me so mad when some say the inexperienced one off litter brigade are the worst.
My dogs are now all spayed/neuterd as are all the pups, so the line is now discontinued. I never want to go down that road again and the person who hid the secret from me is now divorced after 33 years of marriage - that's how passionate I am about my dogs, yet I am just a pet owner, who some might say shouldn't own working non showing dogs!


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Bijou
> I note that looking at the parents of the pups, both have the Chiari malformation and dilatation of the cervical canal, the stud also has middle ear infection and infection of the outer ear (other known problems in Cavs), and the dam has definite mild Syringomyelia.
> 
> That may be "acceptable" in the closed shop of the breed, however I still wonder how anyone would want to breed from those dogs, knowing the severity of symptoms of those diseases in humans and the great capacity of dogs to hide pain.


_________________

the stud dog ( Jazz singer) does not have any ear infections and his MRI results were a Grade A -

I am not getting a pup from this litter but from one planned later this year ( both parents will be grade A) -


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Malmum said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong in having a dog as a pet regardless of breed, as long as you fulfill it's needs and I find it insulting when people in the show world say "oh it's just a pet is it?"! well, yes there are far more pet dogs in this Country than show/working dogs and most are very much loved and cared for.
> 
> I have to say this isn't a comment i've heard on this forum, i'm talikng about a completely different forum but all the same it is offensive.
> 
> ...


ive not seen anywhere where someone has said there is anything wrong with having a dog for a pet infact i personally wish all dogs were 1st and foremost pets! but breeding just to supply a pet market saturated with puppies is imo not a good enough reason especially in the current climate,it seems like youve taken my posts personally but i was never aiming my opinions towards you i know nothing about you and have to say you sound like you definatley care about your dogs and puppies and did right by them, so does it not get you down when you read the free ads and see people exploiting your breed or any breed for that matter and risking their bitches just to line their pockets??

oh and altho i took advice from my friends in the breed im an 'inexperienced one off litter brigade' and thats just they way it'll be staying:thumbup:


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I can not in a million years understand how anyone could send their dog to another Country to be boarded by a complete stranger (to the dog anyway) for months on end just to be shown there and possibly win a few rosettes. How is that loving your dog?


But it is - if you are familiar with a good show dog, they just ADORE showing - in fact some of them really do live for it. My dogs are nowhere near at the top of the showing field - in fact, they are still very much on the bottom rung of the ladder - they get excited when they go for a walk, to the park, to the beach - but OMG - you see them when the show bag comes out - they go absolutely NUTS.

They whine and whinge and jump around like lunatics, tails never stopping until they are in that car - at Crufts, I struggled to keep my yellow girl out of the ring before her class - they just simply adore it and are miserable when they don't go - my yellow girl has sadly injured her leg and can no longer show - but we've even started doing the odd companion show with her because her behaviour is so obviously bereft every time we leave for a show with her.

Now - take a kennel fortunate enough to have titles - who similar adores showing - they produce quality offspring that are taken into the ring - breeders DO need to continue to develop their lines - these quality producers can be used to diversity and widen gene pools in other countries - while doing what many of them were born for, and live to do.

I know these people couldn't love their dogs more - it shines out not just in everything they achieve - but everything they do.

It benefits the breed and it does benefit the dog - they don't think like humans, if they are cared for and loved - a dog will pretty much adapt to ANY healthy caring happy environment - and these dogs always come back to their families to live out their later years - and quite often go back in the ring in veteran.

I don't call it callous, I call it good for the dog world that breeders are willing to share their dogs and damned hard work for the overall betterment of the breed across the globe.

A lot of hobby breeders like me couldn't afford to tap into these diversified gene pools if it wasn't for quality producers being brought into the country by these top people - we owe them a tremendous amount.



Malmum said:


> Also if a dog doesn't "make the grade" it is often sold on - dreadful!


I've had this conversation on here before, and it is clearly one where people are never going to agree. It is often not as simple as this.

I brought in a yellow boy a few years ago - the cost of buying him, health tests etc and campaigning him ran into thousands. Conformationally, he was the best dog I ever owned - and a darling to boot - he qualified for Crufts at 8 months and was everything I could have wanted in a prospective stud dog.

But he HATED showing - I didn't advertise him, I put the word around to friends about him - I turned probably around 100 enquiries away for him, and then a friend of a friend happened to be looking for another older lab because their Heinz 47 girl missed their old boy so much.

They came to meet him, and it was love at first sight - he now lives on an 80 acre organic farm with other dogs and animals - they have their own lakes and ponds and run the local agility club - and he has the MOST fantastic life.

Me - bereft at losing my gorgeous boy, my wallet MEGA DEPLETED - dog - never been happier - yep - that's dreadful 

My original foundation bitch - bad hips - devastation - but very much MY dog - and simply adored showing - - still here driving me insane - currently spending THOUSANDS on her for intensive physio following an a leg injury unrelated to her hips.

I clearly don't understand the philosophy of putting my dogs first. 

======

There is nothing like the feeling of doing something with your dogs in the showing - even at the lower levels of showing - but for the other 5/6 days of the week, those dogs veg out on the settee, roll around in the mud, play fight, go wild on the beach, have their own pool in summer - and basically have a very happy pet life where they are my daily, and very much loved companions - and that situation is very much mirrored in the large majority of show homes across the world.

I have considered getting another breed - I would love a standard poodle - but I'm afraid - I couldn't be doing with poncing around with all the 'coat' stuff - but whichever way you put it - you watch those dogs in the ring - and they were BORN for it - and have a presence which is, at times, quite breathtaking.

==============================

We've had this conversation before on this site - but whichever way you wrap it up - if a dog doesn't want to be in the showing, then there is virtually nothing you can do to change it.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

mitch4 said:


> Can i ask what is so wrong in breeding good sound well bred healthy puppys for the pet market, most puppys even those bred to breeders who show will go to pet homes, homes that will love them, care for them and enjoy them and wont if they dont make the show grade sell them on at around 6 months
> 
> Some and please I say some show dogs have a really boreing life, i do appreciate the most will have lovely lives but i am failing to see what is wrong in produceing pet/companion puppys


In response to your first question, I'd say that the majority of people who breed for the pet market are just interested in the money that they can make from their dogs. Most people who just breed for this market do not health test and do not make any effort to breed from bitches of any quality or to use a compatible male. Often the pups produced are very untypical specimens.

And my "show dogs" have a wonderful life, that's why they are looking great and have had major success in the show ring as older dogs. One of mine won best bitch at Crufts at nearly 11 :thumbup:


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> because good breeders of labs and sibes again wont be breeding just to supply the pet trade they will either show


So, let me get this straight.

People should not have labs or sibes as pets, they should only be working dogs?

:confused1:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> So, let me get this straight.
> 
> People should not have labs or sibes as pets, they should only be working dogs?
> 
> :confused1:


hahaa so funny how did you come to that conclusion from that quote lol i was talking about reasons to breed.

as i said in my previous post i would rather ALL dogs were 1st and formost pets

and i totally agree with Ridgielover


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Noushka - where did you get the idea I was aiming my post at you from? 
I was in fact responding to what Mitch had asked, I will re read your post as I don't even remember anything about it!

My response was purely a personal experience and a way of showing that most pet owners care very, very much about their animals. They are a huge part of the family and - though some sceptics wouldn't believe - accidents with breeding can and does happen.

It's a shame that BYB's and PF's have made people who have had an accident of such go underground, so to speak. I know I for one was very ashamed of what had happened and would never, at that time, posted on a forum for help through fear of being "shot down"! So dealt with the raising of the pups, mums health, home vetting, entirely alone. My information came from fostering & re homing in the past, dogs i'd owned but not bred and the internet.

I have seen dogs at shows and would say most are quite happy to be there but have also seen some who look downright bored, as do the showers.
Of course I realise if a dog "won't show" then it will be removed from showing and most likely breeding, even if it has all the qualities the breed requires, as what reputable kennel will breed from a dog with no show qualities?  I also can't comprehend - and i'm talking as a pet owner with no showing experience at all - why when a dog is so loved and adored it cannot be kept purely as a pet if it won't show. Most kennels have the room to do so, yet it seems a pet is surplus to requirements, it has to show or be placed in another home.

As for working, of course it is ideal to work a working breed but there are more working dogs as pets than there are working, labs and golden retrievers are a very popular working breed but you see them everywhere, every day in family homes who've never worked but are wonderful family companions.
I have to disagree that poodles where "born to show" as they are defined as a utility dog - bred to aid man in retrieving game from water.

No one wants to look at the free ads and see page after page of dogs of the same breed being sold, of course not but I for one, also don't like looking in the BRS and see some reputable breeders having two litters at a time, then another (from a different bitch I hasten to add) in the following BRS, while condeming others for flooding the market, resulting in unwanted pups/dogs.
It took a lot of courage for the original owners of my returned pup to tell me they could no longer keep him and if I hadn't stayed firendly with all owners and kept in regular contact they may not have. I know some reputable breedrs have found their dogs in rescue, even with a contract, so isn't that in itself a worry when breeding on a regular basis?

I feel there is a wide gap between pet ownership and having a dog for life, regardless of what it throws at you and having a dog, loved as it may be, that can be parted with because it doesn't fare well in the ring - just couldn't do it myself.

Just to end this huge post (sorry) - when the boy i'd kept was around 14 months old I was approached by what I thought was a good breeding kennel and asked if I would consider delaying his neutering so as he could be used as a stud there. I was complimented on him and given by the breeder a 10 out of 10 for his looks and build. I said he's only young and had no health tests and was told it didn't really matter. Of course I said no, although I did feel it was somewhat of a compliment but what a total disaster that would have been - he's now had a hip replacement and any progency would have surely been affected. This kennel person is a friend of many of the breed in the show world, yet on checking the health register doesn't health test but does show - how hypecritical is that?


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Bijou said:


> _________________
> 
> the stud dog ( Jazz singer) does not have any ear infections and his MRI results were a Grade A -
> 
> I am not getting a pup from this litter but from one planned later this year ( both parents will be grade A) -


Otitis media and externa are both mentioned on his scan report - Google them.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Malmum said:


> And i'm talking as a pet owner with no showing experience at all - why when a dog is so loved and adored it cannot be kept purely as a pet if it won't show. Most kennels have the room to do so, yet it seems a pet is surplus to requirements, it has to show or be placed in another home.


That decision is far from made on a blanket basis - I have 6 dogs, three are shown regularly - just one is now of breeding age - the other three are solely pets / the occasional companion show - if I was of the mindset you describe, I wouldn't have insurance for my gang,when my girl nearly became paralysed last year after a neck injury, I could have had her PTS - but we opted for surgery and she has made a complete recovery - and now can't be shown if I wanted to.

Likewise my girl with bad hips who subsequently injured her leg on the beach - she can't be shown or bred from - I have invested thousands in her - she's a horror bag - but I adore her and can't imagine my life without her, and unusually for a dog, I don't think she could live without me - if someone tries to take her from me, she wraps herself around my legs - she is currently havin around £200 worth of physio treatments weekly.

EVERYONE criticises show homes for rehoming - but as our gundog trainer said when I told him her background - that's the difference between the show people and us, she would have been neutered and gone.

So anyone who thinks the show relations are the bad relations - and every dog should be borne to work should ask the majority of working folk what they do with dogs when they 'don't make the grade'.

I adore each and every one of my dogs, and cried for days when my boy went - but - it simply wouldn't have been right to keep him - and he now has the most wonderful life - if that is being cruel and uncaring - then personally I give up because some people have such tunnel vision it seems to me they would keep a dog even if it isn't right for the dog, and that IMO is far more cruel than finding the right home for it.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Malmum said:


> Noushka - where did you get the idea I was aiming my post at you from?
> I was in fact responding to what Mitch had asked, I will re read your post as I don't even remember anything about it!
> 
> My response was purely a personal experience and a way of showing that most pet owners care very, very much about their animals. They are a huge part of the family and - though some sceptics wouldn't believe - accidents with breeding can and does happen.
> ...


im getting really good at misunderstanding posts lately...sorry about that

i actually dont think we're disimilar in quite a few of our views.. i have no doubt and totally agree that most pet owners love their dogs dearly i would never dispute that, i might show some of mine but firstly im a pet owner and i adore my dogs they are a big part of our family...and i also know genuine accidents like yours can happen, but i have to say i dont believe the majority of accidental matings on here are accidental at all

at shows i dont see bored dogs i see dogs being walked around the show ground, socialising with other dogs and resting on their benches... basically being with their owners, many dogs are left home for hours on end whilst their owners go out to work these are what i would say were bored dogs.

just because a dog wont show i wouldnt think this would stop a breeder using it to breed from so long as its an excellent specimin but i suppose thats down to the individual breeder, i personally could never rehome one of my dogs and i know plenty of people in the show world who are just the same as me , i also do know some breeders who do rehome dogs and place them in good homes but its not something i could ever do.

just a point about people who breed and show... i think you'll find these are the ones who do most for their breed rescues they may breed themselves but they also pick up the pieces of many dogs bred by irresponsible byb's and pfs a lot of 'anti show' folk seem to overlook this.

again the majority of people i know in my breed only breed the occasional litter and i can say for sure they dont add to the rescue crisis they do all they can to protect their pups and would always take their dogs should the need arise..always! but i know there are really bad breeders in the show world and i would never defend these either anyone who treats their dogs poorly or over breed are no better than a byb as far as im concerned... the example you give is a shockingly bad breeder! that really is disgusting i would have reported them to the breed club if i were you.


----------



## waking_on_sunshine (Jun 13, 2010)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> Why do you want to breed your bitch? Is she a top working or show dog? Have you done the health checks? Do you have a list of homes for the puppies? Are you prepared for the upheaval if it goes right and the heartache if it goes wrong?
> I don`t see why anyone would want to bring more puppies into the world unless they are a professional breeder.
> JMO


Why should the fact that a dog should be a top quality working or show dog have anything to do with it??? As long as the dog has had all the relevant health tests done for the breed and has a good temprament then what is the problem. The show ring has caused a lot of today's problems with so many breeds so why would anyone want to continue the trend just because a dog looks good ect


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

Malmum thank you for your response and such an indepth personal post, your very clearly a lovely owner for your dogs


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

waking_on_sunshine said:


> Why should the fact that a dog should be a top quality working or show dog have anything to do with it??? As long as the dog has had all the relevant health tests done for the breed and has a good temprament then what is the problem. The show ring has caused a lot of today's problems with so many breeds so why would anyone want to continue the trend just because a dog looks good ect


Good post :thumbup:


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Swarthy - please don't get me wrong I am not pointing a finger at you personally - I know nothing about your breeding practices and it's not my business to question your methods. You sound like a very caring person who loves your dogs dearly.
I do know from elsewhere - can't say who as it's not right -on a public forum of a top breeder who once having imported a dog was talking about it arriving just in time as her bitch was in season and ready and the poor dogs paws had hardly touched English soil. Why I wondered was it necessary to breed from him immediately, couldn't he have settled in his new home first? Then some months down the line he was sold on, felt so sorry that he was being pushed from pillar to post by all and sundry and that gives us non show peeps a bad impression of some show people.
Not your breed though, so please don't take offence.

Noushka - I know just how much some "show-ers" etc. do in my breed for rescues and can't fault them for that but there are also a few who seem to just breed, breed, breed and it's gets right up my nose - to put it bluntly - that these same people would not have accepted the situation I was in as genuine, the reason I would not have posted about my predicament despite needing expert advice. Having said that i'm no spring chicken, lol and at least have been around long enough to have a good deal of common sense. The fact that I bred and showed pedigree cats when younger also helped as did the fostering some years ago of Staffies.
The breeder I mentioned was probably not even a memeber of the breed club and the Kennel Club doesn't seem to care about health and IMO has a breeding age for a bitch which is far too young for a first litter.

The situation I ended up in left me with hardly any money once they had all gone as those who breed will know but I still did the best I could for the pups even giving up work to look after them and still only work part time now, in fact i'm not working again at the mo due to Flynn just having his hip replacement. I may not have a husband but I have four wonderful grown kids who are still at home and support me financially, which allowed me to stay at home with the pups and now with Flynn. Wouldn't trust anyone else with either job and when I did I ended up with a pregnant dog.

Lastly I am not meaning to offend show peole in general but there are a few whom I find suspect with their breeding practice's. Personally showing would never be for me, couldn't be doing wth all the hard work - I just enjoy being around my babies, and giving them all the love and attention I can.

No offence intended to any one in particular. 

BTW - Thanks mitch, my dogs are very much my kids now, all my human kids are grown up and have no grandchildren so I do tend to dote on them, lol.


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

Ridgielover said:


> In response to your first question, I'd say that the majority of people who breed for the pet market are just interested in the money that they can make from their dogs. Most people who just breed for this market do not health test and do not make any effort to breed from bitches of any quality or to use a compatible male. Often the pups produced are very untypical specimens.
> 
> And my "show dogs" have a wonderful life, that's why they are looking great and have had major success in the show ring as older dogs. One of mine won best bitch at Crufts at nearly 11 :thumbup:


Thtas quite a sweeping statement and can also be very true of show breeders, it can happen in both walks

I also know of show dogs that have fantastic lives, like everything though there is good and bad in all areas of life. I also appreciate that not every dog if they dont make the show grade or just hate it can be kept, i was just trying to make the point that you will always get good and bad breeders in the show world and pet world, so neither should be condemd

There are people out there that dont want a rescue, cant for whatever reason take on a rescue or dont fit the rule book of the rescue centres, plus god forbid we mention this but some people want a puppy and want a specific breed of puppy as a pet not to show, so there will always be a need for good honest and ethical breeders who breed for pet homes


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

mitch4 said:


> Thtas quite a sweeping statement and can also be very true of show breeders, it can happen in both walks
> 
> I also know of show dogs that have fantastic lives, like everything though there is good and bad in all areas of life. I also appreciate that not every dog if they dont make the show grade or just hate it can be kept, i was just trying to make the point that you will always get good and bad breeders in the show world and pet world, so neither should be condemd
> 
> There are people out there that dont want a rescue, cant for whatever reason take on a rescue or dont fit the rule book of the rescue centres, plus god forbid we mention this but some people want a puppy and want a specific breed of puppy as a pet not to show, so there will always be a need for good honest and ethical breeders who breed for pet homes


In respect of your comment I've put in red - this is where we will have to agree to differ. Look at all the dogs in rescue kennels - there are obviously too many dogs being bred. And dogs are being sold to unsuitable homes. I breed the occasional litter of puppies. I keep one for myself (otherwise why breed?) and the rest I chose to place in pet homes. There are far too many people breeding who don't know what they are doing, don't bother to health test, make very unsuitable pairings and who don't actually really care about the breed or the puppies they produce. Just take a look at the ads for RR puppies on the site related to this board. How many people mention hip scoring? Most seem to own both parents, aren't keeping a puppy - just breeding to make money 

By the way, I have had considerable success in showing my breed - at one time I had 3 champions and a dual CC winner at home, and I do NOT have a policy of rehoming dogs that don't make the grade. My dogs live in the house, sprawling all over my furniture and are much loved :thumbup:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

mitch4 said:


> Thtas quite a sweeping statement and can also be very true of show breeders, it can happen in both walks
> 
> I also know of show dogs that have fantastic lives, like everything though there is good and bad in all areas of life. I also appreciate that not every dog if they dont make the show grade or just hate it can be kept, i was just trying to make the point that you will always get good and bad breeders in the show world and pet world, so neither should be condemd
> 
> There are people out there that dont want a rescue, cant for whatever reason take on a rescue or dont fit the rule book of the rescue centres, plus god forbid we mention this but some people want a puppy and want a specific breed of puppy as a pet not to show, so there will always be a need for good honest and ethical breeders who breed for pet homes


the problem with people who breed for the pet market is you'll be hard pushed to find a breeder who does all the relevant health testing for the breed, who would breed from only the best quality animals seeking out the best quality stud dog to compliment their bitch because they will just be using the dogs they have on hand, but of course there are bad breeders in the show world no one could deny this but its far far easier to find a responsible ethical breeder amongst this group of people.

when i bought my 1st sibe from a very reputable breeder i had no intention of showing her i bought her soley as a pet the showing came later, most breeders dont insist their puppies are shown the main concern is they have a lovely home, so i disagree that there will always be a need for people to breed just for the pet trade.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Swarthy - please don't get me wrong I am not pointing a finger at you personally - I know nothing about your breeding practices and it's not my business to question your methods. You sound like a very caring person who loves your dogs dearly.
> 
> Lastly I am not meaning to offend show peole in general but there are a few whom I find suspect with their breeding practice's. Personally showing would never be for me, couldn't be doing wth all the hard work - I just enjoy being around my babies, and giving them all the love and attention I can.
> 
> No offence intended to any one in particular.


I think it is reasonable to say, when you are dealing with human nature, there will always be good and bad, whether pet, show or working. Even in deliberate cross breeding - a practice that will seldom (if ever) sit comfortably with me, there are a small handful that do everything by the book.

Take commercial breeders, they are immediately labelled puppy farmers - they are not, they simply operate as a business for breeding - it isn't for me, but I do know of one who has gone to great lengths to secure the most fantastically bred stud dogs, conducts every mainstream health test available, and whose dogs have the most fantastic lives and raises well socialised happy puppies.

In certain mainland European countries, breeders, even the top ones, can only operate at this level, because taxes on breeding are so high, they have no option but to operate as a business  but I do know they love their dogs like nothing on this earth.

====================================

I have no doubt there are practices going on in show quarters of which I have no knowledge - and would find it very difficult to believe they happen in my breed, or any of the other gundog breeds - but I do understand they do happen 



waking_on_sunshine said:


> Why should the fact that a dog should be a top quality working or show dog have anything to do with it??? As long as the dog has had all the relevant health tests done for the breed and has a good temprament then what is the problem. The show ring has caused a lot of today's problems with so many breeds so why would anyone want to continue the trend just because a dog looks good ect


I was with you on your first sentence - because quality doesn't always produce quality (although it does increase the chances) - and having had to start with a pet bitch myself (after my show dog was unsuitable for breeding), I have worked damned hard coupled with 7 years intensive research to ensure that my lines improve with every generation.

I believe, so long as you are working to improve your dogs conformationally while as an absolute minimum retaining temperament and health (and ideally improving them further), I have NO issue with someone breeding.

Unfortunately, for me you lost it when you threw in the bit about the showring being responsible for the problems with so many breeds today - there are a very small minority of breeds who may have been adversely affected, but in the main, the showring is responsible for producing happy, healthy well bred dogs.

Health results are no good unless your dog at least looks like it's breed - you know it's faults and how you might improve them.

Pet breeders who believe health is the only relevant factor in breeding, are as much, if not more so responsible for problems arising in breeds than their show and working counterparts - because they can end up producing dogs that look nothing like the purpose they were bred for, and if choosing partners based solely on health, temperament and other areas can very quickly suffer.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Malmum said:


> Noushka - I know just how much some "show-ers" etc. do in my breed for rescues and can't fault them for that but there are also a few who seem to just breed, breed, breed and it's gets right up my nose - to put it bluntly - that these same people would not have accepted the situation I was in as genuine, the reason I would not have posted about my predicament despite needing expert advice. Having said that i'm no spring chicken, lol and at least have been around long enough to have a good deal of common sense. The fact that I bred and showed pedigree cats when younger also helped as did the fostering some years ago of Staffies.
> The breeder I mentioned was probably not even a memeber of the breed club and the Kennel Club doesn't seem to care about health and IMO has a breeding age for a bitch which is far too young for a first litter.
> 
> The situation I ended up in left me with hardly any money once they had all gone as those who breed will know but I still did the best I could for the pups even giving up work to look after them and still only work part time now, in fact i'm not working again at the mo due to Flynn just having his hip replacement. I may not have a husband but I have four wonderful grown kids who are still at home and support me financially, which allowed me to stay at home with the pups and now with Flynn. Wouldn't trust anyone else with either job and when I did I ended up with a pregnant dog.
> ...


sorry to hear you had a bad experience and i truely hope Flynn recovers well from his hip replacement

again i agree there are some who show who are bad breeders, i also understand that showing isnt gunna be everyones cup of tea or every dogs cup of tea for that matter ...infact Indi who i think is probably my best dog conformation wise dosent like it so i dont take her.... simple as and like the majority of people whos hobby is showing my dogs are a massive part of my life.... they live in the house with us, lounge all over the sofa's even lounge on top of the dining table but i dont care so long as they have happy lives

and theres no offence taken here....hope i havent offended anyone either


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

If the Kennel Club were to register litters only from parents that have been health tested, I believe that health issues would drop dramatically within a few years but as the radoi 4 link I put up said, it would lose them far too much revenue.

Most of the gen pub don't even know about health testing - I know I didn't when buying ours, although I have to say if i'd joined a forum like this one at least i'd have been a bit more clued up.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> If the Kennel Club were to register litters only from parents that have been health tested, I believe that health issues would drop dramatically within a few years but as the radoi 4 link I put up said, it would lose them far too much revenue.


I don't believe only registering litters that had come from health tested parents would have any significant impact on health. It would simply stop people registering their dogs and would significantly increase the number of non registered dogs. The reality is that health testing is not cheap and those that do not do it would not bother even if it meant unregistered puppies. All the time the general public think buying a puppy from unhealth tested parents is ok and it won't happen to them, or they listen to the sales talk of the puppy seller that their dogs are health and have never had problems, they will continue to breed with health testing.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Malmum said:


> If the Kennel Club were to register litters only from parents that have been health tested, I believe that health issues would drop dramatically within a few years but as the radoi 4 link I put up said, it would lose them far too much revenue.
> 
> *Most of the gen pub don't even know about health testing *- I know I didn't when buying ours, although I have to say if i'd joined a forum like this one at least i'd have been a bit more clued up.





rocco33 said:


> I don't believe only registering litters that had come from health tested parents would have any significant impact on health. It would simply stop people registering their dogs and would significantly increase the number of non registered dogs. The reality is that health testing is not cheap and those that do not do it would not bother even if it meant unregistered puppies. * All the time the general public think buying a puppy from unhealth tested parents is ok *and it won't happen to them, or they listen to the sales talk of the puppy seller that their dogs are health and have never had problems, they will continue to breed with health testing.


I don't concur with these two statements . . . at all.

Maybe it has been my experience as a purchaser who wanted to know about the dogs behind and who knew to ask for minimal health testing . . . . and I know many others like myself.

I really don't care if there are members of the general public who might think as has been posted (and THAT would change for many if the clubs and more breeders that registered and were involved in the clubs would take a leadership role and educate), . . . for those of us that ARE looking, it is NOT right for KCs to claim they 'are for the betterment of dogs' on one hand, and on the other register dogs simply because they have a recordable lineage (or a fake one), and by doing this, keep the cash flowing.

Do those within the umbrella registries realize how destructive, to the support of their own organization, this is? That very thing is what makes the registration worth nothing to most people who have the tiniest bit of practical knowledge about dogs, and is why many people that I know really don't care to look in that direction for a dog.

In all honesty, my first thought when looking toward purchasing a pup instead of taking in a rescue, was that the hypocrisy of an organization that would do this makes me, off the start, not want to support that organization with my cash, nor anyone that would work within its confines. I have discussed this with more than a few people, and I'm far from the only one that feels this way.

If I have to slog through investigative information on individual breeders working within a registry to figure out which ones are crappy, just as I would have to on breeders working forward on their own lines and on their own terms, then really what is the point?

I do understand that some work within the confines as it is a trade off for them . . . the support and knowledge from other breeders being important, along with the idea of being part of 'furthering' a breed. To me, it still leaves a bad taste. I have yet to wrestle through to an answer even for myself about the 'right or wrong' of supporting it . . . it is not black and white of course.

Again, I live where ~90% of dogs aren't registered, and where many have long histories of mutt dog ownership and acquiring dogs from non-registry sources, with some of those sources showing the utmost in care for their pups and their breeding, including (for me) followup for life as they ARE a community or church acquaintance you see regularly. Albeit, this is rare just as it is rare to find a registering breeder doing this. This might be reflective of a difference in culture.

CC


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I agree to some extent Rocco but there are many who think that KC registration means the pups are sound - as shown in the Panorama programme.

I think most people buying a pedigree pup know about KC registration but not necessarily about health tests, particularly as there are all different issues within different breeds. With the help of the internet this need not be these days but even now I know people who don't use it or know how - one person that springs to mind is a friend of my sons (32) who has no interest in the internet whatever and there must be many more, strange as it sounds! Surely if breeds were researched - and where better than the net - PF's and BYB's wouldn't get away with selling pups at the rate they do, some being extremely ill as we all well know.

Listening to the breeder is more of a worry and some can be so convincing to the niave buyer. Such a shame!


----------



## mitch4 (Oct 31, 2009)

Ridgielover said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> In respect of your comment I've put in red - this is where we will have to agree to differ. Look at all the dogs in rescue kennels - there are obviously too many dogs being bred. And dogs are being sold to unsuitable homes. I breed the occasional litter of puppies. I keep one for myself (otherwise why breed?) and the rest I chose to place in pet homes. There are far too many people breeding who don't know what they are doing, don't bother to health test, make very unsuitable pairings and who don't actually really care about the breed or the puppies they produce. Just take a look at the ads for RR puppies on the site related to this board. How many people mention hip scoring? Most seem to own both parents, aren't keeping a puppy - just breeding to make money
> 
> By the way, I have had considerable success in showing my breed - at one time I had 3 champions and a dual CC winner at home, and I do NOT have a policy of rehoming dogs that don't make the grade. My dogs live in the house, sprawling all over my furniture and are much loved :thumbup:


I accept we will differ here  I do 100% agree that any mateing must only take place having looked in to the suitability of the 2 dogs and that all health checks are carried out and proof available that this has actually taken place

I will leave it there Hopefully on a good note :001_smile:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I don't believe only registering litters that had come from health tested parents would have any significant impact on health. It would simply stop people registering their dogs and would significantly increase the number of non registered dogs. The reality is that health testing is not cheap and those that do not do it would not bother even if it meant unregistered puppies.


..agree ....the majority of dogs are not KC registered and the number of unregistered dogs would grow if ( as I believe they should ) the KC insisted on testing before registration.

this would mean that in the popular breeds targteted by BYb's andf puppy farmers, health would continue to be a problem -minority breeds tend to be self regulating anyway with every litter known about and the health status of each stud and dam also known ( ask any breeder of Skye Terriers for example and I bet they can tell you how many litters were bred this year, by whom and from which dogs !! ).

There are to my mind two main reasons for breeding - one is to succeed in whatever doggy activity you are involved in - i.e to breed a better agility dog, show dog, gun dog, sled dog etc etc - breeders in this catagory will seek out the best they can in order to improve their chances of breeding something better than before - because 'improvement' matters more than money they are far more likely to use dogs from overseas and are more likely to health test

the second reason is for profit - if this is a breeders main rational then they will avoid doing anything that will reduce their profit so ...they tend to use their own studs, they do not health test, and do not assess what they produce against any kind of criteria.

The only way that health will be improved is by puppy buyers insisting on teir pup coming form health tested parents - this will hurt the second kind of breeder where it matters as they will be unable to sell - but of course this will mean that pups will be more expensive - the cost of the tests will be added to the cost of the pup , will puppy buyers pay the extra for a lab pup from health tested parents when the breeder down the road is selling one that looks identical costs £200 less but comes from untested parents ?


----------



## Liteskye (Aug 10, 2009)

Kaida said:


> Ugh, my bitch's seasons are not co-operating with our non-dog-life plans, and DH has put his foot down and said "This time, [big] human plans come first." So... how old is too old for a first litter? She's in season now, but we've not finished all her health tests so can't breed her yet. But her next season (expected in 8 months) is clashing with major human-life plans which would make having a litter... something I couldn't give my full attention to. The season after that she'll have JUST (that month) turned 3 years old. Is that too old for a first litter? My instinct says it's not, though it's not ideal, but I thought I'd solicit more expert opinions. What about the season following, where she'll be 3 years 8 months? She's a cocker spaniel, btw.


In my puppy contracts to people they can't breed until 2 years of age, and they can't breed the bitch when she is over 5.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> The only way that health will be improved is by puppy buyers insisting on teir pup coming form health tested parents - this will hurt the second kind of breeder where it matters as they will be unable to sell - but of course this will mean that pups will be more expensive - the cost of the tests will be added to the cost of the pup , will puppy buyers pay the extra for a lab pup from health tested parents when the breeder down the road is selling one that looks identical costs £200 less but comes from untested parents ?


I completely agree with this, in fact, I think there is a post on the forum about someone buying a kc registered dog that they got for a 'great price'.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

BYB's and PF's will always be a problem but when you get a kennel that isn't health testing and is showing, isn't that a worry too or does it only apply to BYB's and PF's?

Surely health testing is a must in any case and even more so if you're showing your dogs to the gen pub and getting potential buyers by doing so.

Not all cases of HD are noticable by gait alone so a judge wouldn't necessarily know if it were healthy or not. As my dogs surgeon said you can only tell by x rays, some dogs can have severe HD and not show it but easily pass it on.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Malmum said:


> BYB's and PF's will always be a problem *but when you get a kennel that isn't health testing and is showing*, isn't that a worry too or does it only apply to BYB's and PF's?
> 
> Surely health testing is a must in any case and even more so if you're showing your dogs to the gen pub and getting potential buyers by doing so.
> 
> Not all cases of HD are noticable by gait alone so a judge wouldn't necessarily know if it were healthy or not. As my dogs surgeon said you can only tell by x rays, some dogs can have severe HD and not show it but easily pass it on.


I was just reading about this from a poster else where. There are 23 breeds in the toy group. Even for the ABS, only the Cavaliers have a required test and that is for eyes! (not actually the most pressing health issue in the breed). The other 22 toy breeds have no health requirements, not even a basic vet check in the year before mating.



Bijou said:


> There are to my mind two main reasons for breeding


Success and monetary gain are the only two reasons you believe? - seriously? I'd have to completely disagree, easily exampled seeing as how the OP of this thread has made it clear she is breeding for neither of these reasons.

Sometimes people do have a passion, and that is not necessarily supported by success and money.



Bijou said:


> The only way that health will be improved is by puppy buyers insisting on teir pup coming form health tested parents - this will hurt the second kind of breeder where it matters as they will be unable to sell - but of course this will mean that pups will be more expensive - the cost of the tests will be added to the cost of the pup , will puppy buyers pay the extra for a lab pup from health tested parents when the breeder down the road is selling one that looks identical costs £200 less but comes from untested parents


Agree with part of this, but not all. Puppy buyers are not the ONLY end of this stick. The other end is for those that do breed, and those that are in leadership positions, *to LEAD* and educate in this area.

The KC *could* make the effort. If they insist on registering from untested parent dogs at the very least they could do something as simple as listing, on the registration given, which tests have been done on the parent dogs. Just that information on the first pup purchased for some would help them learn to look for health testing.

Will purchasers buy a more expensive pup? Some will and some won't - depends on how they're educated. I can't see catering to the lowest common denominator being a constructive way forward, no matter what the excuses given. Any registration body that does this is just becoming part of the problem, and has no right then to claim they are about the betterment of dogs.

I like this excerpt that I read earlier today, on this topic.

_"Teaching people how to responsibly acquire and own their animals is the answer to today's animal issues. Let's quit pointing fingers and calling names and generally making jackasses out of ourselves. I say if we're going to throw money and resources at the problem, let's throw it where it will have the most long-lasting and positive effect.

PETA and other animal rights' groups are out there in our school systems and in our parks and on our street corners with personal visits and "teaching materials" to shape children and even adults into their way of thinking. *Where are the breed clubs? Where are the breed rescues? Where are the great shelters? What about designing foster care programs and helping people overcome the behavior problems that lead them to relinquish their pets? Why aren't we ALL working together on educational programs to enhance pet ownership? We all want the same exact thing: * animals safe and loved in a caring home. If you want a pet, we want you to have one and to love it and care for it responsibly throughout its whole life.

Why aren't we demanding that our community leaders appropriate funds to educate and support owners? The American College of Theriogenologists suggests "Support programs to expand the public awareness of acceptable breeding standards and responsibilities of ownership." And "low cost spay/neuter facilities for economically disadvantaged persons and communities."_​
SHELTER STATISTICS: MYTH OF OVERPOPULATION, by Donna Noland

In my province, our community leaders did not need to appropriate funds from anyone. They instead educated and sold people on being responsible, licensing and microchipping. License and penalty revenues pay for the animal control operating budget, and fund no-charge spay/neuter programs for the underprivileged.

No - we aren't completely free of numpties, but the community is handling the situation. Not everyone in the community has to become a saint (nor can we expect that to ever happen) to get a good foot hold on these problems.

The Calgary Model For Success: - http://saveourdogs.net/2009/08/09/the-calgary-model-for-success/

Another good read about how to stop the killing (and these suggestions have succeeded in many places.)

Sacrificing Animal Lives To Ideology: - http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2...yneuter-sacrificing-animal-lives-to-ideology/

CC


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Next time round - if there is one - I would DEFINITELY pay more for a pup from health tsted parents. I have learned a very valuable lesson with my dogs and would never want to see a dog of mine suffer in the future. 

I do agree that the registration forms of pups from non health tested parents should state so - at least it would be brought to the buyers attention, something that the breeder would probably not do.

Lest we forget that the KC is a money making machine and anything that may deplete some of their enormous funds will always come second place IMO!


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> "Teaching people how to responsibly acquire and own their animals is the answer to today's animal issues


completely agree - I am a teacher ( of kids with learning and behaviour disorders) and use the KC's 'Safe and Sound' programme The Kennel Club Safe and Sound Portal as part of my students PHSE curriculum -one of my Groen bitches is also a PAT dog and comes into class every Friday to help to demonstrate how to approach a dog, and basic dog care.

Almost all the big animal charities also have education programmes as a growing part of their work - education is the KEY way to improve responsible pet ownership in the future.



> Success and monetary gain are the only two reasons you believe? -


yep ...well my post did not say *'only' *there will always be the 'oops ' litter and those whose impetus is to create a new breed ( but this may well be bound up with 'success ' or financial gain too ! ) ....but in the main yes the two main reasons are to improve 'performance' or to make money - breeding is hard, messy. time consuming and expensive - it takes over your house, your family and your whole life - there has to be an incentive to make people want to give such a huge part of their lives over to breeding dogs -

Would a shepherd breed if his iincentive was not to create a sucessful herder ? - without the imptus of the racing track why would greyhounds be bred ? and without the hobby of showing there would be precious few of our less well known breeds around - the incentive to breed them is borne from the desire to succeed in what ever field or work their owners are involved in i.e to 'improve' their chance of success.

After all ...there are many critics of dog breeders around -( it seems to be open season at the moment) but how many are actually putting their money where their mouth is and breeding dogs sucessfully across many generations themselves ? -
the reason they are not is because they have not the 'incentives ' of the first group of breeders or ( thankfully) the greed of the second !


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Bijou said:


> yep ...well my post did not say *'only' *there will always be the 'oops ' litter and those whose impetus is to create a new breed ( but this may well be bound up with 'success ' or financial gain too ! ) ....but in the main yes the two main reasons are to improve 'performance' or to make money - breeding is hard, messy. time consuming and expensive - it takes over your house, your family and your whole life - there has to be an incentive to make people want to give such a huge part of their lives over to breeding dogs - !


While success and money might be the main reasons most people breed, I honestly cannot fathom those that have not in their lifetime met or known a breeder that breeds out of generosity.

I have, and more than one. The ones that I have met are not all of working breeds, nor do they all belong to clubs where trophies and ribbons are a reward. Their reward comes from a different place, and it is about a giving of their love/passion.

People were (and some still are) not always so bound up about their time. Some do things (still) because they love to do it and love to give it their all knowing they have a talent for doing it well, despite whether it might be costly to them in the end (monetarily and sometimes emotionally) . . . that is the passion that I was speaking about.

To me passion should be the reason behind a dog breeder breeding - not success, nor profit. I've never understood those that are all about having that success validated through competition, but do know that many passionate breeders can be found amongst those that show so I do find it odd for someone heavily involved in the show world to not acknowledge the wonderful inspirational breeders that do so out of passion.

CC


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

well of course there is a passion - almost a kind of madness LOL ( just try and get me to shut up about BSD !! ) - but think about this logically - without assessing and comparing like against like all you have are individual breeders breeding in isolation -and we all think we breed the best dogs !! - it's only when assessed against others of the same breed that you really have a clearer picture of how the breed is progressing as a whole.

Look at the pattern that emerges each time a new breed is formed - inevitably there will be some form of assessment -even unrecognised breeds hold their own shows and working competitions

News and Events - ISWS - International Silken Windhound Society

THE NORTHERN INUIT SOCIETY | A howling success

The Labradoodle Club of Great Britain - Events

It's not about trophies and ribbons but about trying to breed the best you can against the criteria for the breed - all stock people have done this - visit any rural agricultural show and you will see cattle, sheep, horses even chickens being assessed in this way

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'breeder that breeds out of generosity' breeding is costly and I'm assuming you don't mean that such breeders give their pups away ? -and it seems to me to be hardly 'generous' to the breed to produce it in isolation with no kind of 'quality control '

I've said it before but it bears repeating - good breeding is all about knowledge - of your objectives - of how you will meet them - of the problems you might encounter and of how to solve them - and knowing how good your dogs are in relation to others of the same breed is all part of that knowledge - burying your head in the sand and producing dogs without this kind of knwledge is like saying I don't need to hip score because I know my dogs are fine - you need to have a criteria to judge exactly what 'fine' really means !


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I do agree that the registration forms of pups from non health tested parents should state so - at least it would be brought to the buyers attention, something that the breeder would probably not do.


They actually do by Exclusion (as opposed to actually stating it) - because the space is there on the form for various tests - and if blank - generally the tests haven't been done (notwithstanding the time lag in updating records of course).

When I bought my boy, I knew he was PRA clear by parentage - but it didn't appear on the paperwork until after the change of ownership.

The problem with all this of course is that the majority of owners do not know what they are looking at 

If I get chance later, will happily scan in (removing the personal bits) of one of my pups registration certificates - so at least people can get an idea of what and where they should be looking for information.

Often when faced with a litter of puppie, prospectine owners eyes glaze over when you start showing them health certificates - and while I include a copy of everything in the puppy pack - I do cover off the registration form very quickly which succinctly lists every test done for the parents and any genetically clear conditions for the offspring.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

That would be great Swarthy. I'm curious because I've never seen a KC certificate. I am familiar with the CKC, AKC, and UKC certificates and I don't believe there is a place for test results. I got these off of google images:




























For a purchaser to know to look for these things, though, I believe is asking much too much. To be of any kind of educational value (which was the point) the recommended tests should be OBVIOUSLY listed. Even if this was done on a separate leaflet, different for each breed, it would be better than what is being done now.

My experience with puppy placement has been different from yours. I found most wanting to know more and have a fall back place to get info. I have placed just two foster litters over about 20 years, but for both I managed to find adopters that were keenly interested in the health information (what pups might be prone to - what to watch for as adults re knees hips etc.) that I gave out. Usually we were going over care/raising/health/upkeep for a minimum of an hour, and that was after the few meetings beforehand where I'm sure I tested their patience with information overload.

CC


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I do agree swarthy but I think it would be better to actually state that parent/s are NOT health tested as peeps don't always know what to look for or the BMS for that particular breed. 

My dogs hip score (male) was on the transfer certs too but meant nothing to the owners as they didn't know what the BMS was for the breed. Mums was done after the pups had left - not a breeding I knew about til 7 weeks gestation, as you prob know.

What I do know is breeding is def NOT for me - the hardest and most emmotional time of my life and i've raised four children but this took the biscuit.
You have to be a very strong person - as far as i'm concerned - to breed.
Even now I cry when I get e mails and pics of the babes and they're over two years old, parting with them hurt then and still does even now. 
I really am such a wuss!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> That would be great Swarthy. I'm curious because I've never seen a KC certificate. I am familiar with the CKC, AKC, and UKC certificates and I don't believe there is a place for test results. I got these off of google images:


Just scanning them in now - you will need to give me half hour to remove the personal details 



Malmum said:


> I do agree swarthy but I think it would be better to actually state that parent/s are NOT health tested as peeps don't always know what to look for or the BMS for that particular breed.


Do YOU know - that is the very first time I think I have seen anyone suggest that - and I think it just might be a darn good one 

Something like that would probably have to be limited to the mandatory tests for ABS breeders - but it is certainly a very interesting idea  and would very clearly distinguish a benchmark for accredited and non-accredited breeders who do use some or all of the schemes..



Malmum said:


> My dogs hip score (male) was on the transfer certs too but meant nothing to the owners as they didn't know what the BMS was for the breed. Mums was done after the pups had left - not a breeding I knew about til 7 weeks gestation, as you prob know.


I do have an element of a grudging admiration for those who do end up with an accidental litter and try to put things right - it does show a level of commitment that isn't particularly common with 'whoops' matings.

Off to sort out the certificates - back soon


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

OK - here goes

The first one is the certificate the owner gets from the breeder when they take their new pup home

You can see the pup is hereditarily clear for PRA

Both parents hip and elbow scores are on there - the dates of any DNA certificates and the date and results of their last eye certificate (this last bit is where it falls down slightly because the KC database hadn't been updated by the time the litter were registered - the new owners would have got the details of the updated certificate when they got their registration papers


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

And the owners registration certificate - pretty much the same thing - details of any conditions the pup is hereditarily clear for - and all the parents health results.

The registration certificate is also updated by the Eye panellist every time a new eye test is done.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Thank you for scanning and posting those Swarthy. How wonderful that the papers already have room to show test results!

I'd love to see that in other registries, along with an effort to educate the purchasers as to what they should be looking for.

I have read others in the past mentioning that people have the net and therefore 'have not excuse' for not being informed about the health difficulties their breed might face, but that truly makes me guffaw. I still know many, many in my generation and older who do not have internet, and many others who do not even know how to google search (my father as an example). They use their internet for simple emails and not much more. Their information comes the way we used to all get it - from magazines and books and other print forms.

I know someone that posted on a yahoo list not a week ago with a Cavalier with SM, purchased from a 'reputable' club associated US breeder. They are not internet users and had not ever heard of the disease in all the reading they had done nor at the time of their puppy purchase a few years ago. Their vet directed them to the support group, and they are stumbling through. I can attest to the fact that I have four Cavalier books and other magazines (the kind you get at Petstores about breeds) and amongst all of them there is only one that gives a buried mention of this 'newly emerging' and 'rare' condition.

I believe wholeheartedly that those who are at the forefront of the breeds should be transparent about the health conditions, and attempting to disseminate as much information to as many as they can. Seems to me that through registrations would be the point of contact that could easily reach the most people.

CC


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> Thank you for scanning and posting those Swarthy. How wonderful that the papers already have room to show test results!
> 
> I'd love to see that in other registries, along with an effort to educate the purchasers as to what they should be looking for.


Now it is my turn to be a little surprised - is this not practised in other countries? would be interested to hear from other people around the globe

The UK KC registration forms actually sit quite well with Malmum's suggestion about putting "not tested" on the forms.

The tests referred to for each breed would really have to sit with those mandated under the ABS - which I know some doesn't feel go far enough - but then an AB isn't limited to only those tests, they can do more if those choose - and it would be a darn good starting point for say a Labrador puppy buyer to see "Hips - not tested" - "eyes not tested" quickly and easily.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

swarthy said:


> Now it is my turn to be a little surprised - is this not practised in other countries? would be interested to hear from other people around the globe


The last AKC sales contract and registration I looked at was for a friend's dog 3 years ago - no it was not practiced. Simply a breeders contract was given, and on that the breeder left the sires/dams names blank and the owner didn't catch them on it, and the contract was signed that way. The registration certificate came after the dog was neutered (prior to nine months of age,as per the contract)

The last CKC (Canadian Kennel Club) sales contract and registration I looked at was for a family member, a year or two before that - no it was not practiced.

Like you, I'd like to see the requrement for this information to be stipulated with every sale of every dog (pure or mixed), and if there has been no health testing, that should be stipulated as well.

CC


----------

