PDA

View Full Version : What age should you breed your dog?



Margaret C
12th March 2009, 03:04 PM
http://www.cavalierhealth.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=302&page=2

I really enjoy reading some of the threads on this post. Amazing how far from reality some of the answers appear to be.

At least SM & MVD is now being discussed. It has to be good news for the breed.

I was wondering how the breeders who moderate and/or post on this health forum would answer the thread above.

Breeders' dogs routinely start their stud career at about a year old, which is in contravention to the long standing heart protocol that so many of these breeders say they have followed for years.

It makes fascinating reading to see how skillfully those few breeders that have responded avoided answering the question.

Post number 17 may put them on the spot. I really look forward to reading the replies.

Margaret C

meljoy
12th March 2009, 06:31 PM
That makes interesting reading.......still a long way to go with a lot of breeders it seems.

Mel

*Pauline*
12th March 2009, 06:42 PM
Yes, I was very worried when I saw this.

Also check out #19:thmbsup:

Jan Bell
13th March 2009, 09:34 AM
At least SM & MVD is now being discussed. It has to be good news for the breed


I’ve just had a look at this – a very reasonable question put with tact and diplomacy. And yes, I am very pleased to see that MVD and SM are being more freely discussed.

I have wanted to know the answer to this for some time. I have repeatedly heard the allegation that PDE was unfair as it did not give credit for all the research initiated by the CKCS Club. I would not for a moment argue that the CKCS Club have done a tremendous amount where research is concerned, but I think they miss the point that research without following the recommendations from the said research is rather pointless. They cannot expect credit for what comes down to some rather nice paperwork if they are not successful in persuading UK breeder to follow the protocols set down

In a letter from the CKCS Club on this point I was told that they had no way of enforcing breeders to follow the recommended protocols. True, but the Club’s Committee could make its position clear if they truly believe that this is the route to be taken. We all know the difference between an organisation promoting a policy and one paying lip service without real commitment.

Many breeders appear believe that their experience means that the protocols don’t apply to them. So what are they for? Who are they for?

I am not trying to be difficult here, but I really don't understand what the point of having them is. I read that they are only "guidelines" , which seems to be to be saying that the CKCS Club isn't really expecting breeders to follow them. Saying this upsets people, but I can't help that this is how it looks to me. I have been told that as a non-breeder I don't understand - quite right, please somebody explain it to me.

I appreciate that experience is a valuable commodity, as long as it doesn’t result in a blinkered vision as to what the current situation is. When it comes to people like my GP and dentist, I want a bit of experience, but I also want the bloke who follows the latest medical research and isn’t still doing things the way there were 30 years ago.

Of course there isn’t a definitive answer to SM or MVD at this moment, but waiting for the magic bullet isn’t helping anyone. Perhaps the protocols won’t be the total answer, but how are we going to know that if nobody follow them anyway?

Karlin
13th March 2009, 01:16 PM
but I think they miss the point that research without following the recommendations from the said research is rather pointless. They cannot expect credit for what comes down to some rather nice paperwork if they are not successful in persuading UK breeder to follow the protocols set down

This is exactly it.

The clubs will say they cannot force change, that they need to take a softly-softly approach, blah blah blah. But as Pedigree Dogs Exposed producer Jemima Harrison wrote recently in the London Sunday Times, the Kennel Club was saying this about their 'imminent' plan to improve breed standards... back in the early 80s. So it has taken them over 25 YEARS to finally initiate even as very basic a change as this -- and as many will have seen when dogs were judged recently at Crufts, the change to breed standards seems to have meant diddly squat to most judges, who awarded for the same extremes that have knock-on health implications as they did before the standard changed. So maybe another 25 years then for the judges and some breeders to actually comply with the breed standards? The attitude of judges has enormous influence on breeders who will not be able to compete if the judges ignore the good, caring breeders breeding for health and the new standards. :sl*p:

And for those prominent members of the CKCS Club who argue for the necessity of a softly-softly approach to SM screening -- some of whom bizarrely, privately screen many of their dogs without stating this publicly, as if it is something to hide, thereby setting NO example despite their role on the club committee -- the reality is that far more breeders that hadn't screened at all, sought out MRI screening AFTER PDE aired, a fact confirmed by several private conversations (people DO talk to their neurologists and then talk to others about those conversations, ladies!). So obviously, the programme many hate has had real, tangible results and galvanised far more concern and real action on this condition than many of those softly-softly Club initiatives. :rolleyes:

Sarah Blott has clearly also emphasised to the club that she BADLY NEEDS MRI RESULTS in order to do her estimated breeding values, because three club members attended a meeting with her and suddenly a few clarifications have appeared at the top of the notices on the UK Club website. Points which, please note, I have posted again and again here, and to other discussion sites, and in response to the head-in-the-sand misinformation or minimal information from various club members and sadly, some former staunch health advocates like Bet Hargreaves. As I have been saying for months now, having had this information directly from Dr Sarah Blott and as the Club is now FINALLY confirming (http://www.thecavalierclub.co.uk/health/ebv/feb_09_update.html) to its members:


Sarah Blott is totally reliant on breeders and pet owners sending in scan results (and cardiologist heart certs) for cavaliers with pedigrees. If you have a scan or heart cert, please contact me and I'll let you know how to do this. Neurologists and cardios currently do NOT automatically send this to Sarah Blott

Sarah Blott is NOT doing any genome work AT ALL and the DNA swabs being taken in the UK and US and Canada at the moment are NOT going towards ANY current genome work -- instead they are only being stored for some future confirmation research AFTER it is hoped the genetic markers for Sm come from the Canadian research with Guy Rouleau. Prof Rouleau needs DNA separately for the genome work; information can be had from Penny Knowler regarding DNA needs

In case there is any doubt this is what it says on the Club site:
Sarah Blott and her team are not currently directly involved in searching for the genes responsible for Syringomyelia. The DNA swabs that you have all kindly sent in to the AHT are awaiting the opportunity for genomic breeding values to be developed. If information on gene locations became available this would be incorporated into the genomic breeding values and the information will then also be available to the Estimated Breeding Value Programme. Until that time, the only information that the EBVs can be based on is the MRI scan results and the Heart Certificates.


I am just so glad that someone in the Club has finally, obviously, THANKFULLY realised some of their prominent members go about spreading misinformation -- or suppressing the real facts of these screening needs -- in their own writings and their own "health" sites -- to such a degree that this clarification was needed so people would know the truth. Shameful though that it has taken the Club this long to post some simple, clear information when Sarah Blott told us all this over 18 months ago at the Rugby conference (again, as I have been stating for all those 18 months!). Does it really take this long for the Club to act to support the people doing research entirely on their behalf? Who else is going to use the EBVs if not Club breeders? :sl*p:

Lisa_T
14th March 2009, 12:03 AM
One thing that puzzles me is the stress on the thread that some breeders have placed on the fact that they 'prove' their male dogs at 11 months or so, because it's difficult later. Is this true? Which if so, is disturbing since presumably these provings result in litters that are contrary to the requirements re breeding ages etc...

What exactly is being proved? The dog's ability to physically mount the bitch, or his ability to impregnate her? If the former, is there no kind of doggy-contraceptive which could mean that the dog could be proved without actually making the bitch pregnant?

brotymo
14th March 2009, 12:35 AM
What exactly is being proved? The dog's ability to physically mount the bitch, or his ability to impregnate her? If the former, is there no kind of doggy-contraceptive which could mean that the dog could be proved without actually making the bitch pregnant?


Hahaha! I can picture someone trying to roll a condom onto a madly thrusting dog in the throes of passion before he "gets it in". safe sex for dogs...a whole new territory.

Sabby
14th March 2009, 08:47 AM
Hahaha! I can picture someone trying to roll a condom onto a madly thrusting dog in the throes of passion before he "gets it in". safe sex for dogs...a whole new territory.


:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: You made me laugh this morning. Thank you.

But on a more serious note Lisa T has got a point. Can anybody explain this proving?

Trucav
14th March 2009, 01:27 PM
Perhaps you could direct the question of ''proving a dog'' to Margaret,who started this thread.

She was an experienced stud dog owner who ''proved '' her Ch.Mareve Indiana at 10 MONTHS.

Maybe she could answer why this is necessary???

Margaret C
14th March 2009, 03:21 PM
Perhaps you could direct the question of ''proving a dog'' to Margaret,who started this thread.

She was an experienced stud dog owner who ''proved '' her Ch.Mareve Indiana at 10 MONTHS.

Maybe she could answer why this is necessary???

Of course I can answer.

I would point out that Monty was born in 1992, before the MVD protocol was introduced. When it was adopted, I like everyone else, just did not take on board the necessity to embrace it wholeheartedly if we really wanted to make a difference to the MVD problem in the breed.

I heart checked Monty through the years and insisted that bitches that came to him had clear heart certificates & I thought I was being responsible. I really never took in the full implications of a protocol that was accepted without discussion about how it was going to be publicised, implementated, or monitored.

The cardiologist's protocol was never going to work, because it was contrary to the normal practices in the cavalier breeding world, and the same is true today.

There can be no going forward on health until breeders accept the reality of the problem and are willing to change their thinking & their breeding practices.
Diverting attention to puppy farmers or maintaining it is the fault of others, never the long established breeders that 'know their lines' is fooling themselves and fooling others. All breeders need to go out to use other lines sometimes. Most go to an outside stud dog for every mating,

The truth is that the breeders that really follow the protocol, the breeders that do not breed until the dog and bitch are both 2.5 years old and the parents five years old & murmur free, are just not out there.

You can argue, as I now do, whether the protocol should have been adopted with so little consultation with breeders, but for these breeders to pretend that they & all good long established cavalier club members breeders follow the heart protocol is not true and they know it.

To get back to the question about Monty..........In 1992 it was, and has continued to be, customary for promising show dogs to be proved before they were a year old.
Inexperienced owners were told by the established breeders that it was advisable, so that they were proved to be fertile and worth keeping as a stud dog.

There was also a belief that a dog would not know what to do, or be so keen, if he was not introduced to the delights of sex at a young age.
I'm sure there are some dogs that would perhaps be less reluctant to perform when older but not many. I have supervised the first mating of a three year old dog and there was not much of a problem.

Would I use a dog or bitch now before 2.5 years........No.

As I said in my first post of this thread, I have been reading the "age at breeding" on the cavalierhealth board with interest. I knew that question 17 that asked ' what do you do' would not get a straight answer and I was right.

The truth is that all of the breeders answering that post use their dogs for the first time at around about 1 year and, contrary to what is suggested, they are continued to be used regularly.

You have to read between the lines of what is said. When someone says they don't mate their bitches till their third season, realise those cavaliers may still be only 18 months, they just don't want to say so.

For those that want to check out the truth of all this, go and join http://www.worldpedigrees.com/ and look at the pedigrees of the recent top dogs & bitches and you will realise how so many people say, or imply, one thing & do another.

When these posters stop deceiving themselves & others and put their energy into facing the terrible health problems that must be tackled in this loveliest of breeds, then they will deserve to be respected as breeders.

As a matter of interest I looked at pedigree data of number three top stud dog 2008.
His Mother, born 11/2003, was mated at 14 months to produce him in 3/2005.
He was mated twice at 12 months and again at 13 months and has been used continuously since.
There is a daughter of his, litter sister to a cavalier that did very well at Crufts, born 3/07 who was mated 5/08 ( 14 months ) to produce a litter in 7/2008.
Four generations before the original bitch is five years old.

That is why cavaliers from show stock are still dropping dead from MVD at 7 years.
Instead of blaming puppy farms or BYB for all the health problems, we could make some effort to clean up our own backyard first.

Margaret C

Karlin
14th March 2009, 04:43 PM
Margaret has many times discussed this issue as noted above -- I guess you don't read very widely or aren't too familiar with cavaliers and heath issues. :) Or maybe don't care too much about them, Trucav...? icon_nwunsure

Proving a dog at that age would have been the norm at that time as she says, plus it was well before the MVD protocol was established -- and breeding at that age was strongly advised by the breeders at the time as even a brief discussion with more experienced longtime breeders easily reveals (try chatting to a few!). She has before indicated regret that this was the norm at that time -- not least because it has certainly over time led to the dire situation with the breed with MVD now, which a quick read through the puppy gazette and pedigree databases proves remains the NORM for almost every breeder STILL -- meaning these people LIE when they tell puppy buyers how they fully support the MVD protocol and (in a most disgusting and deceitful approach by even some of the club health reps!) tell puppy buyers to ONLY ever buy from breeders following the protocol... yet turn out to encourage them to buy from breeders doing absolutely nothing of the sort.

Maybe instead of directing your ire at Margaret -- who long ago discussed this issue very openly -- you might direct your question to the owner of the current BIS Crufts CKCS champion and stud of the year who has been bred repeatedly at earlier than 2.5 years? :thmbsup: Or at people like Beverly Costello, who knowingly bred a dog she was advised strongly not to because of a severe SM diagnosis, and still refuses to come clean about, even if it has meant the Kennel CLub has struck her off the register of breeders?? It is not the people who proved their dogs at a point when less was understood about inherited health conditions -- especially those who have discussed their past actions openly and honestly -- that should explain themselves (especially when they already have...) but the craven group of breeders who continue to do this and curse a breed they supposedly 'love' (to sell, I guess) with painful and heartbreaking health conditions you wouldn't wish on a dog. Oops! I guess they do precisely that, don't they? icon_nwunsure

frecklesmom
14th March 2009, 05:13 PM
Karlin :thmbsup:

HollyDolly
14th March 2009, 05:39 PM
Karlin :thmbsup:


KARLIN
:thmbsup::thmbsup:
Next one please, keep it going
Nanette

Lisa_T
14th March 2009, 07:39 PM
Whoops. I wasn't in any way intending to indirectly facilitate an attack on Margaret, or to imply one in my original question, so apologies for that!

Essentially, then, since Margaret says that proving is NOT necessary before one, it's still being used as an excuse to get around various protocols and allow more matings and thus breedings and thus pups and thus money... I can understand it happening twenty years ago, but since I imagine Margaret's experiences of proving older dogs are common amongst breeders who've been doing it for any length of time, and given current research and guidelines... why are people still giving (and being allowed to give) this 'proving' line as an excuse when it can be so easily discredited?! I suppose it's simply the easiest way of getting around protocol. As Karlin says, it's also the fastest way to send the breed to er, the dogs.

Grr.

Cathy Moon
14th March 2009, 07:49 PM
That is why cavaliers from show stock are still dropping dead from MVD at 7 years.
Instead of blaming puppy farms or BYB for all the health problems, we could make some effort to clean up our own backyard first.

Sadly, nearly every time I give my five-year-old Geordie his heart meds (twice daily) I am reminded of this.

Cathy Moon
14th March 2009, 07:52 PM
Karlin :thmbsup:
Karlin :thmbsup:

brotymo
14th March 2009, 08:16 PM
The truth is that the breeders that really follow the protocol, the breeders that do not breed until the dog and bitch are both 2.5 years old and the parents five years old & murmur free, are just not out there.



I feel fortunate that my dogs come from a breeder who has followed the protocol religiously. Lizzies PARENTS are both over 5 and heart clear. Bandit's mom was 7 at the time of his birth and the sire was almost 3, and it was his first breeding, and his grandfather (sire's father) was 5.
Her foundation bitch (a ROM dam) is still with her and motoring along under her own steam at 16 years old this month. She didn't develop a murmur until age 9 and has never needed meds for it.
My breeder does cardiology clinics at her home since she has a lot of dogs and she will not break the MVD protocol, period. It is one of the first things she discusses when coowning a show prospect that will be left intact. She was very upset recently with a person who coowns one of her dogs with her and this person let an "accident" happen between a dog and bitch that were as yet untested and not yet of the proper age. She is very up front when discussing which dogs developed murmurs and at what ages, etc, and she spays or neuters any that aren't up to the health standard.
If all breeders would do this, then I think we'd see MVD develop later and later in dogs.

Karlin
14th March 2009, 09:01 PM
When these posters stop deceiving themselves & others and put their energy into facing the terrible health problems that must be tackled in this loveliest of breeds, then they will deserve to be respected as breeders.

As a matter of interest I looked at pedigree data of number three top stud dog 2008.
His Mother, born 11/2003, was mated at 14 months to produce him in 3/2005.
He was mated twice at 12 months and again at 13 months and has been used continuously since.
There is a daughter of his, litter sister to a cavalier that did very well at Crufts, born 3/07 who was mated 5/08 ( 14 months ) to produce a litter in 7/2008.
Four generations before the original bitch is five years old.

That is why cavaliers from show stock are still dropping dead from MVD at 7 years.
Instead of blaming puppy farms or BYB for all the health problems, we could make some effort to clean up our own backyard first.

Margaret C

:xctly: These people are utterly shameless.

I have watched with amazement at how many breeders now are bleating about puppy farms -- breeders in the UK, for instance, whose own club rescues will in some cases not even take non-pedigreed (eg puppy farm) dogs into *club breed rescue* and often choose to put these poor dogs down because they claim they are untrainable or not housebroken or have health issues (!) -- and who themselves are not exactly doing anything of note to stop puppy farms. So now, they suddenly have this deep, deep concern about the puppy farm situation? Yeah, right. This is simply an old debating tactic called "hide the real issue behind an unrelated one and hope it goes away".

Yet wait -- the two issues are related, actually... because the same breed problems that proliferate in puppy farm cavaliers are there in the first place because so many *club breeders* have done so little to prevent them... :sl*p: Let us list the ones I routinely see: eye problems, MVD, curly coat/dry eye, patellas, hip problems... :(

Without exception all the people I know who have worked hardest in the UK, US, Canada and Ireland on puppy farm issues are pet owners horrified by this situation. It has been one of my top campaign issues for several years, and I am happy to put forward references on this -- these include several government ministers, the (now former) head of policy at one of the Irish political parties, a number of prominent vets, the ISPCA and numerous other animal welfare groups, and the vet who headed the government-appointed working committee on puppy farms.

Like many others I know, I am quite happy to serve as an example that actually working very hard on the puppy farm issue for many years does not actually prevent you from caring about breed health as a welfare issue and that you can indeed find the time to work on BOTH because BOTH matter. When I see some initiatives coming from UK Club breed rescue and individual clubs on puppy farms, I will take their sudden conversion to this issue a little more seriously. :rolleyes:

merlinsmum
14th March 2009, 10:00 PM
Karlin :thmbsup:

me too!

Barbara
14th March 2009, 11:24 PM
I have watched with amazement at how many breeders now are bleating about puppy farms -- breeders in the UK, for instance, whose own club rescues will in some cases not even take non-pedigreed (eg puppy farm) dogs into *club breed rescue* and often choose to put these poor dogs down because they claim they are untrainable or not housebroken or have health issues (!) -- and who themselves are not exactly doing anything of note to stop puppy farms

With respect Karlin I really take great exception to this Statement. It is both unfair and untrue. I have been involved in our club rescue for a great many years (and know a lot of other breeders who work their socks off for rescue in other club's across the country) and would never put a puppy farm dog to sleep, least of all for the reasons you have stated. We never refuse a dog help, no matter where it comes from or whether it is healthy or sick. Here in Wales we have a huge problem with puppy farms and our club has campaigned against them for years. We have been successful in closing down some of them too. We also campaigned against the idiots in the Welsh Assembly who are giving grants to farmers to diversify into dog breeding. We just don't shout it from the roof tops/

brotymo
15th March 2009, 12:58 AM
Barbara, I contacted the rescue organization listed on the atlanta CKCS website about a year and a half ago about 2 year-old males available and desperately in need of rescuing up in my area at a puppy mill. They were CKC registered, therefore the rescue refused to help them. They even stated that was the reason they couldn't help them. It bewildered me, for sure.

Barbara
15th March 2009, 09:39 AM
I'm really sorry to hear this but I can only speak for the UK club's and to the best of my knowledge it would not be the case here. There are some recue places here that won't let us have them unless we buy them and sometimes that isn't possible. My club is a very small one , with very limited funds and we simply couldn't keep paying out for a constant stream of dogs ( which is what it is ) however much we wanted to. We do not have a set charge for the dogs we rescue and donations are small. We also help to pay for medication and veterinary treatment if it is needed. I was answering karlin's statement which specifically addressed UK breeders not those in the USA.

Karlin
15th March 2009, 09:55 AM
I know from personal testimony that there is at least one UK club that will put dogs down that I would never even consider putting down (and I will not hesitate to pts if on consultation with my vet and professional trainer advisers, for health or temperament reasons, this is recommended). There is also at least one large UK club that will not accept cavaliers without pedigrees. And looming now is a serious problem with SM-affected rescue cavaliers. How will club rescue deal with these? There should be a formal policy, clearly stated. I am already seeing such dogs and cannot believe club rescue (unless it never speaks again to its pet homes and doesn't very carefully screen dogs) is not already seeing this too.

I am sure there are people who work very hard in club rescue but there are clubs and individuals within given clubs in both the UK and the US where I would not trust what would happen to a dog if sent there. Meanwhile some of these clubs are sitting on top of massive 'rescue funds' of up to (and in the US, over) 50,000 pounds and continue to fundraise -- but what is it being spent on? icon_nwunsure It just seems to be a nice little cash mountain. That is more than some of the largest general rescues in Ireland would have to work with in a year!

Those of you who are club members might bring up the question of the amount of cash in the 'rescue' fund and ask to see accounts for what is coming in and what it is spent on. Or why it isn't being spent when you can see the stream of rescue dogs going into general rescues or non-club breed rescues like mine. And how many actual dogs does the club rescue deal with in a year and is this documented? Are there liaison people working with local pounds and general rescues to help when cavaliers come in? What about puppy farm cases? 'Free to good home' listings for intact dogs therefore at risk of being bred?

Karlin
15th March 2009, 10:02 AM
They were CKC registered, therefore the rescue refused to help them. They even stated that was the reason they couldn't help them. It bewildered me, for sure.

I rest my case. :mad: Too many club rescues view rescue as a nice little "ladies who lunch" side activity that makes them feel good -- as long as they can limit the number of dogs coming in by these highly artificial and discriminatory methods they have so few dogs to manage that it needn't really interfere with their social lives and show schedules.

Then a handful of very hard working dedicated folks at club breed rescue (and there are many of those too!) either take on the bulk of the work load themselves or eventually quit in frustration.

Holly
15th March 2009, 01:41 PM
I was just a foster for an 9 year old Cavalier here in the States through one of the US Club Rescues. The dog was turned in by a family who could no longer keep her. They had found her as a stray over a 2 years ago and her family was never located, despite efforts to do so. She came with no paperwork and horrible skin issues.

Rescue took her in, no questions asked. She had a full workup with both a regular vet and a Cardiologist--including a Doppler, where she was found to have a Grade 4 murmur. She also had a Dental and some lesions removed and sent out for pathology. Rescue spent well over $1500.00 on her and they were willing to get her whatever medical care she needed. We found her an amazing home with a wonderful couple where she is doted upon.

I think that is a great example of where Rescue donations go and what Rescue is willing to do-- and all for an old girl with no papers.

Any time there has been a Cavalier who needs help and I have contacted one of the 3 main Cavalier Rescues here, someone is always willing to help, regardless of pedigree or health problems. I think Rescue does a great job. I don't think it's fair to say that they are sitting on mountains of cash and not spending it on the dogs-- they had no problem at all paying for all of my foster's medical bills and care.

brotymo
15th March 2009, 02:17 PM
Holly, Hannah was precious, and the work rescue did for her is a great example of what rescue does. I don't know why I got the response I got. I went back to try to look up the link where I got contact info. at the time I was trying to locate rescue for those two boys. The person now listed is Jennifer (was someone else before). Perhaps they were a poor example of how rescue work is being done, and maybe that is why they aren't in the position any longer.

Holly
15th March 2009, 02:22 PM
Hi Suzie!! Yes, I was really surprised to hear that-- I think you got a "dud". :( It seems like most of the Cavaliers that come in to Rescue don't come with papers or a good pedigree and Rescue still takes them-- even with health issues.

Barbara
15th March 2009, 05:08 PM
I know from personal testimony that there is at least one UK club that will put dogs down that I would never even consider putting down (and I will not hesitate to pts if on consultation with my vet and professional trainer advisers, for health or temperament reasons, this is recommended). There is also at least one large UK club that will not accept cavaliers without pedigrees. And looming now is a serious problem with SM-affected rescue cavaliers. How will club rescue deal with these? There should be a formal policy, clearly stated. I am already seeing such dogs and cannot believe club rescue (unless it never speaks again to its pet homes and doesn't very carefully screen dogs) is not already seeing this too.

I am sure there are people who work very hard in club rescue but there are clubs and individuals within given clubs in both the UK and the US where I would not trust what would happen to a dog if sent there. Meanwhile some of these clubs are sitting on top of massive 'rescue funds' of up to (and in the US, over) 50,000 pounds and continue to fundraise -- but what is it being spent on? icon_nwunsure It just seems to be a nice little cash mountain. That is more than some of the largest general rescues in Ireland would have to work with in a year!

Those of you who are club members might bring up the question of the amount of cash in the 'rescue' fund and ask to see accounts for what is coming in and what it is spent on. Or why it isn't being spent when you can see the stream of rescue dogs going into general rescues or non-club breed rescues like mine. And how many actual dogs does the club rescue deal with in a year and is this documented? Are there liaison people working with local pounds and general rescues to help when cavaliers come in? What about puppy farm cases? 'Free to good home' listings for intact dogs therefore at risk of being bred?

Karlin perhaps you can give us the names of the UK clubs that put dogs to sleep and refuse them help because they have no papers because this is certainly news to me.
Our rescues are not sat on mounds of money and what there is is spent on the dogs that come in. Some as said previously, have their medication paid for the rest of their lives if needed.
Our Club accounts are available ,in detail, every year at the AGM for all to see and question. I'm sure the other clubs do the same, though there are people that could give more explanation than me if they were allowed to post on this forum.
Some rescues, including the RSPCA will not let us have the dogs to home because they consider them their bred and butter breed, meaning they know they are popular and will be able to sell them easily ( disguised as donations).

Accusations such as these only serve to get the breeders backs up, particularly when they do not have the right of reply. I don't know how this rift started but I think it is extremely sad for the breed. Afterall we all want the best for our cavaliers. We ( nonbreeders and breeders)
need to try to understand each other and that can't happen if the discusion is one sided.
Yes there are a lot of things that need to change and be improved in the dog show world and I do understand the frustration and anger some feel when they think that things are not moving quick enough but this 'them and us attitude' is most certainly not helping. We need to be able to see and understand each others point of view and this won't happen while certain people are refused the opportunity to post.

frecklesmom
15th March 2009, 07:58 PM
There are good representatives in Rescue and then there are duds-just like regular life, I guess. Certainly have run across a couple duds who wouldn't lift their finger to check on dogs that appeared to need rescuing. Today I was part of a rescue transport to get CKCS x breeders to foster care and, with Cass and Penny, I've shared the joy of working with Lucky Star. :flwr:

Karlin
15th March 2009, 09:36 PM
Barbara -- please reread -- I didn't say clubs put dogs to sleep because they have no papers, I said one club in particular will put dogs to sleep simply because they make judgements as to their health or temperament or how much of a hassle they will be to rehome (if they have behaviour problems) and make no effort to get any professional input nor will allow others to try and help those dogs. At least one other prominent club *definitely* refuses dogs that have no papers (though they will undoubtedly deny it now that this is an 'issue' but that's good if it benefits some puppy farm dogs with no pedigrees that come into rescue in future , isn't it?). I do know people within rescue and within clubs who are deeply disturbed by these two situations -- and by how much rescue money some clubs have but don't seem to find much use for even as they continue to fundraise for 'rescue' :bang: -- and some of those club members/breeders have direct experience of dogs encountering both these situations in these clubs. A few enquiries should elicit policies -- or do the clubs and rescue people talk to each other?

I also have not said ALL club rescue does this, of course! -- but some of you would no doubt be surprised to hear of how many of them operate, rather than the one you have directly worked with -- I hear from lots of groups across the US and UK and Canada and know individuals involved with same who have some pretty dire stories to tell. And the main point I was making is -- how dare some in the clubs tell people concerned about breed helth that they should be focusing on puppy farms, when numerous club rescues won't even accept non-pedigreed dogs into rescue, and do so little regarding puppy farms themselves? While sitting on very large rescue accounts?


Our rescues are not sat on mounds of money and what there is is spent on the dogs that come in. Some as said previously, have their medication paid for the rest of their lives if needed.

Perhaps not your club, but you do need to get ALL the UK clubs to reveal their rescue accounts at the national club AGM because this is very definitely not the case at all club rescues! I know of regional rescues with large 5 figure sums in the US, too. Clubs that then consider putting down dogs because they dispute whether to have the dog see vets for treatment for perfectly treatable medical conditions (not SM or MVD either). As surprising as it may seem, I do know people who serve on club boards and committees who reveal such things privately.

For my own part, I have many years of experience working with general and individual rescues both in Ireland and -- surprise! the UK (the same folks who won't talk to club breed rescue I guess... but they will work with me) and know often they won't give dogs to breed rescue because they know some of the approaches club rescue take -- and they are bombarded by club people who tell them they know nothing about the breed -- and generally in my experience club rescue charges far more than say, the RSPCA or the pounds! Some might even feel some club rescues are more in line to be accused of 'selling' dogs... The bottom line is, clubs SHOULD be spending on the health issues of dogs that come into rescue, otherwise it isn't really rescue, is it? All decent rescues incur large financial costs (I operate at a loss myself because donations and homing fees won;t cover my medical costs for dogs). At any rate, within Ireland, I have had no problems working with a range of general rescues and several of the regional pounds as well as the iSPCA. Maybe it is the attitude of club rescue when they approach these groups that causes the rift? icon_nwunsure

If breeders' backs are up because of my comments on rescue, then maybe some need to consider how many people's backs are up because of some club rescues sitting on pools of cash and taking this 'only with a pedigree' approach to rescue (and being told this isn't the case when it very clearly IS the case. I know this is true within other breeds as well because I have show breeder friends and relatives doing breed rescue who are disgusted with the approach of some in club rescue -- though I *absolutely agree* that this isn't all in club rescue). But: if some breeders in the UK and US weren't desperately trying to shift the focus on breed health over to puppy farms as a supposedly 'more important' issue -- as if we have no right to raise breed health as an issue -- when breed clubs and KC and AKC etc don't seem themselves to be doing much in regard to puppy farms and some don't even take in such dogs as rescues -- then to me this is a perfectly valid issue of discussion, brought on by this ridiculous assertion that 'if only you all worried more about 'real' issues like puppy farms rather than SM'. :rolleyes:

So here's some questions for the UK national AGM: how many dogs are rehomed annually through club rescue in the UK? Is this statistic released each year? If not, why not? What is the income from each club towards rescue? How much is in each club's account? Where is it spent and why do they not operate on a break-even basis so that people aren't being pushed to donate towards a fund that is simply stockpiled... for what? How much is charged to rehome dogs by each club rescue, and where does that go?

Still, how bizarre that I -- not even a club member -- know more about some club's accounts than some of you in rescue do, though! :confused: That really seems to indicate a lack of communication and lack of disclosure -- that some clubs want to hide away their financial status perhaps? Maybe because they might want to redirect that income towards, oh, a PR company at some point? :lol: I can't figure out why rescue income isn't general knowledge to the national club membership, for all constituent clubs. For my own part, I keep my accounts transparent. I do audited taxes separate from my own work income, audited by one of the largest tax firms in Ireland (Farrell Grant Sparks) and operate as a break even or loss-making trade.

Anyway: to fulfill your wishes expressed elsewhere, I will close your account here so you no longer need to be frustrated by the discussion. I do have a policy of not allowing additional breeder registrations and had that in place at the time you joined -- so actually, you should have been removed before you started posting anyway. Nothing personal.

WoodHaven
15th March 2009, 09:42 PM
Barbara, I contacted the rescue organization listed on the atlanta CKCS website about a year and a half ago about 2 year-old males available and desperately in need of rescuing up in my area at a puppy mill. They were CKC registered, therefore the rescue refused to help them. They even stated that was the reason they couldn't help them. It bewildered me, for sure.

Most cavalier dog clubs don't have the manpower, the INSURANCE or the bankroll to have their own individual cavalier rescues. Most AKC cavalier clubs have decided NOT to do rescue directly, or to become member clubs of the ACKCSC and be covered under the Rescue Trust.

For example:

We serve the ACKCSC Rescue Trust through volunteer work. For information on available rescue's or volunteer opportunities such as fostering, transportation, ect. Please contact our Rescue Chairperson who coordinates these activities with the ACKCSC National Rescue Trust (http://ackcsc.org/rescue.htm).

Above is the CKCSC of Greater Atlanta's rescue info.

I don't know where people think that rescue is sitting on a pile of money, we are constantly raising money, doing raffles and begging for dollars. The average rescue costs a couple of hundred more than we get as a donation.

We almost always have at least one dog in rescue that needs several thousand dollars worth of diagnostics or surgery. We have been fortunate to have many kind and generous people to help us out.

Karlin
15th March 2009, 10:00 PM
Those are the good groups and they do fantastic, tireless work :), but there are definitely groups sitting on very large 5 figure sums where they debate even minor expenditures. Believe me: there are, I know the individual cases. Sadly not all are as dedicated as some doing club rescue work. I know well that a committed rescue group would easily go through £50k annually, if it were truly tackling the kinds of health and homing issues that arise all the time in rescue.

I couldn't operate myself without several dedicated vets, help from some general rescues, professional time from trainers like Tara, and many people who give foster and transport time to the dogs in Ireland. And the many people who support my small rescue through donations. :thmbsup: But that is why it galls me that some of the club rescues won't take dogs without a recognised national registration/pedigree, or have very large rescue accounts they are indeed sitting upon. Those clubs and individuals know who they are, too.

brotymo
15th March 2009, 10:44 PM
For example:

We serve the ACKCSC Rescue Trust through volunteer work. For information on available rescue's or volunteer opportunities such as fostering, transportation, ect. Please contact our Rescue Chairperson who coordinates these activities with the ACKCSC National Rescue Trust (http://ackcsc.org/rescue.htm).

Above is the CKCSC of Greater Atlanta's rescue info.




Hi Sandy,
It was the ACKCSC website (that you posted) where I went for a contact. (I had to retrace my steps after making my original post to see where I'd actually gone to find a contact since it has been so long ago) The person in charge of my area is not the same person I contacted who turned their back on these two males. I made my phone call in the winter of 2007-2008. The woman there now took that position towards the end of this past summer, 2008. I directed the woman on the phone to the website of these dogs while I was on the phone with her. She looked at them while on the phone with me and went "oh, they are only CKC registered. We can't help them".
I was surprised and taken aback, but didn't know much at all about rescue, so didn't really know what to say.

WoodHaven
15th March 2009, 11:52 PM
I would suggest if anyone hit a "wall" like that, there are numerous people/organizations that may be able to help. Area clubs may get you help, Luckystar cavalier rescue or the CKCSCR.
I got a cavalier out of a bad situation with two calls, two emails and two hours. The small breed rescue that informed me of the cavalier in a kill shelter was SHOCKED how fast that dog moved out of there.
LOL- the head of their rescue called me to thank me (and I really didn't do anything). But there were 7 small/adoptable dogs they could pull and they only had fosters/room for 6.

brotymo
16th March 2009, 12:23 AM
Hi Sandy, I know much more now than I did and have quite a few contacts within rescue (thanks to Cavaliertalk and my breeder who is now the rescue coordinator for the area I am in)! :thmbsup: I wish I'd had that knowledge back then. I don't think I'd have any problem getting help for any dog that needed it today.

Daisy's Mom
16th March 2009, 03:12 AM
Just to throw my 2 cents in here...

I have worked with both Lucky Star and Cavalier Rescue and I have been nothing but amazed at the lengths these people go to for dogs, whether they are registered or not. If I see a cavalier of completely unknown origins on Petfinder, I email the area chairperson and most times, he's already on the case. If not, he immediately takes steps to get things moving for the dog and thanks me for the heads up.

In one recent case, the dog was even listed as a Cavalier mix, but it was pretty obvious from the picture that he wasn't a mix, and Cavalier rescue was already working on getting him out.

I don't know anything about the funding issues that have been brought up in this thread, but I see the work these groups do, and the lengths they go to for each dog, regardless of how extensive its needs are, and I feel really great that these people are there for them. And I haven't seen over-the-top fund-raising efforts being done by either of these groups, other than asking for donations on their website and having auctions, booths at shows, etc. Personally, I would hate to see people stop donating to rescue groups based on something ambiguous they read on a discussion forum. That would be a shame for all concerned, especially the dogs needing help, of course.

Margaret C
16th March 2009, 02:52 PM
Rescue is a word that can be used to describe the people who actively work for the dogs, or the practices and methods of a particular service

I would hate anybody to think that what I am about to write is in any way a criticism of rescue co-ordinators or volunteers, because it is not, nor am I talking about the small struggling rescue services, but I do think that with some successful rescue organisations there are policies that could well be reviewed.

I have seen first hand what the volunteers do & I have a great deal of admiration for them. They spend their time sorting out problems that would reduce me to tears, and I could not knock the dedication shown to the unfortunate dogs that come into their hands.

I do not, however, think it is wrong to occasionally stop, look and question the policies of any organisations.

Circumstances change and small impoverished voluntary services can become large successful undertakings thanks to tireless workers, fundraisers, & because of bequests left by grateful owners.
There are undoubtedly cavalier rescue services in the UK that are sitting on large sums of money. One has recently published accounts showing £50,000 in the bank and another has £66,000.

Thrifty measures that were put in place years ago, when there was only a few hundred pounds in the bank to counter the threat of a large puppy farm closing, are perhaps unnecessary when there are many thousands of pounds on deposit.
I do wonder if the people that donated this money really expected it to sit in the bank year after year, gathering interest, rather than being used to make it easier for new owners to take on the burden of the elderly and sick rescues that need homes.

I certainly hope that with the recession, & the likelihood of more SM affected dogs coming into rescue over the coming years, that consideration will be given to use some of it in more creative ways, for instance by helping with paying for the first years insurance for healthy but aging dogs, or by agreeing to fund necessary medication long term for those that already have problems.


Margaret C

Karlin
16th March 2009, 03:29 PM
Thanks Margaret for confirming what I have also heard and had confirmed by other internal club sources. These are, by any measure, massive sums of money. I am aware of some clubs in the US with similar amounts.

I refer people to my very first post on this issue in this thread. I did not say ALL club rescues. I said SOME club rescues.

However I feel ALL club rescues should have the requirement to be transparent with their funds, especially those received in donations from people like you and me (and yes, I have donated to rescue and health funds via the clubs in the US and the UK myself). I think rescue needs to specify annually if not quarterly, how many dogs come in, how many are rehomed, pts etc, how funds are used, cost to the rescue of each dog (documented by receipt), charges made to new homes per dog, income received.

Each club as an official organisation following club rules and claiming club benefits should be accountable to members and donors for income. If it is sitting on 50k, 66k, or 75 k it needs to explain what that money is going to be used for, as it is a considerable stockpile of unused cash.

Just FYI Lucky Star is not club rescue so isn't amongst the cases I am referring to. I am a supporter of Lucky Star -- but just to be clear, Lucky Star is not supported by many of the clubs, because they purchase dogs at auction which is considered quite a controversial approach to rescue by many in all types of rescue. I do support fully their care for dogs, but I still am not sure I agree this is the best way to approach doing rescue myself. Most of us have wrestled with this issue, and sometimes feel a purchase is the best option in some cases. It is a difficult big picture issue. I respect their approach though and their decision to operate in this way fully.

The fact that some club rescues do wonderful work, or even some individuals within the clubs with large cash stockpiles, does not negate the fact that there is a problem with rescue if these places are only taking in 20-30 dogs a year (or more for that matter) and have those levels of unused funding. I would think many donors would wonder what their money is to be used for. For example and comparison, I operate on a fraction of 50k and take in anywhere from 40-70 dogs annually for rehoming.

Maybe the two UK clubs with those amounts of cash will explain at the next AGM what that money is going to be used for and will set out some statistics about their operations. Maybe some of you breeders in the UK Club need to start asking some questions -- because elsewhere you are all discussing how this cannot possibly be the situation, and some of you either are lying openly on those discussion boards -- as you are familiar with the inner workings of a range of clubs and in a position to know that I am right, and what you claim is wrong -- or are shockingly underinformed about club operations if you are in those positions and truly unaware of these amounts of money sitting in regional club accounts. Which is it, then, ladies of the clubs and committees? icon_nwunsure