• If you're a past member of the board, but can't recall your password any more, you don't need to set up a new account (unless you wish to). As long as you recall your old login name, you can log in with that user name then select 'forgot password' and the board will email you at your registration email, to let you reset your password.

What age should you breed your dog?

Margaret C

Well-known member
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
 
That makes interesting reading.......still a long way to go with a lot of breeders it seems.

Mel
 
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?
 
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 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:
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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???
 
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
 
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? (y) 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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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/
 
Back
Top