View Full Version : Missing Thread - breeder discussion

9th June 2012, 08:53 PM
I posted here last night on a thread that was running from a breeder, that seems to have been out of the norm for this forum as there were a few issues that were concerning. I had voiced my concerns asking a few questions about why the thread was allowed to be running still after almost two weeks and when I logged on today to see if my questions were answered the thread was missing along with my question/s which I presume were not answered...

If a moderator decided now was the time to finish the discussion, why was it not closed rather than taken off? and a least acknowledge that I was somewhat right in what I stated in my post....

9th June 2012, 09:21 PM
The thread has now been removed and we are discussing the issues raised within it. Unfortunately I have not been able to be on the forum very much, and if Karlin is busy, she doesn't always get time to follow everything too. Breeding discussions are not allowed on the forum as per the rules. Thank you for posting your comments have been noted.

9th June 2012, 09:35 PM
The thread has now been removed and we are discussing the issues raised within it. Unfortunately I have not been able to be on the forum very much, and if Karlin is busy, she doesn't always get time to follow everything too. Breeding discussions are not allowed on the forum as per the rules. Thank you for posting your comments have been noted.

Thanks for the reply Nicki, Karlin had in fact seen the thread and posted a nice comment about the puppies, with no mention at all about 'breeder discussion not being allowed' which I found odd....As usually these kind of discussions are stopped at once. I still think a reply to my comments and closing the thread may have been the way to go, that way people on the forum can see that the usual rules are being followed...IMO having the thread disappear just raises more question

9th June 2012, 09:55 PM
It will be reappearing once we have looked at it, then it will be closed to further discussions but will remain to show that rules are being followed.

9th June 2012, 09:58 PM
Glad to hear that:)

10th June 2012, 01:43 AM
I actually posted about the puppies being cute and kept seeing the thread pooping up under What's New. I just read yesterday (I noticed your questions on the side) I had no idea the discussion turned "off limits" or questionable at best. Not making excuses for Karlin or the other admins but.....my guess is that's how it happened. I even went back to read the Getting Started stuff because I was confused about breeders being members.

Just my input,

10th June 2012, 10:22 AM
I'm going to post this as a reminder in a separate thread too, but this section is relevant as we believed that Torben's dog was health tested and he was following protocols. Yes as Melissa says, the thread did divert away into breeding practices which was unfortunate.

For ethical reasons, I do not allow announcements of new litters to be posted to the board, or discussions of individual, personal breeding situations. This is also stated in the Getting Started section on what is appropriate to post.

Exceptions in the past for discussing puppies (though not *advertsing them*) were for reputable breeders on this board whom I know through their participation here and on other boards and lists, and who I know are actively concerned about health and conformation and temperament -- who breed with knowledge and with health clearances (cardiologist clearances on hearts as a minimum, plus ideally, certs on hips, patellas and eyes, and MRI scanning for syringomyelia) and who remain an active part of the breeding and showing world -- so that their cavaliers are under constant scrutiny of their peers. They home their dogs carefully under restricted contracts. They don't breed pet quality dogs of unknown background and health history just to fill a pet market.

from http://www.cavaliertalk.com/forums/showthread.php?17561-If-you-are-a-BREEDER-have-puppies-for-sale

Posts which are never allowed
1) advertisements for puppies
2) advertising your dog for stud service
3) advertising looking for a stud
4) asking for advice on breeding
5) posting images of your litter of puppies unless you fit the board criteria of a reputable health focused breeder and have cleared this with me. See: http://board.cavaliertalk.com/showthread.php?t=17561

If you register for this board and I find you are a casual breeder or do any of the above on other sites, I will usually delete your registration as I won't risk similar posts being made here.

You will of course still be able to read all the forums anyway and find plenty of information on good breeding practice and learn more about why this board so strongly advocates going to reputable show breeders for cavalier puppies. I hope such information might give pause and cause some to reconsider why they are doing what they are doing, at the expense of this lovely breed.


10th June 2012, 05:18 PM
We do have a small number of breeders here. Those that are here are people I have okayed. Margaret, for example; as well as two breeders currently involved in health organisations and with the Companion Cavalier Club. We have also had several breeders in the past who have discussed their litters. Generally that was in the past; and I would discourage this but there are always some grey areas. Many in the past have discussed the original poster's health results with him directly on threads here and I don't have an issue with that sort of discussion. Most of what my own board rules apply to is not allowing dogs owners to come and ask about (backyard) breeding their dogs. I do think good, professional breeders discussing limited breeding issues -- as those here do from time to time -- is useful and informative from a health and welfare perspective. It is hard to make a strict definition about the latter type of post and I make the judgement call as it's me running the board.

I removed the thread because:

1) I was asked to by the original poster, and respect this request as it was 'their' thread (Nicki was not aware of this; and therefore didn't know that the thread will not be returned as a closed thread)
2) I was not aware there was an age issue in this case and wouldn't have allowed the discussion in the first place had I realised this.
3) And finally, I do not read every single post on the board nor follow every thread from beginning to end. I simply do not have the ability or time to do so. Therefore sometimes things slip through that I would have addressed at an earlier point OR if someone had flagged it to me. No one raised any issues directly with me. I address things as I see fit when I do come across any issues. :)

Anyone following research and reflecting on real world experience would know how a dog can scan clear at an early age and then be affected with SM still before the breeding protocol age but at a time when many breeders would have bred such a dog without rescanning. :( There is ample research that shows the critical period at which the majority of dogs likely to get SM (especially more severe SM) will scan with a syrinx, is BY AGE 2.5 TO 3, yet HALF those dogs would have scanned clear by age 1. That is why so many neurologists came together and agreed on this age range of 2.5-3 years as the point at which a cavalier must be scanned to give meaningful SM guidance to the breeder. And that is why 2.5 years is considered the minimum age for breeding, and ONLY within protocols. I would hope a few breeders that I know were reading and discussing the thread would reflect on that, their personal experience and their own practice. Too many still say one thing publicly, yet do, and have deliberately done, another. :x

It is especially, that sort of personal experience and reflection that I hope will encourage ever more breeders to avoid using dogs under the protocol ages of 2.5 years, and to always scan at 2.5+ before breeding, and NOT EVER rely on earlier scans that may have changed considerably since a dog was a year or 18 months old.

Finally: if anyone has questions they want to put to a person, they can always PM another board member directly (and politely). :thmbsup:

And now I will close this discussion. :)