• 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.

Meltdown!

I'm glad you spoke up Bruce. I whole heartedly agree that to put the responsibility of solving health problems solely on breeders is just not practical, at least in the vast United States. The U.S. consumer is a different "breed." We want exactly what we want (color, gender, age), we want it quickly (most not willing to launch an exhaustive puppy search or wait months / years for a dog) and at the lowest possible price. I'm not defending this, just stating fact. We are also attracted by smarmy sales practices, something with which BYB's and larger commercial operations are quite accomplished.

I think an important component in improving the cavalier breed (or the health of any breed) is EDUCATION OF POTENTIAL PUPPY BUYERS. We've started to see this with recent campaigns sheeding light on puppy mills and pet store animals. The average American has no idea what goes on in poor breeding facilities, and they have no idea why a dog from a reputable breeder legitimately costs what it does. What about good old fashioned marketing -- commercials, etc. to spread the word as to appropriate avenues to acquire a pet?

I worry that, without consumer education, good breeders will be forced out of the equation -- leaving only commercial operations to supply our nation's pet demand.
 
Hi Bruce,
Might i just chime in with my opinion here,you may not see as relevant however in my very small business i am expected to do all/any research on for example a new product,if i need to attend a seminar then I pay for it etc i do not however expect my customers to educate themselves & then tell me how to do my job when they arrive & it is MY JOB to make the decisions on best practise,that is what my customers are paying me for in the first place! My expertise & experience.
That said there are cheaper places my customers could go to,that is their choice-in my opinion more fool them!There will always be those who want something for nothing.I pride myself in my work & that is what i would like from breeders- leading proudly from the front,shouting for all to hear that they have done everything in their power to provide the best.
Nor do i publicly denounce my customers as "stupid" so yes more work is indeed needed to mend bridges!
I do agree there are many who just want a puppy NOW with no thought to important issues,having recently got a puppy myself i was stopped by a couple,the lady saying she wanted one & the man actually said to me "Can you get me a puppy,ive got the money now if you can get me a puppy"!!!!!!!! I began to explain the health issues of the breed & saw them quickly glaze over-more fool them!
 
If there was a clearing house where reputable puppy/dog buyers could be linked with reputable breeders would that not be outstanding. As it is now, both sides become worn out by seekers who want cheap or providers who can't see the way toward doing their best.

even puppy farmers would not want to breed ill dogs
Click to expand...

how I wish this were true but it is far from the truth hear in the US. "Blind,lame stud can still deliver" shout the auctioneers and worn out bitches at 4 yrs are still sought for more service. One female that I was honored to pull this year has MVD grade6, cancer, bad patellas,few teeth now and her sister, also pulled, has MVD grade4 and a belly full of adhesions thanks to butchery C-sections by non-vets. They live a good life now but it's hard to think about their suffering without tears-they are so loving. Generally speaking, puppy mill owners have little care for health unless it would affect their whole kennel and destroy their profits. Maybe the puppy farmers in the UK are better-I hope so.
 
frecklesmom said:
If there was a clearing house where reputable puppy/dog buyers could be linked with reputable breeders would that not be outstanding. As it is now, both sides become worn out by seekers who want cheap or providers who can't see the way toward doing their best.



how I wish this were true but it is far from the truth hear in the US. "Blind,lame stud can still deliver" shout the auctioneers and worn out bitches at 4 yrs are still sought for more service. One female that I was honored to pull this year has MVD grade6, cancer, bad patellas,few teeth now and her sister, also pulled, has MVD grade4 and a belly full of adhesions thanks to butchery C-sections by non-vets. They live a good life now but it's hard to think about their suffering without tears-they are so loving. Generally speaking, puppy mill owners have little care for health unless it would affect their whole kennel and destroy their profits. Maybe the puppy farmers in the UK are better-I hope so.
Click to expand...

No, I will back whoever said that commercial puppy breeders don't want to breed ill puppies-- THEY DON'T get paid for ill puppies. If you only get 150.00-200.00 per 6-8 week old pup, they better be ok when they hit the broker or they get rejected.
AND just like commercial dairies, commercial puppy breeders come in good, bad and horrid. We have laws against the bad and horrid. Laws that should make the bad better and the horrid disappear, but there isn't enough support to get it done.
 
Hi Sandy,
What would be a good plan to eradicate the bad & horrid commercial breeders? If anyone has any ideas then there would be overwhelming support here:)
 
I personally think it is time to require the inspectors to do their jobs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that these mills are not providing even the minimal basic care for their "stock". It really upsets me when I read stories about how some of the most horrific mills have "just recently been inspected" and found to be in compliance with animal welfare laws. There are too few inspectors and I wouldn't be surprised if some are paid off for a decent report. I would love to see more local control but unfortunately in these economic times, I am afraid that poor mill dogs are at the bottom of a very long list. People need to keep the plight of these animals and the expense and heartache that consumers experience when they get a sick puppy in the fore front of the news and demand that the government agency that inspects these mills do their job.
J.
 
Puppy farmers in the UK and Ireland are as horrific.

The broader problem though is that as there are no requirements for testing to breed dogs, there's absolutely no way of mandating that a dog with a bad heart, cancer, curly coat, SM, or whatever NOT be bred.

If commercial breeders were to be expected to health test and provide certs, then all breeders should have to do this. If club breeders aren't cardiac testing both parents and following the MVD protocol theyare no better than puppy farmers and millers. As a bit of research, within 10 minutes I found a whole slew of underage dogs recently bred by a prominent and influential breeder in the UK, some of the dams below the CKCS Club ethics guideline age of 16 months (which of course doesn't even pay lip service to the MVD protocol); and sires bred as young as 8 months old. This is not 20 years ago; this is just in the past couple of years. This is not a puppy farmer or non-club member; this is a 'respected' club member. All I had to do was a pedigree search using the database at worldpedigrees.com and randomly select a couple of dogs from the 100+ listed of her breeding to produce evidence of this person not caring a jot about health protocols.

This is why I and many others feel mandatory testing is necessary as a national policy, not just a KC or breed club mandated policy. As the UK Club Chairwoman has said herself, voluntary compliance with health guidelines (and for the breeder above, even compliance with club ethics guidelines) is more or less a nonsense for too many breeders, making health protocols meaningless and directly leading to the current situation with MVD in the UK: NO change in rates of MVD in over 15 years according to the club's own cardiologist.

Poor breeding practice that produces disease and shortens lives is to my mind as large and many would argue, a far larger welfare and cruelty issue than the state of a kennel. It isn;t separate from puppy farming but is part of the puppy farming issue. But when a prominent club breeder so blatantly disregards health protocols and even ethics policies of the national club, what, morally, exactly is the difference between a puppy farmer and a high-standing club breeder? The exploitation and disregard for suffering all in the name of personal and financial gain is exactly the same.

I expect quite a few here have dogs of this breeder's breeding in their dog's pedigrees.
 
Karlin said:
Puppy farmers in the UK and Ireland are as horrific.

The broader problem though is that as there are no requirements for testing to breed dogs, there's absolutely no way of mandating that a dog with a bad heart, cancer, curly coat, SM, or whatever NOT be bred.

If commercial breeders were to be expected to health test and provide certs, then all breeders should have to do this. If club breeders aren't cardiac testing both parents and following the MVD protocol theyare no better than puppy farmers and millers. As a bit of research, within 10 minutes I found a whole slew of underage dogs recently bred by a prominent and influential breeder in the UK, some of the dams below the CKCS Club ethics guideline age of 16 months (which of course doesn't even pay lip service to the MVD protocol); and sires bred as young as 8 months old. This is not 20 years ago; this is just in the past couple of years. This is not a puppy farmer or non-club member; this is a 'respected' club member. All I had to do was a pedigree search using the database at worldpedigrees.com and randomly select a couple of dogs from the 100+ listed of her breeding to produce evidence of this person not caring a jot about health protocols.

This is why I and many others feel mandatory testing is necessary as a national policy, not just a KC or breed club mandated policy. As the UK Club Chairwoman has said herself, voluntary compliance with health guidelines (and for the breeder above, even compliance with club ethics guidelines) is more or less a nonsense for too many breeders, making health protocols meaningless and directly leading to the current situation with MVD in the UK: NO change in rates of MVD in over 15 years according to the club's own cardiologist.

Poor breeding practice that produces disease and shortens lives is to my mind as large and many would argue, a far larger welfare and cruelty issue than the state of a kennel. It isn;t separate from puppy farming but is part of the puppy farming issue. But when a prominent club breeder so blatantly disregards health protocols and even ethics policies of the national club, what, morally, exactly is the difference between a puppy farmer and a high-standing club breeder? The exploitation and disregard for suffering all in the name of personal and financial gain is exactly the same.

I expect quite a few here have dogs of this breeder's breeding in their dog's pedigrees.
Click to expand...

At least here-- there are no MANDATES of testing for the breeding of ANY animal-- not even HUMANS.

We are trying to hit too many things here at once. We had been talking about BAD commercial who keep ill dams and sires -- do their own c-sections and the dogs live with rot and death all the days of their reproductive lives.
Then You try to equate THAT to breeding a 16 month old (which could have been an oops). Which wouldn't be an ethic violation here.
 
Education for the entire Cavalier community is imperative. 2 years ago before I adopted Nora from Lucky Star, I contacted another Cavalier Rescue (part of a major national club) and the woman I spoke with was a director of the club....this woman stated that 'SM was NOT an issue' and was 'just hype' and basically cut me off from talking about it when I mentioned it. In my opinion, if people in 'power' in the clubs and organizations are uninformed and in denial, the struggle to get research funding will be near impossible. I believe that those club directors could make a difference in providing more research funding as they are the ones who can really bring the Cavalier Community together.
 
Lynn said:
Education for the entire Cavalier community is imperative. 2 years ago before I adopted Nora from Lucky Star, I contacted another Cavalier Rescue (part of a major national club) and the woman I spoke with was a director of the club....this woman stated that 'SM was NOT an issue' and was 'just hype' and basically cut me off from talking about it when I mentioned it. In my opinion, if people in 'power' in the clubs and organizations are uninformed and in denial, the struggle to get research funding will be near impossible. I believe that those club directors could make a difference in providing more research funding as they are the ones who can really bring the Cavalier Community together.
Click to expand...

I don't know what national rescue you are referring to-- but I can't imagine our club managing director EVER saying that SM was hype.

And I don't know how a club rescue director could have provide more research funding?? The monies earmarked for rescues MUST be used as directed.
 
Last edited:
I think for fundraising, Lynn means club directors overall, not the rescue coordinators?

Maybe there's a problem when there are huge rescue funds that remain untapped while clubs don't or won'talso fundraise at a similar scale for diseases that threaten to wipe out the breed as we now know it. And the irony is that very large rescue funds remain unused while people are still encouraged to donate.

Though this point infuriated breeders before I do know what I am talking about: I have been given figures directly from people involved at rescue committee level or senior committee level in clubs in the UK and US, and know for a fact that 5 figure sums -- some at the HIGH end of 5 figures -- are sitting in some UK and US regional club rescue accounts. Yet I know of a case where rescue has argued that dogs with basic health issues (not complicated ones) be put down rather than given vet care 'because it is so expensive' or to leave new owners to maybe, or maybe not, pay for needed one-off treatments, even as they sat atop an absolutely enormous rescue nest egg (gee -- what ARE they planning to do with it, if not spend it on rescue cases? :sl*p:). By the way in the UK any member has the right to request accounts from club rescue.

I'd suggest regional club members ask for verified accounts and see what their own clubs have in their rescue accounts. What I say can be easily confirmed. I think some people would be very taken aback at the money just sitting out there, hardly dipped into for rescue. At the same time I know there are very hard working regional and national rescues that operate at a loss or break even as well -- I am not saying ALL but there are SOME with vast sums in rescue.

Those sums are dozens of times the size of entire amounts ever donated towards, say, SM research or underwriting MRIs.

The ability to fundraise towards rescue is proof that a determined club can raise funds for important causes. On the other hand, should not clubs need to account for the rescue funds on a quarterly basis and if money stockpiles up to 5 figures and there's no indication the money is being depleted by rescue demands, perhaps money needs to be reallocated or rescue fundraising should be capped for a time with further energies going to health research and breeder support (eg for part funding MRIs or at least stud MRIs?).
 
Statements like this don't help any rescue. At any one time we can have 60 or more dogs in our rescue. Bills are constantly being paid and money is constantly coming in through donations. Our average expenses per cavalier are over 500.00-- our average donation is under 400.00. So we do fundraisers at every opportunity. Rescue is only possible through our wonderful fosters (who pay for food, toys, treats and gas to move these guys) and wonderful people who give money so we can keep getting the patellas fixed and heartworm cured. Please don't undermine what has been successful.
 
I meant that the people who are in positions of power can rally their members to start fundraising drives to HELP fund more research and provide education. In no way shape or form did I suggest or imply anything other. TWO Years ago I talked with a person who was and still IS in charge of approving the adoption of Cavaliers in this national rescue in her district. This is what SHE said to me....and it floored me. My thought was that if THIS woman is one of the top ppl in that organization, there needs to be better education.


Flaming at each other is not going to solve any problems. Twisting people's words around to fit into your own issues/gripes is not going to help either. The one reason I have been mostly silent for a year is EXACTLY for this reason. I thought I could add something to the discussion, but apparently not.
 
WoodHaven said:
At least here-- there are no MANDATES of testing for the breeding of ANY animal-- not even HUMANS.
Click to expand...
That may be the case where you are in this world but where I am the following government new law applies and from this address.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/poctaa1986360/s15c.html

Victorian Consolidated Legislation

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 - SECT 15C
Breeding of animals with heritable defects

15C. Breeding of animals with heritable defects

(1) A person must not, intentionally or recklessly, allow an animal with a heritable defect to breed.

Penalty: 60 penalty units, in the case of a natural person. 300 penalty units, in the case of a body corporate.

(2) A person must not sell or dispose of an animal with a heritable defect, if the person knows or is reckless as to whether the animal has a heritable defect, unless the person who sells or disposes of the animal advises the person to whom the animal is sold or disposed of (before the sale or disposal) that the animal has the heritable defect.

Penalty: 60 penalty units, in the case of a natural person. 300 penalty units, in the case of a body corporate.

(3) In this section-
heritable defect, in relation to a species of animal set out in Column 1 of the Table in the Schedule, means a heritable defect that is known to cause the disease set out opposite the species of animal in Column 2 of the Table in the Schedule.
.
 
All animals have heritable defects. Some are dominant, some recessive. Good gravy, does that mean you can't breed a dog with a eye fold at birth??
 
WoodHaven said:
All animals have heritable defects. Some are dominant, some recessive. Good gravy, does that mean you can't breed a dog with a eye fold at birth??
Click to expand...
Eye Folds are NOT listed in the Act's Table, presently these are Tabled - Von Willebrands disease (vWD), Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA), Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (NCL), Hereditary Cataract (HC), Collie Eye Anomaly (CEA). The Act is new and to be tested where it appears there is a "grace period", and as it exists in time more heritable defects could possibly be added, particularly if a DNA test exists for the heritable defect.

Our Kennel Club called DogsVictoria and VCA has arranged Seminars for any breed that could be affected by the above mentioned Tabled Heritable Defects. A representative from the Bureau of Animal Welfare will attend the Seminars to explain to breeders and to clubs about the new laws and the Code of Practice that has been made available by the Bureau of Animal Welfare, and how breeders and clubs can best work with it. Maybe Seminars might be similarly being arranged for commercial breeders and pet shops as the Act would similarly apply to them, plus also to backyard breeders. Anyway this PDF document mentions Seminars that have already been arranged, have a read via this address.
http://www.vca.org.au/assets/pdf/nov-2009-seminars _3_.pdf
.
 
Certainly those persons elected to lead their Club have the influence to lead their members into supporting research for the CKCS,i.e. if the Club is active. The leaders are also those who need to bring the latest information re: the breed to the attention of their members. Seems to me this should be just basic in a Breed Club.
 
frecklesmom said:
Certainly those persons elected to lead their Club have the influence to lead their members into supporting research for the CKCS,i.e. if the Club is active. The leaders are also those who need to bring the latest information re: the breed to the attention of their members. Seems to me this should be just basic in a Breed Club.
Click to expand...

Do you or have you belonged to a breed club-- OR any AKC club?
 
I've seen it where Clubs and registered breeders had a golden opportunity to influence and to lead, but after years where things tended to appear the same as they always have been then people gradually turned towards Politicians and the Animal Welfare Act. Maybe that might be a good thing as Government Legislation concerning Heritable Defects could be applied to ALL including Commercial Breeders, Backyard Breeders and even Pet Shops.
.
 
I have similar costs in rescue, Sandy. As with remaining quiet on health or rescue issues so as not to embarrass/annoy the clubs/breeders/national organisations, or because it makes things awkward for rescue (I do not believe it does) -- I don't think it helps rescue efforts to hide away the facts of how club-raised funds -- donated in good faith by many club and non-club people -- are in some cases NOT spent on rescue by several club rescue groups. It is ironic to me that close to $100,000 is sitting in some rescue accounts -- what are they doing with this money? What do they intend to do with it? -- while health initiatives are so poorly funded. A lot of people see rescue as sacrosact and do not ask how much cash is there or require an explanation of how it is being spent. They need to start asking for total transparency from club rescue groups.

Given the example that I noted earlier -- that a single pet owner donated the funds to scan 19 cavaliers while the club paid for three... and as many many more such scans are needed (see the request on the UK CKCS Club site which is an international request, not just for UK dogs), and given that one of the US clubs has turned down proposals in the past to fund a large scale scanning research effort...one has to wonder where priorities lie and how money is being used, and whether if so much is raised towards 'rescue' work that isn't being done -- or at least, the funds intended for it are not being drawn down -- perhaps it is time to refocus effort on saving the breed as well as giving individual dogs a better life.

Not least because rescue and health issues with SM are going to be more and more intertwined. You, me and others in club or breed rescue are increasingly going to be trying to find homes for cavaliers with SM that will be a lot harder to place, and a much greater financial burden, than CKCS with MVD. They may not be placeable and treatment and diagnosis for a single dog will be beyond what rescue can handle, raising the issue of having to pts dogs or else, club and rescue members taking personal responsibility for them. SM is going to build to a serious crisis in rescue. Addressing the health issues therefore has got to be a funding priority within the clubs, for this and many other reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top