http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/01/cavaliers-leap-too-far.html
And it mentions a cavalier and owner some of us will be familiar with.
I must say I cannot see the excuse of the cost of proper health testing being a valid reason not to do it (see third comment down) -- how can that be remotely ethical? Many of us, especially those who have owned dogs affected by SM, will gladly pay a premium on puppies that come from scanned parents. And if breeders aren't health testing or following health protocols for breeding, then how exactly are they much better than puppy farmers or backyard breeders that don't health test?
I still cannot see why a single scan on a dam at £100 or £200 (or even $500 0r $1000), which will likely have a couple of litters of puppies with litter averages 3-5 pups in this breed, is going to drive away buyers by charging the small extra amount of scanning spilt out over all those puppy sales. And I would argue it is NOT the buyers responsibility anyway to subsidise *the right thing to do for the breed's own health and future.* Yes, those of us who care will be happy to help support some of that cost of better breeding practice in an incremental increase in the cost of a puppy.
But any breeder unwilling to take on the responsibility of doing the testing that may secure, we all hope, some sort of future for this breed -- should simply not be breeding cavaliers. Doing the testing is a responsibility to the breed itself -- and that ethical mandate to protect the breed and prioritise health, which is supposed to be paramount for any breeder, according to clubs and the KC, will not go away regardless of how expensive tests may be.
And it is, frankly, insulting, given how many of us pay thousands for (unsubsidsed!) MRIs, surgery and monthly medication for dogs affected with this condition, when all research indicates using MRIs and following a breeding protocol reduces incidence of SM.
And it mentions a cavalier and owner some of us will be familiar with.
I must say I cannot see the excuse of the cost of proper health testing being a valid reason not to do it (see third comment down) -- how can that be remotely ethical? Many of us, especially those who have owned dogs affected by SM, will gladly pay a premium on puppies that come from scanned parents. And if breeders aren't health testing or following health protocols for breeding, then how exactly are they much better than puppy farmers or backyard breeders that don't health test?
I still cannot see why a single scan on a dam at £100 or £200 (or even $500 0r $1000), which will likely have a couple of litters of puppies with litter averages 3-5 pups in this breed, is going to drive away buyers by charging the small extra amount of scanning spilt out over all those puppy sales. And I would argue it is NOT the buyers responsibility anyway to subsidise *the right thing to do for the breed's own health and future.* Yes, those of us who care will be happy to help support some of that cost of better breeding practice in an incremental increase in the cost of a puppy.
But any breeder unwilling to take on the responsibility of doing the testing that may secure, we all hope, some sort of future for this breed -- should simply not be breeding cavaliers. Doing the testing is a responsibility to the breed itself -- and that ethical mandate to protect the breed and prioritise health, which is supposed to be paramount for any breeder, according to clubs and the KC, will not go away regardless of how expensive tests may be.
And it is, frankly, insulting, given how many of us pay thousands for (unsubsidsed!) MRIs, surgery and monthly medication for dogs affected with this condition, when all research indicates using MRIs and following a breeding protocol reduces incidence of SM.