Why are Cavaliers such an expensive breed?

[Karlin]

Judy as far as I have seen a club health clinic would not be doing echocardiograms -- just ausculation. So you'd need to pay for that kind of health exam anyway.

Don;t you still feel it is very risky to take in animals on a lease saying no animals -- I think you still have to assume it may become an issue and need a contingency plan to avoid a potential crisis situation. One of the problems is that it isn't just the landlord or management company -- it is what other tenants think and do as well. If other tenants start to take in animals, or complain, there may be a crackdown at any time and this may require moving (a situation I -- and anyone doing rescue -- have seen come up again and again). I think it makes more sense to either get a written clarification allowing you to have animals, or find somewhere where this cannot be an issue -- unless you have a place to put Zack and cat for the weeks it might take until you could find a new place. It all seems very, very risky to assume things couldn't change in an instant with you having only days to sort a place for Zack? Such situations are one of the main reasons animals end up in rescue, and for this reason my rescue homing form explicitly asks whether someone is in rental accommodation and if they have landlord permission to have a dog. And if they are renting, I won't home to people unless I can speak to the landlord to verify the dog is acceptable.

 

[WoodHaven]

Thanks for clarifying that. When i was searching for a puppy, a local breeder with the highest standards and ethics warned not to just go by AKC registry when evaluating a puppy. She said just because a puppy is eart and eye clinics)-- many of the small akc cavalier clubs also make an efAKC registered doesn't mean he is from a breeder who does regular heart testing etc. Aren't some pet store puppies AKC registered? Please understand i'm not knocking the AKC, i knew that AKC registration did mean something important, i just didn't know what, and i appreciate hearing more specifically what kind of quality control they use. But also, i was told that a buyer of a cavalier could not just go by AKC registry alone in knowing whether the breeding was of the highest quality.

Zack is AKC registered but i don't think his breeder meets the kinds of standards that are considered to be the best. I was told though that when the AKC guy came out to check on the breeders' place and make sure it was up to their quality standards, the guy liked Zack's father so much, he bought him on the spot for a large sum.

What are the requirements for CKCSC registration? I mean, is it required that the parents were registered, or is it more a matter of meeting those criteria you mentioned?

I just mean that i had to get written permission from my apartment landlord, and i was not willing to do that because i didn't want to put the landlord in a position of having to say no to enforce my rental agreement which says no pets, while i knew that if i got a sweet quiet little dog, they would not later kick me out as they are very kind and tentant-supportive, yet still, i wasn't willing to try to get them to put it writing so that they would be forced to say no before i got the dog. After the fact, you can make a case for implied consent if you have the dog long enough. I believe they know about Zack now and have not objected, thank goodness.

At the dog park, i have had many people tell me they were unable to get a rescue dog for the same reason that i didn't attempt it.

I consider these requirements by the rescue organizations to be reasonable, ethical and correct. But i still wanted to have a cavalier.

I did adopt a cat from a rescue once many years ago, and i don't remember being asked to get written permission but i do know that at that apartment, where i used to live, pets were allowed, that's when i got the first cat (from the pound) and then i got the second (from a rescue). As it is, i couldn't keep the second cat because the relationship between the two cats was a terrible disaster.

Anyway, I would always look into getting a rescue animal before buying commercially, and that is what i encountered when looking into rescuing a cavalier. Until i met my first cavalier last year, if i had wanted a dog, which i didn't, i would've gone to the pound to get a dog as in the past. And for the right dog, i would not hesitate to drive two days or fly, to get the dog, if i were able to rescue.


That's good to know. So far, my efforts to find one locally haven't been successful, for heart testing. At one point, i was needing to prove to my pet insurance company that Zack's heart was OK, and i looked at the available low cost clinics and there were none within a couple hundred miles or more of me. At the office of the local cardiologist, Stephen Barnett, they quoted me $500-$600 for an echocardiogram. I live in Los Angeles County and would think that would be a large area to be served.

I'm glad there are people working to get more low cost clinics. Is it possible to target donations for that project?

AKC doesn't have anything to do with quality, testing-- it is just a registry. Having a sire or dam that is an AKC champion means that someone cared enough to have independent people judge their dog as a worthy breeding candidate. This is where the AKC paper can mean something. It has the pedigree of the puppy and shows champions.

Having a CKCSC, USA registered dog means its breeder was a member and is held up to the code of ethics of the club. Again the sire and dam have to be registered - to register the pups. You can get a dog from a reputable registry (KC, IKC, AKC, Canadian KC) and have it registered in the CKCSC also. We did this with our tricolor-- she is KC, AKC and CKCSC registered.

Registries can't make unethical people ethical. Behaving in an ethical manner is a choice-- Pick a breeder who behaves ethically in their lives--they are much more likely to be ethical in all areas.

Texas is a huge state. They have their own AKC Cavalier club
http://www.cavaliersofhouston.org/

Most cavaliers are considered heart clear if they pass a veterinary cardiologists auscilation (a vet spends about 2 minutes with a scope listening for sounds). Cost is about 30 dollars at a CKCSC,USA show. There is usually a show in Dallas, TX-- but this year they seemed to have moved it.

 

[Maxwell&me]

Remali,

With all respect, here in Milwaukee County ( Wisconsin for all of you out of the country) they are becomming very popular~ In the Journel every weekend you see more and more backyard breeders putting ad's in the paper....starting about $1400.00~ They have mistakenly confused backyard breeding with actual well breed Pups....Or are trying to portray themselves as something they are not....The last time I called one of these Ad's over a year ago they wanted $1700.00 and had never heard of S.M. or Lux Pat.... :sl*p:

Cavaliers are also popping up locally in Pet Shops...the latest in a shop not far from my house. A very tiny tri girl....whos eyes were infected and who looked as if any minute she would just keel over, terribly upsetting for me and my young girls...this was very obviously a puppy mill dog. It was all I could do not to *pity rescue* the poor girl at $1500.00 ...However Im a firm believer that no dogs should be available at pet stores...and if I had emptied that cage Id be making room for another whos fate might be worse...not to mention making the Cavalier breed profitable for the miller and the Pet Shop so I left in Tears and have never been back to that shop.

( I did see that little gal a few weeks later with a family, turns out my Vet is the Vet they also use....so she is well on the road to recovery...However Im saddened for the family and the health issues I know this little girl will have long term)

I really wish here in the States we could keep this breed a secret~ but words getting out that they are wonderful companion dogs, great with kids and have the personality we all love about them, and as they gain popularity, The well breed Pups are going to go up....and the mill is going to try and get more......*sigh* Im assuming from back yard breeders~ becouse no reputable breeder would ever put a dog in that situation....

Im totally off track here~ I apologise, a well breed dog is worth its weight in gold....Maxwell was from a back yard breeder who at the time I thought was doing things the right way ( Total snow job, I feel so foolish now ) ...Now hes got Lux Pat and thats going to be in the future about $3000.00 not to mention very hard on him and me~ and even though the breeder knows this has happend to more than just Max...others Ive tracked down, continues to breed.

Im doing things very different the second time around~

 

[WoodHaven]

Brokers and backyard breeders have learned how to "sell" and they are very convincing. One of the first "breeders" my husband spoke to(over 6 years ago) was an INFAMOUS Indiana breeder. Luckily he asked a few good breeders their opinion and they said" NOOOOOOOO!! don't buy anything from her".
Fewer and fewer dogs in petstores seem to be AKC -- It requires DNA and inspections.

There is a clinic in Cincinnati that does very good work on knees-- they do MANY patellae surgeries and if you are willing to drive it is much less expensive.
Thank goodness Maxwell has you.

 

[Maxwell&me]

Sandy, I just want to make sure people REALLY SEE THIS EXCELLENT POINT

Registries can't make unethical people ethical. Behaving in an ethical manner is a choice-- Pick a breeder who behaves ethically in their lives--they are much more likely to be ethical in all areas.

There you really have it......

 

[Remali]

Maxwell&me, wow that is great news, it's nice to know that they are catching on here in WI. Maybe because I am up here in "hunting country" where hunting dogs are so popular, that is why I don't see many Cavaliers. Altho, maybe it isn't such great news, because, like you say, there are more and more disreputable breeders out there. I wish that WI had a Cavalier club, if they did I would join it in a heartbeat!

 

[judy]

Regarding registries --...There are no significant health or breeding protocols that the US clubs follow. No club in the US, Ireland or the UK requires any sort of health testing for example (only the Swedish club does, to my knowledge; their heart protocol is listed in the health part of the Library here and is very stringent, requiring a heart clearance on parents every 8 months for puppies to get club registration),...

I think that's awesome. Either something like that is needed or i don't see how the breed is going to become pure of the problem of dogs with MVD etc being bred. Sweden has good public health care for humans, i am told. I wonder if the state contributes to health care funding for animals. I say this because of the expense that's been mentioned here, for breeders to do this kind of ongoing health testing. I wonder how the Swedish clubs can require this of breeders, how can the breeders who register afford this?

 

[WoodHaven]

Maxwell&me, wow that is great news, it's nice to know that they are catching on here in WI. Maybe because I am up here in "hunting country" where hunting dogs are so popular, that is why I don't see many Cavaliers. Altho, maybe it isn't such great news, because, like you say, there are more and more disreputable breeders out there. I wish that WI had a Cavalier club, if they did I would join it in a heartbeat!

You asked for it--
http://www.ckcscsw.org/Page1-CKCSCSW.asp

Here is a new akc cavalier club

 

[Remali]

Oh WOW!! Thank you Sandy!! I've done countless searches online for a WI club and I never found one! Woo hoo!!!!!!

 

[WoodHaven]

They had a name change,,, that is why it took so long for me to find it. I know the people who started it- that made it much easier. There are some very good breeders in that club.
You can't breed out all the problems of the purebred dog-- In lowering the incidence of one issue you can raise another. Cavaliers as a whole don't have a lot of inherited issues-- some of the ones they have are major. Mitral valve disease is common in small dogs-- just like heart problems are VERY common in giant dogs. Early onset mvd is what is nasty in cavaliers.

 

[Jen]

Judy as far as I have seen a club health clinic would not be doing echocardiograms -- just ausculation. So you'd need to pay for that kind of health exam anyway.

Don;t you still feel it is very risky to take in animals on a lease saying no animals -- I think you still have to assume it may become an issue and need a contingency plan to avoid a potential crisis situation. One of the problems is that it isn't just the landlord or management company -- it is what other tenants think and do as well. If other tenants start to take in animals, or complain, there may be a crackdown at any time and this may require moving (a situation I -- and anyone doing rescue -- have seen come up again and again). I think it makes more sense to either get a written clarification allowing you to have animals, or find somewhere where this cannot be an issue -- unless you have a place to put Zack and cat for the weeks it might take until you could find a new place. It all seems very, very risky to assume things couldn't change in an instant with you having only days to sort a place for Zack? Such situations are one of the main reasons animals end up in rescue, and for this reason my rescue homing form explicitly asks whether someone is in rental accommodation and if they have landlord permission to have a dog. And if they are renting, I won't home to people unless I can speak to the landlord to verify the dog is acceptable.

I have to echo this opinion as it's very concerning that you would take in a dog when the lease clearly states that they are not allowed. With that, you really have no grounds to argue your "case". Plus, if you say that they are "very kind and tenant-supportive" taking advantage of that could end up in being evicted, especially, as Karlin mentioned, if more and more people take advantage of them like this. Both of my dogs were rescues, and the majority of dogs, in the US anyway, are from situations such as this. It's disheartening, to say the least.

 

[Cathy T]

I recently had a call from a woman who was heartbroken because she had to give up one of her Cavaliers. She had one and bought one for her daughter, the daughter couldn't keep it, so she took it. Her association only allows 1 dog so she either sells her house and moves or give up one of her dogs.

 

[judy]

Judy ...
Don;t you still feel it is very risky to take in animals on a lease saying no animals -- I think you still have to assume it may become an issue and need a contingency plan to avoid a potential crisis situation. One of the problems is that it isn't just the landlord or management company -- it is what other tenants think and do as well. If other tenants start to take in animals, or complain, there may be a crackdown at any time and this may require moving (a situation I -- and anyone doing rescue -- have seen come up again and again). I think it makes more sense to either get a written clarification allowing you to have animals, or find somewhere where this cannot be an issue -- unless you have a place to put Zack and cat for the weeks it might take until you could find a new place. It all seems very, very risky to assume things couldn't change in an instant with you having only days to sort a place for Zack? Such situations are one of the main reasons animals end up in rescue, and for this reason my rescue homing form explicitly asks whether someone is in rental accommodation and if they have landlord permission to have a dog. And if they are renting, I won't home to people unless I can speak to the landlord to verify the dog is acceptable.

Gosh Karlin, you must've witnessed some really heartbreaking situations in your work with rescue.

My situation is fortunately not so dire. It would take a lot of time to go into all the details, but it has to do with my particular situation. Not every situation is alike. Where i am, there is no chance of a sudden crackdown or of things changing in an instant. This is because of the particulars of my city as well as my personal situation.

I didn't take the choice of getting a dog lightly. I did once get a dog on impulse since i've lived here, about 12 years ago, and had the dog about 3 days before i realized i had been nuts to think i could do it. It was so painful to give the dog back even after only 3 days, i would never want to go through that again. But things are different now. Circumstances are different.

I completely agree with the rule of rescue agencies requiring the permission of apartment owners. It's a necessary and sensible rule.

Life is not always black and white though.

I will say a couple of things.

For one thing, if i should lose this apartment and have to move, either my daughter or my mother could keep Zack indefinitely. And if i were to lose this apartment, i could live with my mom. In fact, i would do that. She owns her home, and as she gets older, she would benefit from someone living with her. She'd also benefit from Zack's influence. Old age can get a bit lonely and depressing sometimes as friends die off and abilities are lost.

Hopefully that will reassure you about Zack, and that I am not so irresponsible and foolish in taking him into my life as it may at first seem.

Years ago, I contacted my city's rent board about this issue, the rent board is a government agency that represents and protects renters rights. (my city is mostly tenants) i had to research this when the former manager, a rather bitter spiteful person, threatened to evict me just for putting a bowl of food out for a stray cat that visited our backyard--he didn't know about Fluffy (and how i came to have Fluffy here despite the rental agreement is a long story which i won't go into, but i think to judge the situation without knowing it would be misguided). The landlord never did find out about Fluffy over about 10 years that i was here until he died. The current managers don't live at the building but the former one did.

Anyway, i contacted the rent board about Fluffy after i was threatned for feeding a stray cat, and was told that courts had been ruling that despite rental agreements to the contrary, if a tenant has had a pet a certain amount of time, then this constitutes implied consent to have that pet, and landlords can't just suddenly use a pet to evict tenants after the pet has been there for years. I got considerable reassurance about this, and also assurance that the rent board helps tenants with these cases. However, it's not something i would want to go through, and there would be legal expenses. But never the less, one may win one's case and keep one's home.

Then recently i met a woman at the dog park who lives in a large apartment building on the beach where pets are not allowed, but she was advised that the law alllows people to have pets despite rental agreements to the contrary if a therapist or doctor documents that the pet is therapeutic for that person. this woman got such a letter from a therapist and got the OK to have her dog at the apartment. She has never been in therapy before or since and doesn't have any disability or diagnosed condition. She said it wasn't a big deal. i got the name of the therapist.

I don't know what the circumstances are in your jurisdiction, but you might want to look into this and find out if there are similar laws or practices where you are (implied consent and medical justifications overriding rental contracts), and if so, you could advise people who are told they have to give up either their home or their pets. It might make all the difference to be informed about this. Or, maybe this is just something in my local area, not applicable elsewhere.

As for my trying to get written clarification that it's OK to have my pets, i think at this point, that would be ill-advisedly risky and irresponsible of me, asking for trouble, because i currently have a stable and apparently secure situation, whereas if i ask the manager to take a position in writing, i put him in a position where other tenants could claim discrimination unless he allowed everyone to do it (unless i got a therapist's letter), and i would risk destabilizing an otherwise normalized situation and losing my home. So thanks for the suggestion, but i think it would not be the most prudent course of action. And as to your other suggestion, giving up this place and getting one that allows pets is something i can do when and if a problem arises. And as i said, i can move in wiht my mom if needed.

So as i said, each situation is different and mine is copacetic i got it covered.
thanks for your concern.

 

[judy]

Here's a news item from Apartment Age magazine from 2004

http://www.aagla.org/mags-2001/nov04.pdf

"Orange County Woman Settles Therapy
Pet Lawsuit For $185,000
An Orange County woman received a $185,000
settlement from her landlord’s insurance company
to settle her lawsuit claiming the apartment
building’s no pet clause did not permit her to have
a therapy animal in violation of the federal Fair
Housing Act.
This is a hot button issue with renters and owners
and sometimes condo owners, debating what
constitutes a disability that would allow the occu-
pant to have a “therapy animal” under federal law
even if building rules and regulations prohibit pets.
For example, it’s generally easy to determine if
someone has a physical disability, such as blindness,
and truly requires a service animal. It’s an entirely
different issue determining if someone is depressed
and is prescribed a pet for that depression.
The attorney representing the tenant claimed that
the law is well established that people with dis-
abilities can have an animal, and that landlords must
make reasonable accommodations for people with
disabilities, including having a pet where there is
a no pet provision.
The landlord’s attorney said there is no admis-
sion of liability or wrongdoing in the settlement
agreement. The landlord entered mediation because
his insurer wanted to settle the matter, rather than
going to court against a sympathetic plaintiff.
The tenant’s doctors prescribed a therapy ani-
mal for emotional support, and the tenant acquired
a poodle in 2001. In 2002, the landlord notified
the tenant the dog violated the rules and regula-
tions and either the dog or the tenant would need
to move.
The tenant, believing that the owner was bark-
ing up the wrong tree, filed a complaint with the
Orange County Fair Housing Council, which brought
the matter to the attention of the U.S. De-
partment of Housing and Urban Development"

The following is from this link
http://www.tenant.net/Rights/pets.html
I think that any person faced with having to choose between their home and their pet should know about these laws

This is just the first part of the detailed article in the example of New York:

"So you want to keep a pet, but your lease has a "No Pet" Clause
by Karen Copeland, Esq.

Defenses to a holdover proceeding based upon the harboring of a pet in violation of a "No Pet" lease provision.

Two types of laws give an individual tenant, renter or cooperative shareholder the right to keep a pet, even if there is a "no pet" provision in the proprietary lease, occupancy agreement, house rules, or lease.

The first, and most widely known types of laws are municipal or local "Pet Laws" which deem that any such "no pet" provision is waived for the duration of the tenancy if the landlord fails to enforce the provision by commencing an action or proceeding within three months of the tenant's open and notorious harboring of the pet.

The second category of laws which would enable a tenant to keep a pet in spite of a "no pet" rule are the federal state, and local laws which prohibit discrimination against the disabled. Such laws mandate that a housing provider grant a "reasonable accommodation" necessary for a disabled person to "use and enjoy" his or her home.

Recent developments in each type of law have enabled many individuals to keep pets, even in the face of considerable opposition by Boards and neighbors. While individual co-op boards and landlords may be within their rights to enact and enforce a "no pet" clause, such prohibitions fail in the face of superseding laws which give tenants the right to keep pets in their homes under certain circumstances, which are discussed here."

 

[judy]

I recently had a call from a woman who was heartbroken because she had to give up one of her Cavaliers. She had one and bought one for her daughter, the daughter couldn't keep it, so she took it. Her association only allows 1 dog so she either sells her house and moves or give up one of her dogs.

Cathy, did she have both dogs for more than three months with the knowledge of the association? If so, she might be legally entitled to keep both dogs. Knowing how important it must be to her, maybe she would want to look into her rights according to the law.

 

[judy]

Cathy, I just saw this at
http://www.tenantslegalcenter.com/html/leases.html

According to this (i dont know what year it is), the law says people in condos are entitled to "at least one pet.." post 2001. Your friend might be interested in this. Cavaliers are generally such easy harmless dogs. I wish that housing rules rather than prohibitting pets, would prohibit *nuisance* pets, and only evict pets if they were a nuisance, as with uncontrolled barking or biting or damaging property, and that pets who were harmless would be allowed.

Here is something i read on one site about renting (see below for summary of the law i referred to above)

""Dogs are welcome in this apartment. I never had a dog that smoked in bed and set fire to the building. I never had a dog who played music or the TV too loudly. I never had a dog get drunk and knock holes in the walls. So if your dog can vouch for you, you're welcome too."
http://rental-housing.com/rental/pets.htm

PET LAW
In California, a mobile home park may not refuse permission to a tenant to have "at least one pet within the park, subject to
reasonable rules and regulations of the park". Also, a condominium or "common interest development" project may not refuse an owner the right to have "at least one pet within the development, subject to the reasonable rules and regulations of the association.." These new rules only apply, however, to leases or common interest documents (e.g. C.C.& R.'s) executed, modified or amended after 1/1/01) Also, if an animal is a service or medically necessary "companion" animal, it is not a "pet" and is therefore exempt from "no pet" lease restrictions.

California law for San Diego is applied in these pages. Such laws may or may not be applicable in other jurisdictions. The information provided herein is of a general nature and is not intended to be taken as specific legal advice. For legal advice in a particular situation, promptly consult with an appropriate attorney.

http://www.tenantslegalcenter.com/html/leases.html

 

[Remali]

I sure wish that where I lived would adopt the same rules/laws as Santa Monica, I think that is so wonderful! I rent, and when I got my dogs I already knew that dogs were allowed in my building (just have to pay an extra fee each month to have the pets). But, if I ever had to make a choice between being evicted due to a pet, or giving up the pet and being able to stay.....I would keep my pet and I would move. Of that I am certain. I would rather die than give up any of my pets, even if it meant that I had to move to another town nearby, or whatever I had to do, my pets stay with me forever. I pay an extra $75 a month to have my pets here ($25 for each animal), but to me it's worth it, I couldn't live without 'em.

 

[Bruce H]

Gee, maybe I need to re-think my pet policy :shock:

I allow pets in my 2 duplexes, 1 dog or 1 cat, maximum of 40#. I am flexible on the 40# max. All I require is an additional pet deposit. And do you know I only ever had a problem once and it was a cat that didn't get the concept of a litter box.

I mean, how could I NOT allow pets, given my hobby?

 

[MishathePooh]

I don't mind that Cavaliers are so expensive, although I really get ticked when good breeders go greedy and their dogs become poorly bred for 2000$/pup. I have seen this issue become rampant in midwest/northeast US and I get so angry about it.

When I bought Misha 10 years ago, most of the Cavaliers I saw were at least decently bred and you didn't see Cavaliers in pet stores. Speaking of registry, AKC registry just makes people more unethical because after the Cavalier became a recognized breed in the US, even responsible breeders turned sour just to make the extra buck (or thousand bucks as it may be) for their AKC dogs.

 

[WoodHaven]

I don't mind that Cavaliers are so expensive, although I really get ticked when good breeders go greedy and their dogs become poorly bred for 2000$/pup. I have seen this issue become rampant in midwest/northeast US and I get so angry about it.

When I bought Misha 10 years ago, most of the Cavaliers I saw were at least decently bred and you didn't see Cavaliers in pet stores. Speaking of registry, AKC registry just makes people more unethical because after the Cavalier became a recognized breed in the US, even responsible breeders turned sour just to make the extra buck (or thousand bucks as it may be) for their AKC dogs.

OK, maybe I am slow (or need more coffee) I don't understand "AKC registry just makes people more unethical"?
Well, I must go-- off to a show (in the rain)-- I don't plan on doing well today -- the bred by exhibitor class in bitches was very competitive. The judge yesterday stopped us after judging and told us it was a joy to judge such a nice class- and that they all were very nice.