Is anyone having their say...adding any input to the new dog....

Nope still irrisponsible....if the breeder is after a number one and is pumping out so much to get it....they should safe guard the produce and neuter, after all from this off spring alone they are producing thousands....this is where our problems stems
tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
To play devils advocate FL whilst I applaud the publishing and availabilty of information regarding health issues, the problems occur IMHO when a new condition is identified where testing is not yet available to clearly identify and confirm the problem.

In CKCS for example, heart murmurs are easy - the dog either has one or it doesnt.

PRA and slipping patella in CKCS appear to be less common (or probably just less reported on) than they used to be when I was a kid

However the country's favourite, syringomyelia, has a huge problem at the moment - the tests which are done indicate that there is a syring which MAY lead to the condition, but does not show clearly that there is a link between the presence of a syring and the development of the condition.

Perhaps it is the case that no dog should be bred from if there is any shadow of a doubt? I personally do not think that is a viable option at the present time, until better testing/information becomes available

[/ QUOTE ]


In the latest study where all members in the Swedish Cavalier King Charles Spaniel club had the opportunity to anonymously or not anonymously inform the club of their dogs/bitches health, only one case of syringiomella was reported.

The club informs that Syringomyelia is an inherited disease in the central nervous system in Cavaliers. Neurologist Clare Rusbridge and Penny Knowler at Stone Lion Veterinary Centre in London have began searching for the gene/genes that causes syringomyelia.


So about that disease they have no outspoken plan yet as far as I can find. But I know that for other breeds or diseases the SKK have chosen the approach of trying to not minimize the gene pool to much by excluding to many dogs without evidence.

smile.gif
 
SKK say a breeder has to take back a dog for the first three years???
What a bl**dy good idea!
Unfortunately that will never work here, with the amount of people who still buy pups from "delivery men" at various junctions of the various motorways, having seen a cute picture on the Dumbtree sites.
 
It could help stop the back street breeding of bigger dogs...but because baked bean sized ones
smirk.gif
are easier to cram back.....they prob wont be arsed
crazy.gif


Dumbtree should be abolished, they should be made to only advertise litters within the health tested legislation, and nowt else......people delivering puppies should be monitored via the fraud people.....£400 and upwards cash in hand, UNREGISTERED to the tax man
smirk.gif
it can not be hard to place detective style people in place and charge it to the breeding licences(that should be enforced), can u imagine the like of what Gazey mentioned 50 breeding dogs.....that licence fee should bring in a fortune
smirk.gif
could def go towards paying for some extra inspectrate bods and all the tax not getting declared or payed
smirk.gif

I will be copying copying all my local free ads and sending them in my E.mails too.
grin.gif


Of course this is all what we want but know will neva happen....but we can only dream
frown.gif
like Gazey is now
grin.gif


All dogs should be licenced to full liability and it it does not comes ligitimately it should be refused insurance and without insurance dogs should be removed............this may get the message through....who wants to lash out £1000 for a back street pug or bull dog if they cannot legally insure it and it could be removed.

Sorry im dreaming way over board here
blush.gif
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
A reply
laugh.gif
.....yes the breeder should be made to neuter the sub standard dog, and if they are a good responsible breeder they will do so because they will care about off loading the failures
smirk.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

When I bought Jasper he was registered as a pet somehow. I remember being told he wasn't for breeding and would not be issued with a stud card, even if I had applied.

I understand the idea that the substandard ones should be neutered, but no one wants to buy their pup at 6 months old, when done. They want them at 8 - 10 weeks. You can't force the new owner to honour a promise to neuter/spay at 6 months.

I suppose breeders wouldn't want to hang on to the whole litter until that time either.
 
[ QUOTE ]
...
I will also wait for the onslaught I will say the majority of breeding is done for monetary gain the minority is not.

I wont run *I can fight*
tongue.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

A few years ago, the government who is in charge of collecting Swedish taxes thought the same as you, thinking they would find that lots of untaxed Swedish Kronor ended up in breeders pockets and considering if breeders should be made to pay tax on their huge profits, they did a meticulous survey to see how much breeders of purebred dogs earned in Sweden.

The result showed that Swedish breeders of purebred dogs, can be happy if their hobby ends on plus/minus null every year, due to what our dog owning costs us (= paying memberships in a minimum of two clubs, entry fees, travelling expenses going to the dog shows etc. and of course the costs all dog owner has for food, cost of insurance for their dogs/bitches and so on).

As I said on another thread recently, I actually think I've heard that of all the breeders of purebred dogs they looked into, they only found one who one year, was making a profit on their breeding but considering that anything on the plus side above null is considered a profit, their profit might not have been much to write home about.
So in a way, if you want to have a chance of breeding with a profit (in Sweden at least), your best chance is to breed and sell mongrels.



As far as the importance of showing, I know this might seem shallow but to be honest,
thblushing.gif
I simply like ribbons
blush.gif
. But mostly I also like the thrill in having a judge tell me what he/she thinks about my dogs looks, the thrill in worrying about what he/she will think about my bitch/bitches in comparison to the other bitches and perhaps, if lucky enough, even compared to the best dog, or even dogs/bitches of other breeds.

blush.gif
grin.gif
 
Cor you lot have lost me for this time of night!
I do however have opinions somewhere in the middle of the three of you (not wishing to be a fence sitter!)
grin.gif

I show and breed in what in my opinion is the most responsible mannar. I plan to have litters in the future and will continue to breed responsibly and within breed club rules...the KC play NO PART in whether or not a breeder breeds responsibly and thats what doesn't lie right with me. Equally no one has to be a member of my breed club or their respective breed clubs and therefore can still carry on breeding however they want. Breeding responsibly in this country is a choice.
I like alot of the ideas from both sweden and germany and think it would be fantastic to have most if not all of the ideas installed here.
I don't think untested dogs should be allowed to show or be bred from. What ever that entails in each breed. For my breeds this is simply eye testing in one breed and hips in the other. I know its more complex for other breeds but in my mind that makes it even more neccessary. It is surely the KC's responisibility to install this and it infuriates me that they don't do it...I mean really, its surely not rocket science any tw*t can see thats how things should be
confused.gif

I could rant for hours actually, hours and hours and hours, particularly on the subject of vizslas and current registraion numbers and the number of BYB's breeding them now and the thing that concerns me most about it all is where these puppies end up. I love the breed so dearly and care immensly about the future of it, I HATE the fact that I see lots more vizslas about now than 2-3 years ago, not because I'm snobby and don't want the breed to expand and have a nice large gene pool etc etc. but its such a specific breed, they are not easy dogs, they are so unsuitable as pets for a huge amount of people and I really worry about the sort of life these dogs are having and where they will end up. The amount of vizslas this year I have heard of that have been put down or are to be put down because they are now 'aggressive' astounds me and angers me and makes me incredibly sad. Of course, under breed club rules these vizslas would be returned to their breeders. I have only heard of one instance of that this year amongst a sea of others (because the responsible ones get the homes right in the first place 98% of the time) who were PTS and that was of course Ali-m's Ruby, now doing very well with Ali after being returned to her breeder at 18months with aggression issues. Unfortunatley the amount of people breeding irresponisbly in the breed I think probably outweighs those adhering to breed club rules. The amount of contact I get from people who have NO support from their breeder and want help with a 16/17 week old pup they don't know how to train and weren't prepared for is ridiculous. Any way I'm sure your all bored now!
tongue.gif
grin.gif

The kennel club never fails to confuse me on pretty much a daily basis. I was going to ask GH her opinion on an issue bugging me in my breed/a breeder/showing/showing dogs NAF but I couldn't even get my confusion written down earlier and gave up! LOL
 
Nope a breeder would not....it makes litle financial sense and would inter fear with future space/breeding.......but if compulsary insurance is in place and your company has no proof via the vet that the dog has been done(via unique chip number) which should also be compulsary, then insurance should be void from then on.....and if u cannot produce insurance like u can with a car then u should be in big trouble like u can with a car.

Or bit like the Swedish check system the chip should checked and maybe it should come up as NOT TO BE BRED FROM BREEDER RESTRICTION.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A reply
laugh.gif
.....yes the breeder should be made to neuter the sub standard dog, and if they are a good responsible breeder they will do so because they will care about off loading the failures
smirk.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

When I bought Jasper he was registered as a pet somehow. I remember being told he wasn't for breeding and would not be issued with a stud card, even if I had applied.

I understand the idea that the substandard ones should be neutered, but no one wants to buy their pup at 6 months old, when done. They want them at 8 - 10 weeks. You can't force the new owner to honour a promise to neuter/spay at 6 months.

I suppose breeders wouldn't want to hang on to the whole litter until that time either.

[/ QUOTE ]

He probably would have been 'R' endorsed. All pups should have this in place IMO and only have it lifted by the breeder when of proven quality and all relevant health tests done. Its a good system if it could be enforced by the kc as something mandatory rather than optional. I'm not sure how widely its used in other breeds but in both mine is still common place to R endorse your pups thank goodness!
 
[ QUOTE ]
SKK say a breeder has to take back a dog for the first three years???
What a bl**dy good idea!
Unfortunately that will never work here, with the amount of people who still buy pups from "delivery men" at various junctions of the various motorways, having seen a cute picture on the Dumbtree sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not SKK, the Swedish law!

SKK have for as long as I've been a dog owner, had a voluntary clause in their sales contracts about taking back the dog during its whole life, that breeders could/can choose to "activate" or not when filling in the contract but add to that the politicians changed the law a few years ago, so that it now is illegal for a breeder to not take back a puppy/dog up until 3 years after it was sold.

Not that it is illegal in the same scale as committing a murder but it will definitely hurt your wallet if you refuse to take back. And most of us know that threats about squeezing money out of people is usually very effective.

smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Nope a breeder would not....it makes litle financial sense and would inter fear with future space/breeding.......but if compulsary insurance is in place and your company has no proof via the vet that the dog has been done(via unique chip number) which should also be compulsary, then insurance should be void from then on.....and if u cannot produce insurance like u can with a car then u should be in big trouble like u can with a car.

Or bit like the Swedish check system the chip should checked and maybe it should come up as NOT TO BE BRED FROM BREEDER RESTRICTION.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this as an idea although it needs refining a touch!
grin.gif

As a breeder you couldn't chip your whole litter with this restriction like you do when you R endorse your litter. An endorsement needs to be reversable by the breeder. It would however work for those which are clearly never going to make the grade so to speak.
 
Yep that will do
grin.gif


You do know some of my answers are not even plausable....but im putting them in
grin.gif
grin.gif
grin.gif


Something like checking the chip to check that the restrictions has bene lifted and all health tests been validated and had vets approval also before the litter can be registered or even given permisssion to go ahead.
smirk.gif


Lol can u imagine....there is not so much strict breeding with moronic humans
grin.gif
grin.gif
grin.gif


I have to add on u know
tongue.gif
 
Along with this I also think the person wanting to breed should also register with the tax, get a licence and [****] a basic exam in regard to canine welfare and have insurance to cover the litter being born, for the mother and until the puppies are sold.....so they of course get the care they may need
smirk.gif


I know im being so annoying
tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Along with this I also think the person wanting to breed should also register with the tax, get a licence and [****] a basic exam in regard to canine welfare and have insurance to cover the litter being born, for the mother and until the puppies are sold.....so they of course get the care they may need

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

What got starred out??????
 
[ QUOTE ]
Night night GH, don't have nightmares about 50-headed Cavs, baked beans, people shouting into megaphones and Cayla
laugh.gif
tongue.gif
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this not the second time in the same thread that you refer to the GSD's outside the ring handlers?
mad.gif







g150.gif



***FinnishLapphund refuses to be teased into ranting about the use of outside handlers and their shouting, squeaky toys and megaphones, around the GSD rings.***


grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Along with this I also think the person wanting to breed should also register with the tax, get a licence and [****] a basic exam in regard to canine welfare and have insurance to cover the litter being born, for the mother and until the puppies are sold.....so they of course get the care they may need

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

What got starred out??????

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I must have said sit as a naughty word
grin.gif
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...
I will also wait for the onslaught I will say the majority of breeding is done for monetary gain the minority is not.

I wont run *I can fight*
tongue.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

A few years ago, the government who is in charge of collecting Swedish taxes thought the same as you, thinking they would find that lots of untaxed Swedish Kronor ended up in breeders pockets and considering if breeders should be made to pay tax on their huge profits, they did a meticulous survey to see how much breeders of purebred dogs earned in Sweden.

The result showed that Swedish breeders of purebred dogs, can be happy if their hobby ends on plus/minus null every year, due to what our dog owning costs us (= paying memberships in a minimum of two clubs, entry fees, travelling expenses going to the dog shows etc. and of course the costs all dog owner has for food, cost of insurance for their dogs/bitches and so on).

As I said on another thread recently, I actually think I've heard that of all the breeders of purebred dogs they looked into, they only found one who one year, was making a profit on their breeding but considering that anything on the plus side above null is considered a profit, their profit might not have been much to write home about.
So in a way, if you want to have a chance of breeding with a profit (in Sweden at least), your best chance is to breed and sell mongrels.



As far as the importance of showing, I know this might seem shallow but to be honest,
thblushing.gif
I simply like ribbons
blush.gif
. But mostly I also like the thrill in having a judge tell me what he/she thinks about my dogs looks, the thrill in worrying about what he/she will think about my bitch/bitches in comparison to the other bitches and perhaps, if lucky enough, even compared to the best dog, or even dogs/bitches of other breeds.

blush.gif
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

There will be a minority who do not make alot of profit and go about it all the right way here including some working breeds for working homes......but there is a hell of a majority in this country FLH that do it for the cash.......jsut take MM's post re the woman who bred a litter of dogue's (im learning)
smirk.gif
DDB's so she could have a new conservatorey.......a DDB will pup a good 9 in litter I bet, thats a £1000 a pup, I bet she got a nice conservatorey from that, and paid nil in tax, yet someone working from nine till five would have to......she let her bitch suckle 9 pups lets say, prob did not even bother to wean and let them go at 8 weeks, with nowt done to them in typical back street stylee........this is very common practice here FLH, you should give me your addy I will send u a copy of the local advertiser, but then again it's like a 5 page spread of gumtree.....and indeedy there is sh!t loads of money to be made from crossing stupid looking mongers and giving them a cool name.(they typically look like a mini over shot groucho from sesame street)
smirk.gif

There is def a big tax gap here for breeding.....our government is not as bright as yours
crazy.gif


Bless you re the showing.....I can imagine u with ya little ribbons
grin.gif
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Now you see that is where your arguement falls down - the puppy may not be of a good enough standard for a top breeder to keep it, but it may well be considered to be a good enough standard for someone just getting into showing to have lots of fun with
smile.gif
Standards of CKCS are much lower in (e.g.) Scandanavian countries so something which might not be kept as a show prospect here would do really well over there and might well improve the standard of the breed overall
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I wanted to write something precisely like this... in Italy a breed like CKCS is relatively unknown and pretty rare, surely a puppy which is not considered good enough by one of Britain's top breeders would actually be tremendously successful in a country like Italy!

It's the same thing with horses, come on, a 4 year old which has been rejected by Edward Gal would probably win the National championships in Britain or Italy... it is impossible to generalise and it is totally normal that standards are different.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, there is a bitch I know who will be paying her way for her owner's new kennel block
frown.gif
frown.gif
frown.gif
and she looks like fook all, squared.....

[/ QUOTE ]


crazy.gif
mad.gif


and no doubt this will be the start of a new puppy farm.

I will dd this, it OH's answer to over breeding....."all rescues sould close for a period of time" and let the government see how over run this country is with abandoned dogs and the aftermathe of back street breeders, they may get of their arses and do somehing" of corse rescue would never do it....my answer

I said yeah "prob re open kennels with death by electricution
crazy.gif
 
Not sure if the answer is to ship them to other countrys.....they will end up like us....over run with dogs and walking heart attacks
tongue.gif

Maybe your counrty already know these dogs snore like beached whales and cost an arm and a leg to insure......so chose to get nicer little dogs like IG's
smirk.gif
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the importance of showing, I know this might seem shallow but to be honest, I simply like ribbons . But mostly I also like the thrill in having a judge tell me what he/she thinks about my dogs looks, the thrill in worrying about what he/she will think about my bitch/bitches in comparison to the other bitches and perhaps, if lucky enough, even compared to the best dog, or even dogs/bitches of other breeds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha I'm glad I'm not the only one FLH! Nothing is giving me more pleasure at the moment than showing my girl who is an unknown in regards to her breeding (shes falconing stock) and doing really well with her. I plan to breed from her in the future because she will widen the gene pool of the dogs out there showing which is really really small in our breed (and getting smaller every day but thats a whole new rant) The only problem I will have is finding a dog good enough to put on her whilst not wanting to breed using the same few sires the rest of the show bitches use. I may resort to importing something.
Cayla- I'm impressed by the use of 'dogues'!
grin.gif
very good, very good!
tongue.gif

Unfortunately it is true that most people in this country breed for profit. I really don't like it when people try and say 'you can't breed for profit, we don't make money from our pups'- do you think i was slapped with the stupid stick at birth?! Of course you make a profit, I make a profit when I have pups (its not a sizeable amount but its certainly profit) and I health test parents, vaccinate, microchip, worm, de flea, vet check the pups, all are fed on top quality diet and leave with food, toys, puppy packs etc etc and I still make a profit so don't try and tell me that your puppies have somehow swallowed the profit when you havn't done anything you should have done, therefore saving more and opening up the profit margin. Perhaps I'm naive, the animals here take up my time everyday so I loose no money from a time aspect when I have a litter and they first and foremost are members of my family so in calculating a profit I wouldn't include feeding the adults everyday or any of their other care (although I have calculated factoring in the extra feed and worming for the bitch during pregnancy). I still don't believe them though the fact is you can tell they are only in it for profit and if they didnt make one they wouldn't breed at all. When questioned I've never heard a plausible answer as to why else they might be churning puppies out!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top