Page 9 of 10

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 10:57
by aussiedoodles
Evidence of Mating females well before they were 12 months of age and breeding multiple back to back litters has been presented on more then one occasion now. The first time the questions was asked Beverley dismissed it as an accident.

Now more evidence has come to hand and Beverley does not seem to have an answer.

I for one would like to know WHY? Is it all to do with Money or does RM believe it is good for a female to be bred at such a young age and then back to back for so many litters?

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 11:03
by heike
To Aussie, READ the article!!!!

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 11:09
by linny
Have just tried to access but have difficulty in finding it, can you please supply a direct link?
I would add that I am fully aware that everyone has and is entitled to their own opinion, but there is a groundswell of opinion against the premature over breeding of dogs.
As a dog owner you must surely agree that to breed from a very young bitch is not acceptable and if high profile breeders are doing this then they are not using good breeding practise.
I also agree that there are truths and untruths .that is why I ask for confirmation re the ages and whelping dates from the breeder herself.

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 11:22
by heike
Rufflyspeaking.worldpress.com the article,you type in the search engine, breeding frequency and bitch age. If you dont' want to believe what is world wide practice among repro vets and "purebred" breeders around the world that is your choice. But, you also need to voice your "opinion" to the writers of the article and see what they have to say back to you!! Again, there have been many visitors to RM, including the Lindley's that your posters say they have the upmost respect, along with the RSPCA of Australia, along with many others. Again, you have your "opinion" and the facts speak for themselves. No more.

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 11:23
by aussiedoodles
Heike i for one don't appreciate your hostile 'tone'.

Surely you can appreciate that this matter is deserving of an answer from the breeder.

These are not the only issues currently being raised concerning RM Breeding practices.

The purchasers of RM breeding dogs are deserving of an answer.

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 11:32
by heike
My "tone" is not hostile, just a little worn weary, if you have an issue with a RM breeding dog, why not email Beverley with your question. You say you have an issue with her breeding practices and I have given you information. What you chose to do with this is your choice.

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 11:53
by linny
heike wrote:Rufflyspeaking.worldpress.com the article,you type in the search engine, breeding frequency and bitch age. If you dont' want to believe what is world wide practice among repro vets and "purebred" breeders around the world that is your choice. But, you also need to voice your "opinion" to the writers of the article and see what they have to say back to you!! Again, there have been many visitors to RM, including the Lindley's that your posters say they have the upmost respect, along with the RSPCA of Australia, along with many others. Again, you have your "opinion" and the facts speak for themselves. No more.
Do you personally as a dog owner , support the breeding of very young bitches back to back :?:
I don't :x ......you can't possibly profess to love dogs if you subject them to one pregnancy after another.
It's all done for profit....what other reason could there be?....enlighten me please :?:

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 12:39
by aussiedoodles
There have been two cases of RM females being mated at a very young age and then breeding back to back litters,

The first time the matter was raised it was quickly dismissed by Beverley Manners as an 'accident' the second time there is NO reply as to how this occured.

IS this common practice at RM?

We visited RM's website and discovered the link to an Australian Website (Debra Tranter?).

From all appearances this Debra person only seeks out Breeders who do NOT do the right thing by their dogs she doesn't seek out GOOD Breeders. The Question then is ....why is she interested in Beverley Manners?

There are photos on her website which are of RM Dogs (plural) in very poor condition.

Anyone can clean up and shave or clip dogs before a visitor arrives but that does not answer how those RM Dogs in the photos on the other website came to be in such bad condition.

Then there is the evidence of de-barked RM Dogs.

Surely when all of this information is linked togather people are going to wonder?

Has the legend all been about money?

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 13:21
by Avril
Just reading your post aussiedoodles
It is apparent that you would benefit from ENGLISH SPELLING TUTORIAL
:shock:

Your area you have listed on your profile is Worchestershire? I suspect you are referring to Worcestershire, unless this area is new?

Please look closely at your posts before submitting as you do have other mistakes.

aussiedoodles quote: The first time the matter was raised it was quickly dismissed by Beverley Manners as an 'accident' the second time there is NO reply as to how this occured.

aussiedoodles quote: Surely when all of this information is linked togather people are going to wonder?

Incidentally you do have a spell check tool on your computer, which I suggest you use! :lol:

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 13:43
by aussiedoodles
Avril what a sweet person you are....you must have been one of the people that made my school years so unbearable........ :twisted:

You will notice i have moved home with the relatives!!!!

Please don't lose sight of the serious issues at hand here because many people are wondering where the answers to the questions are. :?:

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 14:24
by GUNNER
Please folks, can we stay on topic :)
We are awaiting the answer, that only Rutland Manor can give, to Carole g's question about Rutlands Shasta, as below :(


Carole g wrote: I have come across Rutlands Shasta in a significant number of pedigrees and would like some clarification from Rutland Manor. The pedigrees all show her date of birth as 11th of August 2002 but her first litter with a signed and dated pedigree for the progeny was 7th of June 2003 and the second litter 24th of January 2004. There are several other litters, the last one for which I have a signed and dated pedigree is 19th of May 06.

Is this correct Rutland Manor? Was Rutlands Shasta mated to Rutlands Woody a few days before she was 8 months old? Are these dates correct as per the pedigrees?
Could you also put our minds at rest as to what happened to her after what appears to be a lot of successive (back to back) litters?

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 14:34
by linny2
heike wrote:Well Linny since you seem to be the expert on breeding, take a look at the website Rufflyspeaking.word.press.com, type in breeding frequency and bitch age. This site is very informative and the author has done much research on this issue.
Hi Heike,

I’m not a breeder, and don’t claim to be an expert. However, as you’ve addressed the question to me, I’ll do my best to respond.

You can find just about anything on the Internet. There are even websites that say sex with children is OK too, but of course that doesn't make it right! Thankfully there are laws in most countries that protect children against that type of exploitation, just as there are laws here in the UK to prevent the exploitation of underage dogs.

Of course, dogs are not people. Nevertheless, the author at the site you referenced (http://rufflyspeaking.wordpress.com/200 ... bitch-age/) does not recommend breeding dogs underage: in fact quite the reverse. She takes great pains to state "I’m not comfortable looking at a bitch who’s still a puppy with puppies", and that she would not breed a dog that was not fully developed, nor one that had not had it's required health testing. She sums up by saying that she would only be totally comfortable breeding on the first heat, "If she had waited for the first cycle until she was 18 months, and she had had her hips and eyes done by that age".

In any case, it’s a moot point here in Australia, as I understand that Victorian law since 1994 made breeding before 12 months of age illegal. I hope that helps you, and we can return to the topic at hand.

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 15:50
by linny
[quote="Avril"]Just reading your post aussiedoodles
It is apparent that you would benefit from ENGLISH SPELLING TUTORIAL
:shock:

How Rude!
I was always taught that whilst spelling is important content is even more so.
This topic is about slightly more serious issues than belittling people.
What are your views about breeding back to back immature Bitches?..... we would love to hear.

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 19:56
by Carole g
I am sorry that Rutland Manor have not replied. We are left to draw our own conclusions

I have asked Rutland Manor to check their records, as my research on Rutlands Shasta shows that she was born 11th of August 2002 and mated before she was even 8 months old for a litter born 7th of June 2003. Had a second litter 24th of January 2004, a third 1st September 2004, and so on, on successive seasons for 6 litters that I can find.

Of course, no one would willingly incriminate themself.

Let us all just hope that she is now valued for herself as is the little poodle Rutlands Snuggles also bred underage.

Re: Rutland Manor. Is this the truth behind the legend?

Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 21:48
by aussiedoodles
Snuggles was a POODLE?????

Until recently there were 3-4 poodles on the RM website and now their progeny are being added to the breeding program also.

So technically RM are actually selling Poodles with a ‘tiny’ amount of Australian Labradoodle…is that correct?

It makes me wonder how much is yet to come to light.

I have seen RM Labradoodles on other websites that OBVIOUSLY have Cockerpoo in their bloodlines. When that was first mentioned on this forum (or one of the other forums) it was adamantly denied by Beverley.

When the facts were presented and could not be denied Beverley attempted to substantiate the claims with an excuse for the accidental mating, then came an admittance that she actually used Cockerpoo in the ‘Miniature’ bloodlines to address the issue of “Yappy Characteristics from the Toy Poodle”.

When is the “Truth” actually the “Truth”???

Let us not forget the very serious Australian Evidence.

Seems there is no excuse for the questions at hand and other serious issues that seem to be uncovered daily.
I have asked Rutland Manor to check their records, as my research on Rutlands Shasta shows that she was born 11th of August 2002 and mated before she was even 8 months old for a litter born 7th of June 2003. Had a second litter 24th of January 2004, a third 1st September 2004, and so on, on successive seasons for 6 litters that I can find.
I will be watching this space