If the definition of a breeder was limited to those that attend shows, then I'd agree. It's not. And there are probably more now days then in the past simply due to the economy and high unemployment rate. All I can say, and all I have said is that from what I've seen, there are plenty of them.
And we should accept that you are right in categorizing breeders because?
Um...guys thanks for the responses, but I have my answer now and I don't think this argument will achieve anything. Could admin please close this thread for me?
(05-26-2010 09:30 PM)Laura Wrote: [ -> ]If the definition of a breeder was limited to those that attend shows, then I'd agree. It's not. And there are probably more now days then in the past simply due to the economy and high unemployment rate. All I can say, and all I have said is that from what I've seen, there are plenty of them.
Attending shows and talking to cat breeders (whether Ragdoll or not) is a good place to get information for any pet buyer.
WildFeline, threads are not just about answering a question of an OP and often stray far from that - often to the good. Inviting that others be shut up and requesting admin do it for you is really not appropriate. You can comment as you wish, including that a topic has gone astray, is not helpful or anything else you want. However, deciding who posts what is not for you - or admin. It is for each of us short of being grossly and persistently off topic or obscene.
You should not feel any responsibility for what others post, even if a post of yours may have lead to it. Nobody owns a thread. When you have gotten enough from a string, just stop reading.
(05-26-2010 08:30 PM)JanH Wrote: [ -> ]You are of course kidding. First, that we as breeders know about other breeders does not indicate the proportion. I objected to your indication of "plenty" who breed for the wrong reasons. Do any exist? Of course. However, they tend not to last.
Also, why do I need to repeat. For one, I mentioned the risk of multi cat households. However, the basic issue is the superior knowledge of a responsible breeder about her own cats.
You do not comprehend the contrary view so thoroughly that you do not even recognize it is made.
All of this is over my use of the word "plenty" If I had used the word some there would have been no argument? Why would you carry on like this over something that can't even be quantified? Exactly how many does it take to be Plenty and how many are there now that you know were not there?
And again you resort to personal attacks. This thread has become all about you insisting on your opinion. I've not even asked you to change your opinion only to elaborate on it. This is you insisting on being right - which doesn't bother me. But it does bother me that you can't maintain a civil discussion when your message isn't clear or isn't coming through.
The thought that a kitten continues to spend an additional two weeks exposed to multi cats after having already spent ten weeks with those same cats was hardly seen as a drawback by me. And I already acknowledged your statement that the breeder would know. I simply asked how they would know - what criteria would they use to determine this knowledge. That's what you fail to answer and instead have resorted to personal attacks. Why do you behave like that?
(05-26-2010 10:06 PM)CaliragsRagdolls Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2010 09:30 PM)Laura Wrote: [ -> ]If the definition of a breeder was limited to those that attend shows, then I'd agree. It's not. And there are probably more now days then in the past simply due to the economy and high unemployment rate. All I can say, and all I have said is that from what I've seen, there are plenty of them.
Attending shows and talking to cat breeders (whether Ragdoll or not) is a good place to get information for any pet buyer.
Yes I agree completely. It's just that wasn't the current discussion where I was voicing my opinion that there are too many breeders that one has to be careful about. I don't think that anyone that would go to the trouble of showing cats would likely fall into that category. thanks.
You wrote and repeated:
"I ****reread**** your posts and saw ****nothing**** explaining why a kitten would be better at ten weeks over 12" [Emphasis added.]
I had written, among other things:
"I would expect that the immune system's development is more likely to be stunted by being with the queen than helped. Even kittens who are weaned and from whom the queen has been kept long enough to dry up her milk will nurse on her for some time and may get her milk to start again, which can interfere with the effectiveness of immunizations. I do not know any benefit to the immune system to being with the mom for those two weeks. If the theory is that the immune system becomes stronger in those two weeks, which it may well, then one should see the adverse effect immediately. As for communicable disease, it is well understood that communicable disease risks increase significantly in a multi-cat household, which Pederson somewhat arbitrarily tagged at five cats. So, a kitten moving from a large multi-cat household to a household of one, two or three cats may in fact be at less health risk."
Does not that make it appropriate to comment:
"You do not comprehend the contrary view so thoroughly that you do not even recognize it is made."
You do not even "see" the information upon rereading.
I will not repeat the reasons the breeder knows. Anyone really interested can search them out.
(05-27-2010 07:49 AM)JanH Wrote: [ -> ]I had written, among other things:
"I would expect that the immune system's development is more likely to be stunted by being with the queen than helped. Even kittens who are weaned and from whom the queen has been kept long enough to dry up her milk will nurse on her for some time and may get her milk to start again, which can interfere with the effectiveness of immunizations. I do not know any benefit to the immune system to being with the mom for those two weeks. If the theory is that the immune system becomes stronger in those two weeks, which it may well, then one should see the adverse effect immediately.
This statement of your opinon on the immune system followed your opening statement that you place kittens at 12 weeks or later. So no, I didn't take it as a defining reason of why 10 weeks is better. I expected that you had something more concrete given the strength behind your statement. But okay.
(05-27-2010 07:49 AM)JanH Wrote: [ -> ]Does not that make it appropriate to comment:
"You do not comprehend the contrary view so thoroughly that you do not even recognize it is made."
You do not even "see" the information upon rereading.
No, of course that doesn't make it appropriate.
(05-27-2010 07:49 AM)JanH Wrote: [ -> ]I will not repeat the reasons the breeder knows. Anyone really interested can search them out.
Yeah okay, that's the answer. Voice your opinon. Then insist on it being right and then refuse to discuss it when it's questioned. Thanks.
(05-26-2010 09:54 PM)WildFeline Wrote: [ -> ]Um...guys thanks for the responses, but I have my answer now and I don't think this argument will achieve anything. Could admin please close this thread for me?
WildFeline please don't let this negative interaction turn you off the Board. There's lots of great people here with great advice - including JanH. It just seems that JanH and I have very different communication styles and apparently were both headstrong. So please stick around or at least don't not stick around on account of anything in this thread.
Laura, the information is already there. Obviously, we have come to the conclusion that placing kittens at 12 weeks is best for our kittens and us. I do not know all the reasons some very experienced and good breeders start placing kittens at 10 weeks. There are reasons and they are not trivial. That is really enough to understand that placing at that age is not an automatic disqualification, which has been the point of my posts. The reason it is a red flag is that a breeder might also do that to save expense and THAT may signal other problems as well.
You accept that two weeks is a long time and can make significant differences in socialization and development, but somehow the same time period in a potentially higher risk communicable disease environment is not meaningful in the context of the ten weeks already spent there (despite the early time spend only with mom in the nest, by the way).
As for why and how long time, experienced breeders know more about their cats than anyone else, it has been asked and answered already, just as with the reasons breeders may choose to place kittens starting at 10 weeks. It does seem obvious, but I guess not.
(05-27-2010 08:50 AM)JanH Wrote: [ -> ]Laura, the information is already there. Obviously, we have come to the conclusion that placing kittens at 12 weeks is best for our kittens and us. I do not know all the reasons some very experienced and good breeders start placing kittens at 10 weeks. There are reasons and they are not trivial. That is really enough to understand that placing at that age is not an automatic disqualification, which has been the point of my posts. The reason it is a red flag is that a breeder might also do that to save expense and THAT may signal other problems as well.
You accept that two weeks is a long time and can make significant differences in socialization and development, but somehow the same time period in a potentially higher risk communicable disease environment is not meaningful in the context of the ten weeks already spent there (despite the early time spend only with mom in the nest, by the way).
As for why and how long time, experienced breeders know more about their cats than anyone else, it has been asked and answered already, just as with the reasons breeders may choose to place kittens starting at 10 weeks. It does seem obvious, but I guess not.
Okay thanks. Aside from disagreeing with the characteristics of significant differences, I can accept that. However, note that I never said no one should accept a kitten at ten weeks. I posted an article with relevant information and I said that I would wait the addtional two weeks. That was simply a statement of personal preference which really shouldn't require this much defending. But okay. Let's move on. Laura