I would have the rescue done but I wouldn't be dictated to by any rescue to have my own dogs done (even though I only have one entire dog/bitch out of the five I have!

Patch, what about the clause in every breed standard stating dogs should have "two apparently normal testicles fully descended into the scrotum"? Judges cannot (or should not!) pick and choose which part of the standard they adhere to when judging.

Debs

It is only applicable when they are present, [ that they have to be within the written standard of being apparently normal and properly descended ], but they should not be marked down when neutered because they are not then a markable element [ they can`t say something ir or isn`t correctly in place when it does`nt exist ].
i did discuss it with the kc on the phone [ I can`t remember who I spoke to, it was a while ago ], and thats how it was explained to me, that if present they should be correct but if not present they are simply not to be included in the evaluation of the dog.
Unfortunately some judges misinterpret it, either deliberately because they think all dogs should be capable of being bred from regardless of anyone else`s ethics about their own dogs, or through just not understanding the principle of marking

It never helped that the KC used to hide away the form and allowed the myth to be perpetrated that only entire dogs were `allowed` to be shown or that `permission` has to be granted to neuter and show - it does not, all that is required is a form filled in telling the KC its been done, and that is probably only to make note of if a male was snipped because of retention of testicles which is a serious health fault in any breed and such dogs should never be bred from [ as its usually hereditary ], and those dogs could/should not be considered excellent examples of their breed [ any breed ] because of the seriousness of the condition.
But I`ve not yet heard of a judge being given a heads up on a snipped cryptorchid in the ring

Hmm - not wanting to hijack the thread and go off topic but I wonder if the person you spoke to at the KC was someone who judges dogs and has an indepth understanding of breed standards or just one of the clerical assistants? I have spoken to people who sit in the breed standards committee at length about this and what you have been told differs greatly from what they told me

Debs

Same here. And for that reason I'd probably end up going to a breed rescue or one of the smaller rescues in the area that aren't so strict!

Hello dolly, i think the the OP - and therefore I-mac - were referring to neutering your own existing dog to enable you to adopt a rescue dog if that is the rescues policy.
Some rescues have this policy some dont.
Personally (and as a former rescue member of staff) I dont agree with it, as it causes dogs to stay in kennels when a properly assessed and suitable home is available.
Equally, i believe all rescues should be neutered, either by the rescue at the time or later by the owner as part of the adoption contract.
If the owner doesnt follow the contract, they shouldnt get the dog, nor apply for one.

The KC do have a habit of telling people different things on the same subjects, that does`nt surprise me

i would nueter or spay the rescue,if he/she wasnt already done.
but i wouldnt do my own if they werent already done.As i truly believe in freedom of choice over ones own animals,but i know of ppl asked to rescue a dog then be made spay there own before the rescue can come home xxzbxx

I agree with what Becky said here.

No way.

I'd be fine with regards to the new dog being done though.

You would think their rule would prevent a lot of dogs being rehomed wouldn't you.

Yes you would,
As long as the rescue dog is neutered I can't see the problem,yet rescues would still prefer to keep the dog in kennels,even though the home is there waiting.

Sorry it doesn't make sense when they are always crying out for homes