> The healthiest dogs I have had here are the ones bred for purpose, being in rural Ireland, I speak of BC's - all bred as cattle- or sheepdogs.

It is interesting though that the Border collie has one of the longest lists of health issues they should be tested for (primarily eye problems). 

This does not make them an unhealthy breed per se but a breed where breeders address the health issues.

Also from your angle in Rescue I would hazard to say that there would be very little difference between the crossbreeds and purebreeds you deal with, as both mostly come into the same category with regards to breeding, Puppy farmed, BYB chance bred, not to standard and not health tested parents.

The point of breeding properly surely is for breeders to be responsible for what they produce and that what they breed should be as problem free as modern knowledge of health and husbandry allow.

Your the one at the sharp end picking up the pieces from those who do not breed or home their dogs properly

My grans bc that she bred to work on their farm lived until teens, the last on Quine dying at 17. These were truely bred for a job, don't think she even knew of eye testing or anything back then. Stems the issues I suppose.

I would expect most dogs in my breed to be fit and active into their teens, 13 1/2 is the average age at death according to the KC/AHT survey, and quite a few make older bones than that with dogs of my acquaintance making 15 to 17.

Many of the toy breeds routinely live into their late teens.

It is the large t giant breeds that tend towards a shorter lifespan.

Most crossbreeds fit into the small to medium size category and breeds of similar size live just as long.

> all my dogs have the Breed club recommended health tests but these are not published by the KC as my breed is not recognised as having any health problems at present.

While they are being published as they are not sent to the KC, the other problem experienced by breeders and puppy buyers is the late publishing of results. This is due to the speed at which they are processed by the BVA. So it is not just the KC which  needs to sort things out.

surely if the breed clubs specify only to breed from below average scores  why cant the KC implement it for indivdual breeds  that have BMS , at least that would give JP a head start

Well my breed would vanish then! BMS is just 9, and the gene pool is TINY, extremely tiny, so if we only bred from dogs scored 8 or under -well the breed would soon be gone...... I see nothing whatsoever wrong in breeding from dogs with a score up to 12 or so.

Hip scores aren't everything. The BMS for my breed is 11. My older bitch's parents had scores of 14 and 12 so both slightly above the BMS, my bitch scored 9 and her sister scored 7.

> Hip scores aren't everything.

That is exactly what is being said that not only is it impractical for the KC to set limits on health tests that are not simple pass or fail, but also shouldn't be done, as there is far more to breeding than any one point.

As Malcolm Willis used to say - shame that he's not still here to spread his wisdom and knowledge - "There's more to a dog than a pair of hips and a pair of eyes, but knowledge is what makes the difference".

>I see nothing whatsoever wrong in breeding from dogs with a score up to 12 or so.

In an idle morning I took the latest published hipscore chart from the BVA website and worked out that the average score of all dogs scored (many thousands of individuals, so as good a figure as can statistically be achieved) is 16.3-ish. Any score below that will be better than average for the species as a whole.

> Malcolm Willis used to say - shame that he's not still here to spread his wisdom and knowledge

Oh god no, i didn't know he had passed away?? I never met the man, but he is very much admired i know. His wife is lovely and she judged us at LKA.

i know hip scoring isnt everything , but whats the point in doing it as a requirement  through the ABS if  the results can be  manipulated to say oh well it must be environmental circumstances that have caused this, i have had a dog with very bad hips he came to me from a breeder as a rehome he was never scored but had a femoral head removal at 13 mths  we all thought it must have been due to the first home not doing right by him but when research was done it transpired that the ggmother had a high score and although nothing had come thru in prevous litters 6 generations down the line  puppies were being produced with high scores !! so i am sorry i do dispute that all high/uneven scores are environmental , combine that with bad elbows  and you dont have very sound dogs ,    but  why have hips  as a reqirement at all yes i am a member of the ABS and health test regardless of it being a requirement  or recommendation and abide by my breed clubs code of ethics .

Would never consider maniuplating the results of a hip score.   If dog/bitch scores badly then they would be withdrawn from our breeding programme - what would be the point of x-raying and scoring if you ignore the result?   I know that you have to look at the whole dog, however, would not wish to produce a pup that would possibly have to have surgery at some stage.  And there are enough dogs out there with good hips and those that produce good hips without having to use a dog that failed in this area.

A long time ago one of our stud dogs was a popular sire (in the days before popular sire was a dirty word), his hip score was 2/2 total 4., all of his progeny scored well until he was used at stud to two bitches that had a higher than average (for the breed) hip score, in both litters there was a pup from each litter that had a worse hip score than either of the two dams.

To produce a dog with a skeletal problem is devastating for the new owner and very expensive to repair, not to mention the pain inflicted on the pup/dog with the problem.