After March 1st the KC will no longer register puppies from mother/son, father/daughter or brother/sister matings, unless there are good, scientific reasons.

Interesting , lets hope they tighten a few other things up while they are at it !

about time... Do wonder how many will slip through the net though!

Does that include half brother/sister?

Sorry posted before reading it is not specific but I have emailed the KC.

Wouldnt it be better to enforce health testing in breeds and not register progeny from non health tested parents? I know mother son etc etc matings are not good but is it not worse to breed dogs that have HD than reduce gene pool as these matings are not too common i dont think and breeding non health tested parents is very common? I think the KC are just answering to the problems caused by that programme the shock horror 'would you have sex with your grandaughter' than the real issues.

Louise

Also looking for dogs to be permanently identified for testing.

"Additionally, all dog owners and breeders will be required to permanently identify their dogs, via microchip or tattoo, from January 2010, in order to participate in the Kennel Club/British Veterinary Association health schemes for eye disease and hip and elbow dysplasia. These schemes have been in place for many years and give dog owners in relevant breeds the opportunity to test for a number of common disorders; this move is introduced, at the express request of the veterinary profession, to ensure the fairness and accuracy of the results of the schemes."

I suppose its a step in the right direction though so hoorah to them.

Louise

I think that is a good idea. I have heard objections to this as some breeders want the freedom to choose mates as they have "the knowledge" to do so. This way it does not rule out well thought out matings done on the odd occasion,where hopefully the offspring will be monitered and followed more closely than other matings may be. That said I don't think these matings are done often now anyway, are they? This should ( I believe) be expanded to matings of dogs not having the recommended health tests . Not excluding the occasional mating of untested dogs but such matings should be done with by knowledgable breeders that can put forward good reasons for such and again progeny followed to limit problems.
     Surely this would curtail the many many commercial ,pin money matings that are being done . Where the main object is as many pups as possible no matter what they look like or wether they are healthy. I for one could live with a few restrictions if it rids us of such puppy producers.

For those have read the statement do you interpret it as matings done after 1st March or litters born after March 1st?  I read it as litters born but a friend said matings after. 

It won't stop the unscrupulous breeders, the ones that don't health test.  I for one think it is foolish to refuse any registration - a written record must be kept, if only for records sake!  Otherwise we will be in a bigger mess than we are now.

There is a very good chance that my G-G-Grandfather is also my G-Grandfather.  Doesn't bother me.  The moral and ick factor has a bigger part to play than the actual genetics.  The results os such breedings, if from healthy stock, are more often than not healthy themselves.

>I read it as litters born but a friend said matings after. 

It says "...refusing to register those puppies that are born from any mother/son, father/daughter or brother/sister mating, taking place on or after 1st March 2009"

It's from matings on or after that date that the litters will not be registered.

Thank you.

I am still getting it clarified in writing.

Have you done such a mating??

Well, I have to say that I'm on the side of thinking that is a very positive move. The small number of people who have scientific reason (and the necessary knowledge) for the matings must be very much out numbered by those who just do it for convenience or effect.

Thumbs up, I say!

M.

No Louise I have not done my mating yet but will be next Tuesday.  I have done 4 matings to different dogs and had superb results.  The other half of the pedigree is not close although the sire and dam to share the sire.  I would never do a full brother sister mating however I have used a stud dog who was a result of a full brother sister mating with a disasterous result so it is not a road I would go down.

Anyway a good friend has rung the KC and it is not against their rules which is a relief as it has taken me 6 months to decide on using this dog :)

I think this is a step in the right direction as is the identifying of all stock that require health screenings - just as long as identifiers are checked to individual dog at the time of testing.

The close mating of dogs is what has caused such an uproar in the press and the KC have now addressed it.  In the vast majority of cases it has not been necessary.

"...refusing to register those puppies that are born from any mother/son, father/daughter or brother/sister mating, taking place on or after 1st March 2009"

Not had time to read it completely at the moment (sorry), but does it say anything about the KC taking action against any breeder found to be carrying out such matings? Will the KC publish the names of breeders whom try to register such matings? It would be interesting to see how many litter registration applications the KC 'refuse' now and after the ban, and the reasons behind the refusal for each litter.

It will, of course, mean that many 'accidental' matings wont get registered.

I have often heard these close matings as being the result of a dog 'helping himself' to mother, daughter or sister... we will see if these 'accidents' reduce in frequency.

Until there is compulsary DNA profiling and  registration for ALL dogs bred in this country these sorts of matings will continue as there's no law that says they can't so people will just not bother to register.  The designer dog is more popular achieving higher prices in some cases to our health tested show pedigree's why would anyone be worried about selling their litters, maybe they'll carry on registering pups to a different sire/dam?

Very interesting point Tooolz

Would hope not, this is a mating I and many others have carried out to good effect.  It is a quick way to find out if the inclusion of a new bloodline is bringing in negative traits as well as positive ones before you go to far down that line.

It also allowed me to capitalise on the strengths and proven good health of my champion bitch (who at 9 years old that produced 3 good litters which had bred on well themselves. 

I mated two of her offspring from sires that were totally unrelated to each other (one a US import the other a Norwegian one), and I got just what I hoped for in her litter.

I will outcross with the resulting offspring to an unrelated dog (probably will need to go abroad) of the type I am trying to maintain.

> I have done 4 matings to different dogs and had superb results.

So is this the 5th litter from your bitch?

> It will, of course, mean that many 'accidental' matings wont get registered.
>
> I have often heard these close matings as being the result of a dog 'helping himself' to mother, daughter or sister... we will see if these 'accidents' reduce in frequency

When I bought my foundation bitch my breeder had a youngster that was the result of a brother sister mating due to the bitch goading her brother when her season should have finished.

She registered the litter for records sake, but retained the papers when pups were sold, made no secret of the fact.  None were ever bred from.

Another mentor years ago was surprised to find a 6 month brother sister pair tied (normally they don't come in season until 8 - 10 months).  She culled the litter (this was 60's or 70's), but kept one pup for the mother's sake.  He was shown very successfully (though I don't think he was used for breeding).

Could this rule encourage breeders with such litters to cull (not PC now, and against new KC code of ethics) or worse lie about their parentage.

> Could this rule encourage breeders with such litters to cull (not PC now, and against new KC code of ethics) or worse lie about their parentage.

Or perhaps be a little more vigilant if litters will not to be registered.
Puppy farmers will have to be a little more 'imaginative' with their registrations.

> So is this the 5th litter from your bitch? <IMG class=qButton title="Quote selected text" height=10 alt="Quote selected text" src="/images/mi_quote.gif" width=20>

No it is not to the same bitch I have 8 bitches of two breeds 3 of whom are neutered.

I own breed and show my dogs :)

Could this rule encourage breeders with such litters to cull (not PC now, and against new KC code of ethics) or worse lie about their parentage.

Hopefully be just a tad more careful and IF it does happy deal with it. Mismate injection etc.   If they are going to insist the new rule then  I don't think they should register the accidentals either.

I was cleaning my dog room one day two years ago and a young bitch in season just wanted through beside me from a big indoor run I used to use if a bitch was in season ( No male dogs now) , it was my one and only mistake , she was tied with my dog within seconds. He was her uncle.( Her mother and him were full Brother sister from different matings)  I know this is still allowed but too close for me , I took her for the mismate injections.  I wasn't really happy to use the injections but I my eyes it needed to be done. 

Touch wood her seasons have been fine.