Hi

I have been having some concerns about the breeding ethics of ABs in my breed.  For instance, a bitch whose mother and one of her siblings has glaucoma is just about to be bred from.  She is a lovely little bitch but every piece of scientific information relating to glaucoma advises that no close relatives should be bred from.  We also have another imported dog with cataracts who has just sired a litter and the breeder (not KC and well known as a puppy farmer!) is planning another 2 litters this year.  Another dog was used at stud 2.5 months after having a major cruciate ligament operation!

Do you think that I'm being over-cautious?  I am not a breeder but am hoping to have my first litter this year from a lovely example of the breed, with all the recommended health checks - and more besides.  I always thought that responsible and ethical breeders would only breed from stock that was of sound health and temperament (ie no heriditary diseases etc.,) and a fine example of the breed. 

Should we not be breeding to enhance the breed ?  By breeding from dogs with hereditary problems surely we're putting the future of the breed at risk!  This breed is relatively new to the UK.

I'd like to have the views of experienced breeders to see if I am just being stupid.

Thanks
Kingdom

I am in no doubt you are not being stupid , i posted just last night on another thread  my concerns about the abs , about breeders not health checking etc , i have emailed the kennel club my concerns , i am a member of the abs but i do not think for much longer , if they allow people to join  willy nilly , not checking the breeders history or dogs 
Until the kc enforce the recommeded tests and refuse to register stock that has not come from tested parents  /or with scores / test results that are unacceptable , it will just continue !!

>Until the kc enforce the recommeded tests and refuse to register stock that has not come from tested parents  /or with scores / test results that are unacceptable , it will just continue !!

At last! someone who shares my views!

Until the KC start practicing what they are preaching, there will always be puppies born from undesirable scoring/unhealthy parents, whether the Breeder is Accredited or not :-(

> At last! someone who shares my views!

What a strange thing to say Jolene.

Your remark looks like you've just found the only other kindred spirit.
This forum is full of like-minded people with exceptionally high standards and I know that you post on here from time to time.
Have you not noticed other contibutors, myself included, shouting to the rooftops about health testing?

> Do you think that I'm being over-cautious?

No Kingdom, TBH you're preaching to the converted on here :)

> I always thought that responsible and ethical breeders would only breed from stock that was of sound health and temperament (ie no heriditary diseases etc.,) and a fine example of the breed

That is what responsible and ethical breeders do :)

> Should we not be breeding to enhance the breed ?

Yes, any breeding should be planned with the best possible examples for sire and dam in type, health and character and with the aim that the progeny improve further on their parents as a stud should be chosen (among other things) on the basis that he carries the same virtues as the bitch but also excels in any area where she falls short :)  If we breed without forethought to the benefit of the breed in maintaining the best traits and hopefully improving weaker ones then IMO it is better not to breed but to buy in from someone who breeds with that degree of forethought and who has in depth knowledge of the breed over many generations  :)

>What a strange thing to say Jolene.

Sorry.................I've been a member of another forum in the past where when I've made similar comments re; The KC, it's not gone down too well,................it was so refreshing to read that today.................................

>This forum is full of like-minded people with exceptionally high standards and I know that you post on here from time to time. Have you not noticed other contibutors, myself included, shouting to the rooftops about health testing?

It wasn't my intention to suggest that others here on CD were NOT of the same view............I may post from time to time, but don't spend my life on here reading every post that is written ;-)

My point was, the fact that the KC have guidelines in place for Breeders to adhere to where health testing is concerned, and these guidelines are passed onto puppy buyers, such as ideal hip/elbow scores, eye testing etc, I just find it a bit hippocritical(sp!) of the KC to set out these standards when they then go on to register litters from parents with unhealthy test results ...........................I'm sure in an ideal world, the KC would love to practice what they preach, but they are, afterall, a business, and if they ceased to register such litters, they would suffer huge losses in their income!

> My point was, the fact that the KC have guidelines in place for Breeders to adhere to where health testing is concerned, and these guidelines are passed onto puppy buyers, such as ideal hip/elbow scores, eye testing etc,

Exactly Jo - 'guidelines' - the KC is not a legal authority. 

> I just find it a bit hippocritical(sp!) of the KC to set out these standards when they then go on to register litters from parents with unhealthy test results

The KC has explained may times why they choose not to be prescriptive about results so not sure where the hypocrisy accusation comes in.  The results are shown on registration documents and are now also available to all on their website.

>> I'm sure in an ideal world, the KC would love to practice what they preach, but they are, afterall, a business

They are not a business.  They are a non profit organisation.