This is a general question on behalf of a family member and wanted to know where people stand. The said family member wants to breed her bitch in about a year and a half, she is being regually placed in the ring and has a brilliant Pedigree with new blood lines being brought into the country. The question is do you think is is worth joining the accredited breeders scheme, as some people think that its not worth the paper its wrote on?

This is all accidemic at the moment if the bitch doesnt pass the health checks she will not be bred from.

If you do a search on the forum you will find many posts about the ABS

cheerz

Definately.  Not only will she be demonstrating her commitment to breeding in a healthy, ethical way she will be lending her support to the drive to provide the public easier access to such breeders and generally promote the value of KC assured practices.  I hope such a person will join even if their current bitch doesn't prove suitable.

if it worked it would be a good idea but when you have an accredited breeder advertising a litter on the KC puppy sales register and not complying with the KC code of practice and using dogs without current eye certs ie one dog is 3yrs out of date and the other 2 yrs out of date and the KC admitted they know  it makes absolute nonsense of the whole idea. In fact it seem as if they are allowing this breeder to flaunt the fact that his dogs do not comply with their code of practice and therefore duping the public with the idea that he is a reputable breeder which he obviously is not. Until the KC police this scheme it is going to be open to abuse and an easy vehicle for puppy farmers and commercial breeders to advertise on the KC puppy sales register

>using dogs without current eye certs ie one dog is 3yrs out of date and the other 2 yrs out of date

I queried that once with a particular breeder, but was told that as the dogs in question had been DNAed clear for that particular condition there was no need for further eye tests.

The KC do police the scheme.  Several breeders have been expelled.  Are eye tests an obligation for this breed or a recommendation?

>Until the KC police this scheme it is going to be open to abuse and an easy vehicle for puppy farmers and commercial breeders to advertise on the KC puppy sales register

Certainly doesn't seem to be happening with my breed which is often prey to puppy farmers.  When I looked the other day out of all the ABS breeders advertising litters, twenty odd perhaps, only one was not a breed member and of course they could have been perfectly respectable too.

Sorry Isabel  they are K.C. recommended practices ,not K.C. assured practices and at times the K.C. will not even enforce its recommendations
where it is shown that an ABS member is deliberately flouting them, I brought to Bill Lamberts attention an ABS member offering at public stud
a G.S.D. with hip score of 35+2 = 37 in total, THE REACTION WAS COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE FROM K.C. to a member ignoring scheme guidelines.
Due to this indifference and other episodes identified I resigned my membership of the scheme rather than be identified by association with this
type of member in same breed as myself and living in same part of country.
Stan Berry

I think for me, the problem with the Accredited Breeder Scheme is that it's something you can join by paying a little money and signing a form, rather then something the KC grants or bestows after proof or evidence of meeting specific requirements, which would require that the KC actually investigate before the accreditation is granted ;)

The latter I would have applied for ages ago ;)

Fully agree
Stan Berry

It's not ideal nor well controlled yet but I do believe will all have to join some sort of legislated breeder scheme sooner or later.

I'm coming around to Isabel's argument that it is better to promote changes from within a scheme than whinge about it from outside.

AND I never thought I'd be saying that but " times - they are a changing ".

It may come down to a voluntary scheme versus a compulsory one ....no contest you may say but just who would police the compulsory one?

Scarey thought :-(

> It's not ideal nor well controlled yet but I do believe will all have to join some sort of legislated breeder scheme sooner or later.
>
> I'm coming around to Isabel's argument that it is better to promote changes from within a scheme than whinge about it from outside

exactly!

the k.c were asked to put something into place but when they have, its been ridiculed.
no, its not perfect BUT its a long term plan and what i think they are tying to acheive is to get everyone on board who says they agree to the rules, IF they do not then they will get expelled form the scheme so in years to come anyone who does not comply will have to explain to potential puppy buyers why they are not part of the scheme.
The thing is if they came in all guns ablazing from the start breeders would just "go underground" so to speak and not get involved at all.
If certain breeders are not complying the puppy feedback forms will soon show a problem, also if we can highlight certain breeders not complying im sure the k.c will look in to it, however im sure its not as cut and dried as we all think, they will have to have permission to look at veterinary records for health tests.
Im sure the k.c will get stricter in time but i feel we should support them for making an effort.

> will not even enforce its recommendations

Recommendations are just that recommendations.  They are not intended to be enforceable.  They will however enforce the requirements.

>with hip score of 35+2 = 37 in total, THE REACTION WAS COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE FROM K.C. to a member ignoring scheme guidelines.

Again the KC have made it perfectly clear why they do not believe it necessary or sensible even to prescribe hip scores.  I also think you have chosen an example that would very readily demonstrate why people would not wish to have this prescribed.
You accuse the KC of indifference when it would seem you have not fully acquainted yourself with how the KC have indicated it is intended to work.

It's not quite right yet, but it's trying to help. And as all the mags and KC people are saying to the public 'buy from an Accredited Breeder', I decided to join last year - I'm doing more than the scheme requirements, but never mind!

Hi Isabel,
           Regards hip scores to quote from BVA/KC HIP DYSPLASIA SCHEME certificate "These breed mean scores should be read in conjunction with the current BVA/KC HD scheme procedure notes. Breeders wishing to reduce the risk of hip dysplasia should choose stock with scores WELL BELOW the breed mean scores (bms)"
the BMS for G.S.Ds. is 19 with a range of 0-106. I would suggest to you that given BMS of 19 that any breeder knowingly using at public stud a dog with a hip score of 37 is not
acting in best interest of breed and K.C. has a duty to ensure that those breeders to whom they give accreditation are at least following guidelines of K.Cs. own scheme(s).
In the case in question Bill Lambert was supplied with printed copies of website advertisement for this and other dogs clearly highlighting ABS membership, this in addition to deliberate breeding of colours that are considered either a fault or highly undesirable in line with breed standard.
As to not having fully aquainted myself ,I spent several months in corespondence with both Bill Lambert and Dr Sampson on the matter including a journey from Durham to breed council meeting just outside Birmingham to discuss matter with B.L. in person, believe me in that time we covered every aspect of the matter in some depth with both of us making our views known. Other Champdogs members also made there concerns known to B.L./K.C. at the time either by themselves or through me.
Stan Berry

>K.C. has a duty to ensure that those breeders to whom they give accreditation are at least following guidelines of K.Cs. own scheme(s).

If they felt that they would have made it a requirement but they have explained on several occasions why they do not wish to do so. 

>this in addition to deliberate breeding of colours that are considered either a fault or highly undesirable in line with breed standard.

I really don't think that can or should be encompased in a scheme with the aim of encouraging the breeding of "healthy, well-adjusted" puppies.  Not all dogs are bred for the show ring but it is desirable that all dogs are bred with the stated aims of the scheme so clearly it is good to welcome them in.

>believe me in that time we covered every aspect of the matter in some depth with both of us making our views known.

Clearly you don't have the same views then but it is their scheme not yours and it seems to me that it is erroneous to say they are not policing it.  They are policing the scheme as it is, not how you might wish to see it. 

"Breeders would just go underground" would be difficult to do and still be able to offer K.C. registration for any pups bred under that breeders name/affix
As to trying "to promote change from within a scheme" when you spend several months trying to do so and final response is "we will no longer discuss matter"
then you have no real option but to address the matters from outside the scheme as and when they arise.
Stan Berry

I don't think they would so much "go underground" as go it alone without bothering with registration and the stronger the anti KC feeling that is promoted in far too many quarters, including close to home, the more likely they will be able to find that a successful way of producing and selling puppies.

Hi Isabel,
In regards to accredited breeders scheme: My comments are in regards G.S.Ds. for this breed A) The REQUIREMENTS for health screening
are hip scoring under BVA/K.C. HD scheme. B) The RECOMENDATIONS are elbow grading, eye testing, haemophilia testing for males
We therefore are talking of a situation where a breeder has failed to follow the guidelines of K.Cs. own health screen and as such has
not complied with a REQUIREMENT of the ABS as the dog in question was well outside the acceptable breeding score for the breed.
Or would you argue it only matters that testing is carried out, but a breeder and K.C. are free to ignore results of test  when its convenient
to do so ? if so where does that put ABS stated aims of "promotes GOOD breeding practice" and "breeding of HEALTHY well adjusted puppies ?
Stan Berry

> Or would you argue it only matters that testing is carried out

The KC have stated on several occasions that this is the only requirement and why they consider it appropriate at present although in the future there may be some tayloring appropriate for individual breeds. 
It is not a question of convenience it is an acknowledgement that there are other issues to consider, size of gene pool, any other health issues that may infact be more detrimental etc.  The most important thing is the test are done and those results are then transparent to all.

G.S.Ds. HAVE QUITE A LARGE GENE POOL so that can not justify ignoring results of a health test.
Dont believe that results of tests can be classed as transparent to all, perhaps to experienced dog owners
but a large number of people contacting breeders via ABS are novice/first time owners with no real knowledge
of health screening and good/bad test results, they read the ABS site aims and assume that therefore any pups
from an ABS member are from parents who have obtained good results, otherwise the breeder WOULD NOT be
ACCREDITED by the K.C. as following good breeding practice. E.G. a novice/first time owner would not know BMS
of breed there after and are guided by K.Cs. acceptance of a breeder as an indication of suitability.
Stan Berry

> E.G. a novice/first time owner would not know BMS
> of breed there after

But many will so clearly the encouragement is there while still allowing breeders to use their discretion where they feel it can be justified.  The stronger the scheme gets the more the public will become acquainted with these tests and results and the stronger the imperative to provide what they demand.

I think we will have to agree to disagree in regards the way in which the ABS is currently run by the K.C.
or we will just be going backwards and forwards, as you have your conviction that they are making a good job of running the scheme,
while I believe there are several areas they could improve on quite easily for the benefit of both dogs and new owners
Stan Berry

Perhaps I am being naive here, but is it not the case that when a hip score is that uneven (35-2), it is possible that it is environmental rather than inherited, and therefore will not be passed down to progeny? Have you spoken to the breeder of this dog to find out Stan?

Environment can play a small part but a dog will not develop HD based on environmental factors alone. So yes a dog with a 35-2 hip score will produce dysplastic puppies.

So yes a dog with a 35-2 hip score will produce dysplastic puppies.

Definitely?

>but a dog will not develop HD based on environmental factors alone. So yes a dog with a 35-2 hip score will produce dysplastic puppies.

I was always lead to believe that such an unbalanced score will be due to environmental pactors such as injury, and that without that factor each side would be roughly even to the lower score - ie would be more like 3:2 rather than 35:2.

A high balanced score such as 19:18 (totalling 37) would be a far worse prospect than the 35:2 (totalling 37) in the above example.

Dogs with very uneven scores can and have produced progeny with uneven scores. Dogs with x-ray evidence of HD regardless of the severity carry the genes for HD and should not be bred from. Dogs with normal hips on x-ray may carry the genes for HD  so you have to look at not only the dogs on the pedigree but also the siblings of said dogs as well. HD does not have to be bi-lateral and can and does sometimes affect one side more than the other. A hip that is damaged from injury will be just that,no diagnosis of HD would be given as on x-ray you would see the difference.

I was always lead to believe that such an unbalanced score will be due to environmental pactors such as injury, and that without that factor each side would be roughly even to the lower score - ie would be more like 3:2 rather than 35:2.

Thanks JG, that's what I thought.

"Dogs with very uneven scores can and have produced progeny with uneven scores. Dogs with x-ray evidence of HD regardless of the severity carry the genes for HD and should not be bred from. Dogs with normal hips on x-ray may carry the genes for HD  so you have to look at not only the dogs on the pedigree but also the siblings of said dogs as well. HD does not have to be bi-lateral and can and does sometimes affect one side more than the other. A hip that is damaged from injury will be just that,no diagnosis of HD would be given as on x-ray you would see the difference."

Are you saying that damage to a hip on one side that has been caused by trauma won't be scored?  May I ask where you are taking this information from?

One of mine was knocked down as a youngster and damaged one hip and stifle and got a high score on that side (24), but a 3 on the other side. I was told that the score of 3 was the one that should be considered as the other had been influenced by trauma and so wouldn't be genetic.

Any hip can be scored,it is the actual diagnosis of HD I thought we were discussing. And yes a damaged hip will attract a high score, but if the hip is damaged by trauma then that is not Hip Dysplasia and a dog diagnosed with HD should not be bred from. Info from my vet who has vast experience regarding HD.

According to the kc a hip score is a measure of any evidence of hip displasia (abnormal development)  whether the dog has
suffered trauma  do the bva/kc  take this into account   everything states that a hip score is just that , have never seen  comments added  to take account of any trauma

Folk putting more emphasis on the scores of individuals than on knowledge of siblings or generations in the pedigree are in a hiding into nothing IMO.  Anyone can take 2 dogs with great hips and breed them but if they are the exception in the litters, it will not improve the hip status. 

ABS is flawed if the breeder has not done their homework so it's pretty useless to JP with regards to hips even if it was mandatory.   GSD hips have pretty much stayed the same over the last 20 years despite all the testing. 

Just tagged on at the end

Folk putting more emphasis on the scores of individuals than on knowledge of siblings or generations in the pedigree are in a hiding into nothing IMO.

Couldn't agree with you more. :)  I think that's the biggest problem with most breeders today - they don't 'know' the dogs in their bitches'/dogs' pedigree and without that, a pedigree is just a collection of names. :(

"Any hip can be scored,it is the actual diagnosis of HD I thought we were discussing. And yes a damaged hip will attract a high score, but if the hip is damaged by trauma then that is not Hip Dysplasia and a dog diagnosed with HD should not be bred from. Info from my vet who has vast experience regarding HD."

"Environment can play a small part but a dog will not develop HD based on environmental factors alone. So yes a dog with a 35-2 hip score will produce dysplastic puppies."

But how can you say that the dog that scored 35:2 "will produce dysplastic puppies" without knowing whether or not he has suffered some trauma?

>GSD hips have pretty much stayed the same over the last 20 years despite all the testing. 

I think I'm right in saying that all breeds' BMSs have stayed pretty much the same, only changing within a couple of points over the years.

>a damaged hip will attract a high score, but if the hip is damaged by trauma then that is not Hip Dysplasia and a dog diagnosed with HD should not be bred from.

The guidelines don't differentiate between a high score due to trauma or one due to any other factor. According to the scoring schemes used abroad only a score over 25 (I think) is considered to be dysplastic. Anything below that is breedable.

Obviously any malformation due to external factors is non-hereditary.

Yes thats correct Jeangenie.

No I dont think they do,I'm not sure what the procedure would be regarding high scores due to trauma. In the GSD the BMS is 19. With the high score I was presuming his score was due to HD as there had been extensive disccussions regarding his owners ABS status with The KC. If his score was due to trauma I should imagine there would be medical data available to confirm his suitablity as a stud. If not then I would treat him as a dysplastic dog and not use him as  he would throw puppies with HD

>and not use him as  he would throw puppies with HD

Don't you mean "as he could throw puppies with HD"?

probably

>I think that's the biggest problem with most breeders today - they don't 'know' the dogs in their bitches'/dogs' pedigree and without that, a pedigree is just a collection of names. :(

And this is something that worries me; for a culture to swing from what knowledge they have, to stop gaining knowledge, researching their chosen breed, seeking out and learning from the wise old timers with their many years of experience and knowledge - to relying on tests without an iota of what is carried in the lines.

That does not mean I do not endorse testing; far from it!  but it will work better when it's coupled with knowledge and it should never take the place of knowledge.  Not to mention, the problems where there is no test available for; so how do these breeders who do not know the dogs in their pedigrees be able to select suitable dogs to mate? 

The other thing with testing is that the more that is selected for and the more that is removed from the gene pool because of affected or carrier status, the more the lines are subjected to bottlenecking which has an even more delirious effect on the breed. 

The more tests = the more likely more dogs are removed from the gene pool = the less dogs suitable for breeding = the more bottlenecking of pedigrees = more health problems = more tests = the more likely more dogs are removed from the gene pool and so on, round and round like a ever ending spiral into decline.  Not to mention bringing temperament and conformation also into the equation. 

The other thing is that with some health problems, despite the dog being a carrier; it does not necessary follow that it will manifest itself in the off spring, it might but it might not, so what then?  Do we eliminate these lines from the gene pool too?  But then the question remains, just how reliable are these tests anyway? 

There are a lot of questions to be answered and when I think of it in this way; I can quite understand the KC's reluctance to make ABS testing requirements compulsory.  To avoid decent down a pathway that may end up bringing worse problems long term. 

>The other thing is that with some health problems, despite the dog being a carrier; it does not necessary follow that it will manifest itself in the off spring, it might but it might not, so what then?

As Malcolm Willis wisely said, a dog is more than a pair of hips.

>The more tests = the more likely more dogs are removed from the gene pool = the less dogs suitable for breeding = the more bottlenecking of pedigrees = more health problems = more tests = the more likely more dogs are removed from the gene pool and so on, round and round like a ever ending spiral into decline.

Absolutely. It's foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Hi Isabel

i understand the eye tests are an obligation for this breed .. i spoke to the Kc myself with regard to this breeder only because a propective new puppy owner had called me for advise ...she told me that this ACB had stated that his dogs were 2 and 3 yrs out of date and that the eyes test were a load of rubbish ... thinking that perhaps she had got it wrong i then called this breeder myself and he said exactly the same to me when i asked about eye tests  he then went on to offer me another litter that were a week behind the  litter he has advertised on the KC sales reg... i then spoke to the KC about it and they got a bit shirty and said they knew and he had been warned but they are going against their own code of practise surely by allowing this litter to be advertised under the ACB scheme .... it now transpires that he has 3 litters for sale .... i find this all very worrying as the people who are looking for a healthy puppy believe that the ACB are practising a good breeding policy and that they are the cream of breeders because of the title they hold .... it really is duping the public into believing that all ACB are breeding puppies to the KC code of practise when they are clearly not and even more worrying that the KC know what is going on and still not doing anything about it .. it is certainly a club that i would not wish to be associated with .... this breeder is obviously a commercial breeder and is sticking 2 fingers up to the KC ... with the amount of bad press the KC have had lately you would think they would tighten up this scheme but they seem to have the same attitude as the breeder and sticking its fingers up to the public

Hip Dysplasia is inherited as a bilateral condition.  According to experts in the Field the hereditary nature should give you a fairly even score with no more than a couple of points difference.  A dog with a very uneven score low one side is likely to have had environmental factors influence the high side.

This was the advice given a now deceased friend of mien with two champion litter sisters both scored something like 2 or 3 on one hip, but one scored 28 the other side the other the more usual point of so's difference.  Both were breed from, and the high one side scoring one had one offspring with a score of 0/0, only the second in the breed.

That litter containing the zero score have all been bred on from with good scores.

With hips it pays really to look at the scores of all the ancestors and litter mates/descendent's to decide if a high score is genetically significant, especially if it is just one hip.

Sorry Jeangenie,
                   It is surely the results of medical testing relevant to this countries health testing schemes that we have to consider, not what they do/accept
in some other countries.
As you say the scheme does not differentiate between score from hereditary and enviromental, untill it can/does we have to accept the scores given and treat them as
being indicative of the animals suitability as to wether or not to be bred from.
Any one can say "my dog injured its hip when it was younger", should enquirer/customer accept statement at face value, I certainly would not, in the case of the dog I quoted
his score exceeded greatly even the higher score from abroad that you quoted as an example
Stan Berry

Hi Stan

To each their own - I would treat a score of 35:2 as indicative of injury but would obviously discuss this with the owners and/or breeders and investigate the scores of relatives. Perhaps my perspecitive is different having had a bitch whose score of 24:3 was caused by trauma - I was there, I saw her injured.

Hi Cocopop,
               Yes I did contact the breeder by phone, before I could establish wether a potential customer I was"TOLD, NOT ASKED !"
phone me after 8 P.M. this was at mid-morning time. Sorry but if you are advertising any type of service, this is not how you react to
potential customers, not just what was said, but way of saying and couldnt care less attitude decided me not to repeat call.
A person advertising on line has opption to include contact times along with there contact details if only willing to accept calls at a certain time.
As to the breeders suitability for membership of A.B.S. apart from hip score quoted, they also boast of producing 1st double dilute carrying pups
and have a whole section of there site dedicated to the breeding of coat colours/types considered undesirable in the breed, if they want to
breed away from the breed standard let them do so but register pups on activity register rather than breed register OH NO ! they wont do that
it might make it harder to sell pups without "full" K.C. registration or get full price for them.
The standards for the various breeds are based on the ideal for that breed, anyone deliberately breeding "AWAY" from the standard is not acting
in the best interests of that breed.
Stan Berry

I'm not sure what this is in reply to?

Hi Ridgie,
           Without some sort of medical confirmation such as treating vets letter of confirmation of trauma or inclusion at some point in testing
scheme of differentiating between results from trauma and hereditary factors are we then without such information to breed from a high scoring
animal and increase the risk of producing pups carrying/suffering from the condition.
I am not saying trauma can not influence score, but if it can not be SHOWN to be a partial cause then score must be treated as hereditary
as to do otherwise on a whim would make health testing a complete waste of time/money as well as health affects on any pups bred
Stan Berry