I was under the impression that if you joined the AB scheme then you had to abide by a set of requirements. These differ I believe between breeds regarding the health tests required.
I read through the scheme and deduced that for the breed in question hips, elbows, annual clear eye certificate and dna testing for PRA.
Therefore whether one owns the stud dog or not does that mean that BOTH sets of parent should have ALL the testing done? And if one of the parents has not does that mean the breeder is breaking the AB requirements.....or are these rules flexible for certain breeders?

Just wondered what others take on this was.

I belive they are only recommendations and not enforceable

Some are requirements and some are recommendations.

The various requirements and recommendations for each breed can be found here.  If you are aware of a breeder than is not complying with the requirements I would report them but you should note that the KC allows a period of grace regarding new additions to the list.

Thanks have read it all through and it appears two are requirements, enforceable, and two are recommendations, non enforceable. Which kind of makes a mockery of the whole scheme. As I see it there are breeders on the AB list doing 'less' testing, basically the bare minimum and other non  AB scheme breeders doing 'all' tests available and some. Imho the KC should make all of the tests enforceable requirements to belong to the AB scheme otherwise it kind of makes it worthless which is sad.

> Which kind of makes a mockery of the whole scheme.

Do you mean they have not complied with the requirements?  The scheme relies on people reporting infringements.  The KC cannot be everywhere.  Have you reported this?

> Imho the KC should make all of the tests enforceable requirements to belong to the AB scheme otherwise it kind of makes it worthless which is sad.

Have you read the KCs comments regarding this?  You will also note more are being added all the time.

It is the breed club that has to ask the KC to enforce them, if they have broken two of the rules then it is up to yourself, anyone who may be affected or the breed club to go to the KC.

Unfortunately even if they have broken requirements the KC will give them another chance and not just one either...they do not seem to enforce them enough, if youve broken a rule once why should you be given more chances esp if breaking the same rule again....

Also if the hips/eyes results werent back before the mating took place as long as they are there when the pups are registered is good enough for them.....shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted methinks.....

I have had a few conversations with them regarding these matters and others and until they police the scheme properly I will not rejoin.....

Jenny B

> Unfortunately even if they have broken requirements the KC will give them another chance and not just one either...they do not seem to enforce them enough, if youve broken a rule once why should you be given more chances esp if breaking the same rule again....
>

I certainly think the KC should exercise discretion where they think education would be beneficial but the do remove breeders from the scheme.

> Also if the hips/eyes results werent back before the mating took place as long as they are there when the pups are registered is good enough for them.....shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted methinks.....

As the scheme is not prescriptive regarding the result I don't see why they would do any differently on that.  However, Breed Clubs will sometimes have requirements regarding results I believe.

Yes they may remove them but when a bitch has had 3 litters and not been hipscored which is a requirement, how many chances do they need..?????? they are still accredited breeders, the bitch in question has produced at least 3 pups with bad hips, the KC have been told but still will not do anything.....

Other Kennel Clubs insist on the results being back before a mating takes place I do not understand why our one cannot be stricter, I would hope that the majority of breeders would not breed from a high scoring dog/bitch if they knew the results befoe a mating took place.......too late if youve already mated them.....

All results should be back before a mating takes place, eyes, hips, whatever........

> All results should be back before a mating takes place, eyes, hips, whatever........

I would not agree if there is urgency to mate a bitch, the dog may not be available next season, bitch may end up over age etc.  Sometimes the Hipos especuially can take up to two months to coem back, and a good vet woudl be able to tell you if they looked too bad.

A DNA test became available in October and my bitch had just come in season, it worked out that we could get the blood sent off but the results wouldn't be back until some time after the mating.

We decided to proceed as there was time to terminate the litter if the results came back that both were carriers or worse.

In the event both were clear and we had the first litter clear of prcd-PRA by parentage.

> All results should be back before a mating takes place, eyes, hips, whatever........
> I would not agree if there is urgency to mate a bitch, the dog may not be available next season, bitch may end up over age etc.

i think it is right that results should be back before mating excepts perhaps in unusual and urgent circs such as you state. in which case perhaps an individual appeals system could be set up.

I have no idea why they allow this when they have definately removed other breeders.  The trouble with hearsay on the internet is you only ever hear half the story or less.

I can assure you that it is not hearsay......

Brainless you may have the morals to terminate a litter if the results came back bad, others unfortunately do not...

Ok it may be difficult if a new test became avialable for a bitch that was nearing the end of her breeding career, but the other health tests would already be done...surely....

The stud dog not being available next season....well Im not sure I would go ahead because of that in fact I know I wouldnt.....

Having been sold a dog that went on to have severe hip problems because the breeder hadnt done what she was supposed to do, then I can honestly say that if the tests werent back and good I would not go ahead with a mating, thats my choice right or wrong....

> I can assure you that it is not hearsay......

To you maybe but to the rest of us it definately is :-)

> I would not agree if there is urgency to mate a bitch, the dog may not be available next season, bitch may end up over age etc.

Why would there be an urgency?  If you've been planning to have a litter to get a stud dog you would know to get healt tests done.

Each of our last 3 bitches we have brought we have intended to breed from.  All healths tests where in place and we missed an opportuity as DNA testing was just becoming avalible after one bitches season for vWD.  We decided to wait for the test, in the mean time the stud dog failed his eyes and she got pyometra and was spayed!  Next bitch failed hips, 3rd time lucky, DNA clear by parentage, hips good, eyes done last november as "planning to breed on next season" so she holds a current clear eye certificate!

There's no excuse!  You plan to breed.

> I would not agree if there is urgency to mate a bitch, the dog may not be available next season, bitch may end up over age etc.  Sometimes the Hipos especuially can take up to two months to coem back, and a good vet woudl be able to tell you if they looked too bad.
>

With most breeds which hip and elbow score most are tested around the 12month mark or within the year if someone is possibly planning to use their dog in any breeding programme. These also only need to be tested the once. I am aware that some tests are done yearly but if you are aware or have an idea when your bitch is due to come into season these would be done ahead of time?? or would you not wait until she comes into season the next time around? Whats the hurry??

As for the dog not being available, all i can think of by what you mean is that they are from another country visiting and doing the rounds?

I know things aren't all cut and dried but there are many tests which can be done and not waited on, like Jenny has said about hip scoring, there is no comprehension in my eyes that someone could allow a bitch to have 3 litters, yet not be scored herself in all that time, and then to top it off, her offspring had bad scores..

I know in Wolfies that all the tests are done and the breed club insist that all are done before a bitch is mated and the scores/results are back.. They are working hard in this breed to get rid of all these nasty problems as best they can.. This i feel is what breeders should be doing in all breeds..and the breed clubs need to take a stand on this along with the KC, if breeders are failing to abide by these simple health checks then they should be suspended if not banned from the breed clubs, or worse if reoffending.

It is a farce really. I contacted the kc about an accredited breeder that allowed his stud dog to mate an outside bitch that had failed her eyes with MRD. The kc's response was they could do nothing as the bitch belonged to a non accredited breeder and as the accredited breeder in question had all relevant health checks they weren't interested. Blinkin farcical and I will not be rejoining when my membership

I am not sure how much power you think the KC has, Floradora, but they clearly cannot control what people do outside the scheme. 
The less support they get the less likely it is that they will ever be granted any statutory powers that may allow them to control dog breeding in a more general way.

> Why would there be an urgency?  If you've been planning to have a litter to get a stud dog you would know to get healt tests done.
>

I have had this happen when we imported our male, I had planned to mate him to my bitch but she cam e in season earlier than expected and he hadn't been hip scored because his 'minder' had been unwell.  He could have gone to the ortho specialist (so would have known if the hips were OK even if not the final score) and been x-rayed and the bitch mated without an issue as the Vet knew what he was looking at, and as it was over Christmas we didn't proceed.  Luckily enough the bitch was young enough to try again another time, but could easily have not been.

In the case I already mentioned it was a new DNA test literally only become available as the bitch came in season, in this case the dog was an older dog who had only sired one litter in his youth, and the timing suited me.  Of course both had clear clinical tests, with the males being more relevant as he was past the age of the usual late onset of the condition.

Things are rarely completely black and white, but again I do feel that basic health testing (Hips and eyes) should be mandatory for all breeds to even have KC registration, and that would mean pups couldn't be registered until their parents had been tested.

Isabel I understand what you are stating but the fact remains that as an ab this person should have upheld his 'standards' and refused to allow his dog to mate the said bitch. I certainly did when the owner of the bitch approached me.

I agree, ethically they should but they have not broken the rules.

I can assure everyone that it is NOT hearsay sadly, but they will continue to get away with it and the poor owners will count the cost of their dogs being operated on.  I'm sorry but how urgent can a mating be and why would you wait so long before having all health tests done? 

> I can assure everyone that it is NOT hearsay sadly

By its very definition, to the reader, it definately is! :-)

> Yes they may remove them but when a bitch has had 3 litters and not been hipscored which is a requirement, how many chances do they need..??????

Where these other litters before they joined the scheme?  I wonder why they have now done so.  Could it be because the KC has required them to?  This is after all the point of the scheme. 

Other Kennel Clubs insist on the results being back before a mating takes place I do not understand why our one cannot be stricter,

I think the biggest difficulty here is the delay in getting paperwork sorted.  I know of one AB who was told they would not list her puppies under the ABS because the dam had not been eye tested?  She had, four months previously but the paperwork had not got from the BVA to the KC.  Both were blaming the other and she had to send a copy to the KC before they would add the listing.

I have only skimmed through this thread, but I think there is some confusion here about the scope and requirements of the AB scheme.  The requirements are that the dog/bitch must both be currently tested, however, there is absolutley NO requirement that they must have GOOD or PASS results.  Dogs who have failed eye/hip exams can still have progeny registered under the AB scheme (and obviosulsy under the wider KC scheme), it is only non tested who won't be registered.  I support the AB scheme, but consider this to be absolutely nutty, and have brought it up both at one of the KC "roadshows" and directly with Bill Lambert - the KC line in answering is that they cannot legislate and pick for breeders which dogs they breed from, all they can do is make sure that the results are visible for prospective buyers to see on the KC certificates.  On one occassion this stance was justified to me wiht the explanation that some tests are open to interpretation, and that they could not give a blanket "pass or fail status" across the board, across all breeds, with something like hip scores.

Given the controversies surrounded the size of gene pools I think the KC stance on allowing these freedoms, with perhaps some control by breed clubs, seems reasonable to me.   Some breeds have more than hips to consider.
I think the main thing is the required tests are done and are therefore in the public domain.  Buyers may then know what they are being offered and it is up to the breeder to justify matters.

No they werent before they joined the scheme and the bitch has never been scored, screened but never sent off....

A daughter from her again bred from not hip scored, three of the daughters siblings bad hips, 1 pts,2 had ops already, daughter rehomed and has suspected HD, awaiting conformation...still an accredited breeder tho....

But if you are planning a litter then you have enough time to get the tests done in advance, hips done at a year, gonioscopy can be done from 4 months of age, PRA etc at 1 year.......In our breed we dont mate until they are two..(well if a breed cub member anyway)...so plenty of time...
Not sure how breeders of small breeds that start mating at a year old get around it all tho.....now that could be difficult.....:D

But if you are planning a litter then you have enough time to get the tests done in advance,

Eye tests are done annually, and still need to be done as there are not dna tests available that cover all the conditions.  The tests were done well in advance the problem was the delay in getting the results from the BVA to the KC.  In fact, the breeder had the certificate in her possession, it only came to light that the KC had no knowledge of it when she saw they had been added to the puppy register but not on the AB scheme in spite of being a member.  So I'm surprised that they allowed non hip scored dogs.  In this case the test was done it but they didn't have the results and it was refused.

> Not sure how breeders of small breeds that start mating at a year old get around it all tho.....now that could be difficult.....:D

I don't think many small breeds are required to hip score.

>In this case the test was done it but they didn't have the results and it was refused.

It certainly makes these other stories all the more surprising and it just shows how hard it is to judge these things without knowing all the facts.

> I think the KC stance on allowing these freedoms, with perhaps some control by breed clubs, seems reasonable to me.   Some breeds have more than hips to consider.

I can understand the stance on things such as hip scores, perhaps, where the result is open to intermpretation, my mian bugbear is with things such as eye tests for HC etc - where a simple pass or fail is given.  With one of my breeds, until we have a DNA test for HC, all we can go with is yearly eye test.  I don't find it acceptable that the sire and dam of a litter could, theoretically, both test as failed, but the litter would be registered and acceptable under the AB scheme.

> It certainly makes these other stories all the more surprising and it just shows how hard it is to judge these things without knowing all the facts

I agree - to be fair, I have no idea if they would have removed her from the ABS, as at the time they were just refusing to allow the puppies to be listed as on the ABS.  It never got that far because she immediately forwarded dealt with it and sent a copy of the eye certificate (which also eventually made it to the kc list).

> know of one AB who was told they would not list her puppies under the ABS because the dam had not been eye tested?  She had, four months previously but the paperwork had not got from the BVA to the KC. 

Yes - this sticks in my mind too - there are dogs on the KC Dbase who have not had their January eye test results updated yet :( 

My girl passed her eye test in April - on current form of updating the dbase - her records are unlikely to be updated before she is mated unless I send the paperwork to them myself :(   Conversely, CD has ALL health results in place and updated - making them effectively a more accurate record than the KC, and they cover a broader range of tests.  (I choose to be a member of CD so can understand the need to provide paperwork - the KC is effectively mandatory and therefore you would expect them to update much more quickly.)   

As a new AB - I use all the tests currently available to our breed as I did before becoming an AB and am struggling to understand why more aren't mandatory.

Following on........my own opinion on this is yes the rules can be manipulated so that a breeder can basically do things under the cloak of the scheme that would be frowned on outside of the scheme. Of course people in the know will not be fooled by an AB insignia and still frown on certain practices.
For example I have looked everywhere on the K.C. website to find out what exactly is the policy regarding maximum age and number/frequency of litters. Nowhere can I see a minimum age. I know from experience what the answers are but would a novice pet owner know or be able to find out?

Example: AB in a, let's say largish breed dog, mates her bitch at age approx 19 months (first frown), pups are born when bitch is 21 months in October 2008. This AB then mates her bitch again on consecutive seasons (very big frown) and on May 2nd this year is on day 50 of her pregnancy (3rd frown).

Unless the K.C. sets out it's rules concisely and in a way that they cannot be 'bent' to the AB's advantage then I cannot see this scheme having any respect. If one wants to follow practices as set out above then they should do it without using the AB scheme as a shield...imho :)

I'm not sure what you mean really, the scheme states clearly enough you are required to "follow Kennel Club policy regarding maximum age and number/frequency of litters"  Their Code also obliges you to "not to breed from a dog or bitch which could be in any way harmful to the dog or to the breed"
You may wish those rules to be different but I don't see how this is a case of "manipulation".

> "follow Kennel Club policy regarding maximum age and number/frequency of litters"

Yes - but under current policy, contrary to popular belief, breeders are not prevented from registering more than one litter from a bitch in a 12 month period, unless they are a licensed breeder. 

All the KC policy indicates is you mustn't take a litter off a bitch over 7 years without KC permission (and providing they have had a previous litter) these seem to go through 'automatically.

The maximum number of litters is what 5 or 6?  IMHO way too many for most breeds :(

The minimum age for mating a bitch to allow the pups to be registered is 12 months - and of course, for some breeds it is probably perfectly acceptable to have litters that young.

Back to back litters are not totally unheard of - particularly if the first litter is small.  Personally I would be loath to do this or to breed a bitch who would be under 2 years having her pups - but as there is no hard and fast rule on both situations - inside or outside the AB scheme - there is nothing to stop someone doing both :(  so I have to agree with Isabel that whatever your thoughts on the situation, no rules have been broken.

Ultimately - if people want to change the system, they have to present a united front to the KC and try to get them to tighten up on their rules and regs

At no point did I say the rules had been broken. However when someone breeds from what most ethical people of this particular breed would consider an underage bitch then has consecutive litters so that she will have had two litters by the age of 2 years and 4 months I think we are starting to go along the lines of puppy farming???? So as I said...I know no rules have been broken but until the KC set's out the rules in black and white instead of constantly making them in grey area's I for one have no intention of joining the scheme and have no respect for it. That is the only point I was making. I cannot see at the moment any incentive for joining other than.......a huge shop window for selling puppies.

> I know no rules have been broken but until the KC set's out the rules in black and white instead of constantly making them in grey area's

What is not black and white about their rules? :

>the Kennel Club will not accept an application to register a litter when:
>a) The bitch has already whelped six litters, or
>b) The bitch was under a year old at the date of mating, or
>c) The bitch has already reached the age of eight years at the date of whelping.
>N.B. Relief from the last restriction may be considered provided the dam has previously whelped at least one other registered litter, and a written application is made prior to mating and supported by veterinary evidence confirming the suitability of the bitch involved in the proposed whelping.

I can understand why some people would feel the age specified is not appropriate for a large or late developing breed but I don't understand why you seem to consider this is not to the point.

> All the KC policy indicates is you mustn't take a litter off a bitch over 7 years without KC permission

It actually states that a bitch must not be over 8 years at the time of the whelp i believe

> under current policy, contrary to popular belief, breeders are not prevented from registering more than one litter from a bitch in a 12 month period, unless they are a licensed breeder.

I think that should be made across the board...IMO back to back matings are for no other reason than money!

> The minimum age for mating a bitch to allow the pups to be registered is 12 months - and of course, for some breeds it is probably perfectly acceptable to have litters that young.
>

I think that should be changed too, i dont believe any dog should be mated that young regardless of breed, after all whats the rush?...Thats just my opinion though :)

A requirement is black and white.
A recommendation is grey.

Six litters is far too many imho for some breeds. Breeding from and being able to register puppies when a bitch could be around 14m old at whelping time is again ridiculous in some breeds. You cannot make the same rule fit all breeds.

> IMO back to back matings are for no other reason than money!

Not sure how that works.  Surely it is the number of litters you have not the intervals.  A modestly sized bitch having a modestly sized litter should have no problems in recovering her full health in that space of time. 

> A requirement is black and white.
>

The quote I have given you is the requirements for registering a litter.

>> All the KC policy indicates is you mustn't take a litter off a bitch over 7 years without KC permission
>It actually states that a bitch must not be over 8 years at the time of the whelp i believe

To be strictly accurate, it says that the bitch must not have reached the age of 8 years - so that means she must not be over 7. :-)

> Not sure how that works.

The quicker a BYB can get their quoter of litters from a bitch the quicker they can get rid of her and get another to start the cycle all over again, how many bitches do we see for sale at around 4 or 5 years old that have clearly finished making the breeder any money and so off they go!
Like i say just my opinion, nothing annoys me more than ex-breeding bitches being sold on, clearly no love involved there....I do of course realise that there is times when the circumstances are genuine but i am taking about the people in it for money only.

Isabel I am referring to the AB scheme only, aren't those the general K.C. rules for registering dogs????? They aren't specific to the AB scheme are they?

Imho breeders on the scheme should be far and above ethically superior to those not on it, not the other way around.

> I think that should be made across the board...IMO back to back matings are for no other reason than money!
>

Possibly in some instances - but, while it is not something I would consider, there are instances when a bitch delivers a singleton / small handful of pups where there is nothing suitable for the showring - the breeder might opt for another litter on the next season.    My eldest bitch has her seasons so close together - she was mated on her third season after the litter with 15 months between the two litters. 

> It actually states that a bitch must not be over 8 years at the time of the whelp i believe

OK - a wording issue - over 7 to me means 8 and above - I stand corrected

> I think that should be changed too, i dont believe any dog should be mated that young regardless of breed, after all whats the rush?...Thats just my opinion though :-)

I can't speak for any breed really other than my own, but just talking to someone about this - I have a bitch fast approaching 2, and will have a litter from her as close to 2 as nature permits - conversely - I have a 3-1/2 year old bitch who, if I was considering breeding her (which I'm not) I would STILL consider her too young :( so there isn't in my experience a one size fits all - but I certainly wouldn't breed any bitch to deliver a litter before 2 years however mature.

>Six litters is far too many imho for some breeds.

Yes, but in other breeds, which might have tiny litters of two or three puppies, it's a different matter. KC rules are written to apply to all breeds, not individual ones.