Hamish (9 1/2 year old Goldie) has, over the last couple of months, had great difficulty in getting up from resting. The vet thinks his hips are OK but that the problem is more along the base of the spine. At one point his hocks were also sore and swollen and he is now occassionally lame on what appears to be his left shoulder. He had a course of cartrophen injections (last one about 4 weeks ago) but these have had little effect.

So, tomorrow, I have booked him in for x-rays and was wondering if it would be worth sending the hip x-rays off for scoring. He is neutered and like I say over 9 years old. Is it worth it?

Its another number to add to the list of scores so id say yes. If his score is quite high but not rediclously high then you could help in the argument that dogs NEED to be under the average to be bred from not just breed them with a low scoring dog.

For example a dog in my breed with a score of 56 and our average is 23 has just sired another litter, his score isnt well known but i and others do know, so i imagine people not in the breed looking for a pet wouldnt or other breeders without certain contacts wouldnt either. I know you can find out via kc but still.

> his score isnt well known but i and others do know, so i imagine people not in the breed looking for a pet wouldnt or other breeders without certain contacts wouldnt either

I realise it's not the entire answer, but hip scores are public information and can be looked up online, so anyone who actually cares what his hip score is can certainly find out a) whether he's been tested and b) what the score is.

I think as the public become more savvy about testing, it will become harder not to volunteer the info.

M.

just wanted to add i was looking up a couple of dogs in my breed too as i am currently looking for a stud for the end of the year, 2 dogs that i know have been scored do not show on the system and you must type the kc name correctly, i think some names are mis spelt by one letter which means you can not find it, the breeders website says the dog is scored but does not give the score, that to me is always suspicious. There is one litter at the moment by a well known dog where the score of the sire is 76 and dams doesnt come up on the kc site but the litter ad states both parents are scored...just doesnt mention that it is a terrible score!

MandyC that's terrible!!!

I would have your dog scored, it won't do any harm if they are already being x-rayed.  Never had one done at that age but had three done around the 6 year mark, two had a totaly score of 10 and one a total score of 41, although he had been scaling walls, jumping off high things, climbing etc. at only a few months of age, so I'm sure that that added to his high score.  Only in the last 9 months or so at the age of almost 11 did he show signs of any problems.

I had my dog scored because he was already scheduled for surgery for a retained (inguinal) testicle. I insisted they only remove the retained testicle and left him the other, and score his hips. We had quite a battle with our (now ex) vets who I suspect had me down as a BYB, although they had no reason to think so after 14 years of going to them.If hip scoring were more affordable more people might be convinced of the need to do it, particularly if their dogs are already under anaesthesia. Scoring added about £70 to the bill (25%), but I was pleased to do it. Ours is a minor breed and the more we know about all our dogs the better. The improvement in hip scores can be readily seen even over the last five years. Good luck with Hamish!

Not good news on the Hamish front. Looking at the x-rays it was a case of finding the odd one which was good, and they took loads (nearly £600 worth in fact)! He has spondylosis of the spine, severe dysplasia in one hip, the other not too bad but still affected, arthritis in most joints to a lesser or worse degree and a problem in his left shoulder that may require surgery (he is being referred to a specialist for that problem). On the positive, his elbows were good! They've put him on cosequin and previcox, and will wait to see what to do further, once the specialist has looked at the x-rays.

I'm amazed he hasn't shown symptoms in the past considering the extent of the problems and that he has been doing agility for the last 6 years!

So sorry to hear that, poor Hamish--you've reminded me that one of the reasons I wanted our lad scored was because he is (occasionally) a working dog. Hope his medication brings him some relief.

I now wish I'd had him x-rayed/scored as a youngster! But as I had no intention of breeding/showing him it didn't seem important. Thinking about it now, it probably is as, if not more, important to get them checked if they are working or doing agility - hindsight is a wonderful thing! He has always been such a happy-go-lucky dog and really hasn't shown any symptoms until very recently. My current youngster has been hip and elbow scored, so at least I know she's OK, and any others in the future, shown/bred or not will definitely be scored.

Oh dear poor Hamish.

In times like this your glad of insurance! Are you going to send them off?

Louise

I don't think I can send these x-rays off, as they were done without having his microchip or KC reg no on the plates? If you know differently let me know. They've also been sent to the specialist to look at. One hip looked awful, so I think it would be a pretty high score. What I have found interesting is that from the dogs in his litter (a total of 8) the 2 bitches that have been scored have scores well below the breed average but 2 dogs have scores above and well above the average. It seems odd, although could well be just a coincidence, that the boys are high.

Hi Pedlee, I am sure the KC reg. no. needs to go on the plates at the very least, because the vet rang me immediately beforehand to check the information with me with our lad already anaesthetised on the table!

I got 2 dogs scored in 2005 with no reg number on the plates; however, the vet had to write it on and sign the plate and they accepted it. 

total waste of money - you wont be breeding from him and there's not much you can do if he has a poor hip score.  You can see if he's in any pain and give him pain relief accordingly.

Angel66

Agree with Angel66. What would be your purpose behind the scoring?
K

Because it furthers the information known and gives a truer picture about the breed. In an ideal world every single dog would be scored, regardless of whether they were ever going to be bred from.

If a dog is shown to have a poor hip score before he shows evidence of pain you can adjust his lifestyle to extend his pain-free life. Prevention is better than cure.

Quite agree, a lot can be done to mitigate the effects and progress of HD if the dogs status is known.

It would stop giving false details for breeds.  I cannot wait for the day when all breeding dogs, be them pedigree or crossbreeds have to have all eye tests and hipscores done before they can have a litter.  Scoring dogs that aren't going to bred from is also of great help to the breed.

I haven't had the plates scored simply because they have been sent to a specialist to look at regarding treatment options.

However, I agree with the others that the more dogs scored, the truer the picture on the state of the breed health. As I said previously, any future dogs I own, whether bred or not, will be scored. At 9 1/2, Hamish has only recently started showing any symptoms at all. Had I had him scored at a year old and found out then he had a bad hip, I would have been able to treat him differently and probably wouldn't have done agility with him. But that's hindsight for you! He's always been, and still is, a very enthusiastic, happy dog.

Hi Pedlee

Not for one second are any of us calling you here!!  Think in reality maybe some of this should be on a new thread?

> probably wouldn't have done agility with him

But I bet he enjoyed the agility.... there's a balance between wrapping up in cotton wool, and having a full, enjoyable and active life.... and if I was Hamish I'd probably have chosen to do the agility and then have my arthritis managed when I was older. :-)

Agree Munro girl

I chose to do agility with one of my shepherds with HD. Only ever did 'nursery' with her and was always careful. My thoughts on it were would I want to go dancing at 16 and have arthritis at 50, or not do any normal activity and have arthritis at 70! I gave my girl what I would have chosen for myself.

The hip score of a dog bears no relation whatever to the clinical signs. Every dog is different and a dog with a high score can live a completely normal life and never show any evidence of lameness, stiffness etc, and a dog with a reasonable score can suffer with arthritis quite early. Everyone gets caught up with the 'numbers', and I was told by the chief scrutineer of the BVA that the numbers are irrelevant apart from the fact that naturally you would not breed from the dog.

I understand that every score adds to the picture, but I'm not convinced that the picture tells a story.The BVA scheme doesn't appear to have impacted on the prevalence of HD, which is why the KC now seek to try and find some clues with DNA I understand, though I have heard nothing following submission of a swab about 4 years ago. The Austrians ran a scheme to screen breeding dogs for HD back in the 50's over 30 years, and apparently if anything the resultant offspring had a slightly higher prevalence of HD. They found no evidence of any positive effect.
K
Kat

> The BVA scheme doesn't appear to have impacted on the prevalence of HD

There is to some extent the issue of less responsible people scoring, and breeding from dogs with scores that are unacceptably high for the breed anyway, which doesn't help matters.  It's possible the scheme hasn't impacted by improving scores overall, but that without the scheme the problem would be worse (say, just as a for example, compare to the lack of screening for syringomyelia - partly because there wasn't availability of screening until more recently - and how much of a problem there appears to be).

<<The hip score of a dog bears no relation whatever to the clinical signs.>>

I agree totally with that statement. Esme's Gt. Grandmother has a low hip score (4:2) but wouldn't be walking without her daily medication (according to her breeder) - she's 11. And like I say, Hamish has shown no signs until recently, infact his movement has always been commented on, in the positive.

And what fun would his life have been if he'd never done anything - he loved his agility! Had I known I would have probably supplemented earlier, but I didn't, so we are where we are.

Good news anyway, regarding the shoulder problem. The specialist report came back saying to monitor him and re-x-ray if necessary, as it appears to be a shadow on the x-ray plate rather than the major problem my vet thought it was!

Yes, I see what you say Munro girl, but don't understand why 'less responsible' people would be scoring, if they are scoring dogs they would seem to be responsible. If however, they then use dogs with poor scores I agree. It will be interesting to see whether screening for SM impacts much, and I do so hope so, I think it is the most dreadful disease. I do wonder if, in both cases (though of course very, very different defects) the dog's change body shape may well be the underlying cause (well IS the cause as far as I understand with SM). The GSD shape that has developed may also contribute to HD, which does appear to be quite random, I once read that on average 25% of pups from parents with good scores will have significant HD. Although ethically and morally wrong, and so obviously out of the question, it would be interesting to see whether dogs with bad hips produce dogs with good hips, and in what ratio, versus dogs with good scores. The thing is, that we don't know whether the situation would be worse without the screening programme for HD, nor whether conformation does in fact play a part, as in SM.

Kat

Pedlee - And what fun would his life have been if he'd never done anything - he loved his agility! Had I known I would have probably supplemented earlier, but I didn't, so we are where we are.
exactly :)>

> Yes, I see what you say Munro girl, but don't understand why 'less responsible' people would be scoring, if they are scoring dogs they would seem to be responsible.

I met a chap with a Golden Retriever who told me the sire of his pet dog was hip scored - showed me the papers - hip score total 45. Breeders who want to be KCAB will do it so they can be KCAB - the scheme just says you have to score, not what the results have to be. Unfortunately it does happen, and that is not responsible.

a litter in my breed being advertised at the moment (well known kennel too) the sire has a score of 76! yet their website states how it is 'unacceptable to breed from unscored dogs', (which they also do) ... nothing about breeding from a dog with a hipscore over 3 times the breed average. :(
Whats the point in scoring if you are just going to ignore the score?

> Whats the point in scoring if you are just going to ignore the score?

i know, this is true, makes me annoyed.
with regards to hip scoring, if a dog is scored abroad before it comes to UK, is the score still registered with KC? i was looking on the health page onKC page, results finder, and looking up some well known dogs, and couldnt find the score of one, who is an import. dos anyone know?

You've roused my curiousity as to which dog's score you're looking for :)

Could you try looking on the relevant KC's site for the country of origin of the dog?

> if a dog is scored abroad before it comes to UK, is the score still registered with KC?

I don't think so, no. My Flatcoat's sire was from Germany, Hips A:A, but nothing on KC reg papers - think you would have to check with country of origin.

> I met a chap with a Golden Retriever who told me the sire of his pet dog was hip scored - showed me the papers - hip score total 45. Breeders who want to be KCAB will do it so they can be KCAB - the scheme just says you have to score, not what the results have to be. Unfortunately it does happen, and that is not responsible.

Madness, total madness. Leaves me speechless actually. Yes you're right that is definitely not responsible. There ought to be an endorsement so that any puppies from a high scoring dog became ineligible for registration. That might stop them, there should be something the KC could do with this information, and they should certainly not be awarded accredited breeder status if that dog is used for breeding. That needs thinking through, but it seems outrageous.

Kat

The trouble is that what is a horribly high score in one breed can be a better-than-average score in another. I think I'm right in saying that the BMS for Otterhounds is in the low 40s, so one with a score of 30 is excellent, whereas for a GSD it'd be hopeless.

> The trouble is that what is a horribly high score in one breed can be a better-than-average score in another.

Yes, it needs to be on a breed by breed basis. Otterhounds, Sussex Spaniels and Clumbers are all I think in the low 40s, but with being rare breeds and having such a small gene pool, it makes it difficult for them - though I am sure, reading the BRS, I have seen some very low scoring Clumbers on hips - range 0-9, which is excellent - but when the breed average is that high and the gene pool is small it is fair to use dogs below the BMS, even though that may mean dogs with a score of 35. In breeds with large gene pools and much lower BMSs, eg Goldens, though, there is no excuse.

The hip score of a dog bears no relation whatever to the clinical signs

I totally agree with this statement.

Back in March I lost my 14 1/2 year old Golden girl of old age. She had a hip score of 55, (27/28). She never had a days lameness and was still climbing the satirs unaided until about the last week of her life.
Of course she was never bred from though!!

I can confirm this - my first Goldie had hip score of 52 (29/23) and never showed any signs of lameness etc. Not bred from obviously.

My Goldie oldie is now nearly 14 with a hip score of 13 (6/7) and is beginning to struggle with getting up from lying and occasionally stumbles.  She had 2 smallish litters.  She is still going out for walks with the others but realise that she must soon go for shorter ones on her own - she won't like that!