At last the APGAW report is published. It has not said anything new, and as the BVA point out it does not say who will pay for the health research or control what happens, who will enforce the ABS or any other breeding. The R---A have issued a press statement which makes it sound as though they see themselves as being the ideal candidates to police dog breeding.
From the BVA a few points:
In particular the BVA and BSAVA welcome:

Recognition that the veterinary role is vital in educating and informing dog owners, the breeding industry, and the public;
The call for an independent advisory body made up of geneticists, veterinary surgeons, behaviouralists, breeders and animal welfare scientists to make recommendations to breed clubs through the Kennel Club;
The recommendation for a database of diseases, accessible to all, to record disease incidence and allow a scientific, evidence-based approach to health and welfare;
Support for increased use of health screening for known diseases and a legal requirement for screening of sires and dams for commercial breeding;
The call for all registered dogs to be permanently identified, for example by microchip;
The requirement for all stakeholders to work together [something the BVA Animal Welfare Foundation has already started working on];
The call for more robust enforcement of the Kennel Club accredited breeder scheme and random inspections to ensure it stands up to scrutiny.
The belief that it would be beneficial to use the long-awaited Code of Practice (under the Animal Welfare Act 2006) to encourage potential puppy owners to focus on the health and welfare of their chosen breed.


However, the BVA and BSAVA are concerned that the APGAW report does not identify how these initiatives will be funded, especially the financing of the proposed database, independent body and further genetic research. Nor does the report address the problems caused by puppy farming or provide any solution to protecting those dogs bred by hobbyists.

From the R---A
This supports the findings of an independent report commissioned by the R---A, Pedigree Dog Breeding in the UK: A Major Welfare Concern?, and the charity's view that exaggerated physical features and inherited diseases cause serious welfare problems for pedigree dogs.

R---A senior animal welfare scientist Claire Calder said: "This inquiry has come to the same conclusion as the R---A: pedigree dogs urgently need our help and the way they are bred must change.  APGAW calls for an independent panel to be set up to help tackle this complex problem, an idea the R---A would also support.

"The report lacks some detail about how the problems facing pedigree dogs can be solved and doesn't recommend all the measures the R---A believes are necessary; for example, we believe a strategy for monitoring how effective any changes are is essential.

"However, I hope this inquiry stimulates much more detailed and action-focussed discussion amongst everyone involved in order to identify practical solutions that will really make a difference. Pedigree dogs need our help and they need it now."

The APGAW report also concludes:

Breed standards should ensure dogs are 'fit for purpose' rather than look a certain way

A database to collate the occurrences of hereditary diseases and health and welfare problems would provide information to all stakeholders on the problems and their frequency

Future regulations concerning the breeding of dogs should impose clear restrictions on the breeding of closely related dogs.

The R---A believes all key stakeholders should meet after a third report into the health and welfare of pedigree dogs is published in early 20103 in order to agree a way forward.

The R---A is extremely concerned about the unacceptably high levels of disability, deformity and hereditary disease affecting these animals, as is the public, following the BBC documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed which sparked a national debate on the issue.

So what do you all think?
As we know breeders are already funding this research, are we to be legally taxed to fund it or will it continue to be voluntary that we give money/raise funds? Does it sound as though the R---A think they are the people to police a scheme or register? How will this affect our hobby? Are the good responsible breeders going to tarred with the same brush as the puppy garmers yet again? Will we have to bear the brunt of draconian measures to fund all dog welfare issues, and will we be restricted in what we can or cannot do?

My biggest bugbear at the time was the APGAW using an RSPCA Political officer for an IMPARTIAL SERVICE oh yeah R$PCA funded secretariat is Impartial.

I have also received my copy this morning and notice the same individuals names come up again and again some on just about every page.  This has not been an Imparital investigation, they certainly don't seem to understand KC membership with recommendations of expulsion for non compliant members.  BVA vets to issue health certificates along similar lines to vaccination cards for any puppies sold with a contract and all dogs to be certified healthy by a vet prior to breeding - vets don't even recognise half the breeds registered let alone know what health issues they have tests for or if they suffere with any so how are they going to validate a dogs suitability for breeding purposes?  Nice little earner mind along with their health seminars - don't we already do that via the KC?

Has there been a comment form the Kennel Club yet?

ETA: Just answered my own question. It's here
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2768/23/5/3

The Times
November 3, 2009
Reports urges health certificates for puppies after Crufts scandal
By Valerie Elliott

Puppies should be sold with a full family medical history to alert new owners to the risk of genetic disorders, an inquiry will recommend today.

All future sales must be accompanied by a contract stating that the dog's parents have undergone health checks before breeding to ensure puppies are born free from genetic disorders, MPs and peers will say.

The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare recommends that breeders provide a veterinary certificate confirming that the dog's parents have been screened for health defects prior to mating.

Other recommendations include:

* a statutory limit on the number of times a dog can sire puppies, to prevent inbreeding;

* random checks on breeders;

* that all pedigree dogs be microchipped;

* that champion showdogs undergo health screening before prizes are awarded;

* guidelines to inform owners about what to look for in a healthy dog.

The new rules should apply to all puppies sold as pets, whether from a breeder registered with the Kennel Club, a licensed puppy farmer or someone breeding dogs as a hobby at home.

The safeguards come after a year-long review into pedigree breeding after the controversial BBC documentary, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, was aired in August last year.

The programme featured a prize-winning Cavalier King Charles spaniel that was suffering from syringomyelia, a neurological condition that occurs when a dog's skull is too small. It also featured boxer dogs with epilepsy, pugs with breathing problems and bulldogs that were unable to mate or give birth naturally.

The programme provoked a furore and led to the BBC scrapping its coverage of Crufts for the first time in 42 years. The rights for television coverage of next year's show have been acquired by the More4 channel.

Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, is still investigating a complaint from the Kennel Club about alleged bias in the programme, which was made for the BBC by Jemima Harrison, of Passionate Productions.

The inquiry report published today, A Healthier Future for Pedigree Dogs, found unanimously that many pedigree dogs suffered serious health and welfare problems.

It is thought that the puppy contracts will act as a powerful control to prevent inbreeding of dogs, improve their welfare and spare owners the anguish of having to put their sick pets through extensive surgery.

Eric Martlew, Labour MP and chairman of the group, said: "We have had numerous examples given of the distress and suffering caused by poor breeding practice.

"Dog owners find themselves faced with huge vet bills and have to endure the emotional distress of seeing their pet in pain and sometimes even being put to sleep."

With a general election expected in the spring there is insufficient time to introduce the laws. But the report says that if positive change is not forthcoming as a result of breeders curbing their practices voluntarily, ministers will be urged to bring in the new laws.

Sweden has already adopted such an approach, and breeders are financially responsible for any health problems that occur within the first three years of a puppy's life.

Insurance companies are also urged to encourage take-up of puppy contracts by offering discounts to pet owners who can produce one. Eventually, the contracts should be a requirement for owners to receive insurance cover.

The Kennel Club has been given a year to enforce the changes among breeders and breeding societies.

At present the club accepts dog registrations from anyone and only polices breeders signed up to its accredited breeder scheme.

MPs and peers want the club to refuse registrations from breeders who fail to comply with the health checks and puppy contracts.

A separate inquiry by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, a zoologist at the University of Cambridge, commissioned by the Kennel Club and the Dogs' Trust, is to be published next year.

Typical article by a member of the general media, whoi really does not know that responsible breeders actually do all the health testing and make the results known to puppy buyers, but now it seems we will have to pay the vets to get a contract to say our dogs are healthy.... So what are the BVA schemes for? Are we to abandon the BVA schemes in order to pay our local vet like a byb might to look at our pups and dogs and say oh yes they are healthy? Or will we be expected to pay for both?
I quote from somebody who is a respected health monitor in their breed, "firstly the BVA must get their house in order and get health test results to the KC in something under 6 months! Single handed they are destroying the KC's flagship "Accredited Breeders Scheme". People are still trying to register pups under the scheme only to be told "Your bitch/stud dog has not been health tested." when it was in fact tested months before. Excuses of "New buildings" are totally unacceptable. Secondly, as you know, I've long been advocating that with all the new DNA tests, that we need guidance in the way forward or pedigree dogs are finished. In my breed we now have 5 DNA tests, with at least 3 more in the offing. Keep going and we will be the healthiest extinct animal ever to exist! It's a good job humans dont have to have these tests before having children!"

"It's a good job humans dont have to have these tests before having children!"


There are of course DNA tests available for humans - eg for cystic fibrosis. The fact that most of us have children without first taking DNA tests reflects the fact that the risk for most of us is very low. And that's the point here. We need the tests in dogs because of the high frequency of certain conditions in certain breeds.

Making laws and rules is all very well but it is policeing the laws that is the problem. We have a law on dangerous dogs for instance so why in my local park are pet dogs being attacked by pit bull or pit bull crosses. Complaints to the police are recieved with "Its not our problem" were too busy. Monday morning in the park you may be lucky and see a policeman in the park but never of a night. This is when most of the problems occur but seems to be a no go area for the police at night. The rules they have already in place have not stopped the puppy farmers as there is no-one to check on them. Where is the funding going to come from to do the checks to comply with the rules? The puppy farmers are dishonest and no doubt would forge the documents that the rules say you have to have.

DEFRA are not looking to introduce any new legislation and doubt very much they will once the Bateson report is published based purely on the economic climate as it stands at present, Police and council budgets can't cope with their commitments now let alone new ones.

The BVA are looking to line their own pockets as they have done over the last 40 yrs with hipscoring, if they truly had something to offer us a better understanding and system of screening would surely have been developed by now!  My vets could give me no clearer answer to hip dysplacia this yr than they could 30 yrs ago when I was hipscoring my GSD's.  More advances have been made by research groups supported by funds and samples from pedigree breeders genetisits are not vets or BVA members yet they have achieved so much more in those 30 yrs with our support.  I have discussed this subject to great lengths with non pedigree breeders who have said the parents of these puppies have been health checked by my vet who said they were fit for breeding, HOW?  Of course there's no hipscoring or eye testing or DNA testing the vets have just done a physical and said yep she's fit enough for a litter!  There is no getting through to them that a vets say so is NOT good enough, trouble is APGAW are suggesting exactly that approach  so it would appear we are wrong whilst they are right.

Remember this group used an R$PCA employee for Secretariat duties and to Ensure Impartiality for their report, they even admit themselves within said report that they are not a select committee and the report should not been seen as a select committee report.

And all those who churn out oodles and ugles etc can carry on just as they do now and spout the usual rubbish 'they are crosses so they don't need testing as they are sooo healthy :-(
Chris

LOL @ ugles :-)  They are "ugle"y

> There are of course DNA tests available for humans - eg for cystic fibrosis. The fact that most of us have children without first taking DNA tests reflects the fact that the risk for most of us is very low. And that's the point here. We need the tests in dogs because of the high frequency of certain conditions in certain breeds.

There are a lot of human diseases which are hereditary and there are tests but the defective genes cannot always be found before humans breed.

> And all those who churn out oodles and ugles etc can carry on just as they do now and spout the usual rubbish 'they are crosses so they don't need testing as they are sooo healthy :-(
> Chris

Yes this was hugely disappointing, but I think there was so much focus on pedigree dog breeders who register with the "big bad" Kennel Club that this was glossed over, with scant attention paid to it.

I've started reading the report, not all of it, 54 pages to go but if some of these recommendations come into effect, how long are PF and BYB going to last, Pol?  I can't see them staying in business to be honest. 

The problem is PF is very subjective.  For example, I know of a breeder who is throwing out maybe 8 or more litters a year, in one year, they had 18 litters planned. But they do the health tests, imports, shows their dogs and are well known.  Is this person a PF?  Well in my view yes, not just because of the amount of litters but because of other inside info I have but he may not be seen as a PF to some other people, know what I mean?   There is a lot of smoke screening going on. 

Just read the summary of the report and a few things leapt out at me -
firstly the recommendation that " a dog be checked for possible inherited
diseases by a vet before it is used for breeding " - HOW is a vet to do this
for conditions such as epilepsy etc ? and doesn't this smack of the kind of
'vet check' that your average BYB does ?

" we recommend that the KC ensure top breeders and judges at Championship
shows look to see proof of dogs having passed health tests before awarding
places " - and " judges need to be confident that dogs used for breeding
are healthy and unlikely to pass genetic diseases on " - I'm not a vet how
on earth would I, when I judge, KNOW that your dog does not carry an
inherited disease ! - and how would this work ? - for example if an exhibitor had
a dog that had failed it's current eye test but was up against one with a
clear test but that I as the judge knew carried epilepsy in it's lines ( a
much greater problem for my breed) then how should I place them ? the mind
boggles ( well mine does anyway !) - can you imagine the huge difficulties
this would bring ?

" the inquiry is disappointed that More4 channel has made the decision to
show Crufts 2010 as we feel that until the problems of health and welfare
are dealt with the showing of certain dogs .....is wrong " any changes will
take a long time to become evident - does this mean that Crufts should not
be televised until they do ? - and how hypocritical when the BBC screen
the Grand National with all it's obvious welfare issues ( how many horses
were killed during this years National ? )

"It is recommended that shows could lead the way by placing a new emphasis
on the health of dogs over appearance" - again judges are not vets - and
dog shows ARE to a large degree about how well the dog appears to fit their
breed standard ( just as Cattle , canary and rabbit shows are ! )

"The practicality of having a health certificate for every puppy should be
investigated " - REALLY ? what possible use would such a certificate be
for most breeds when hips and eyes are not done until that puppy is at least a
year old and many conditions do not manifest themselves for a couple of
years - ( a nice little earner for the vets though ! - bet this was thought
up by the BVA ! )

It looks like the KC will be forced to go down the route of making health
testing a mandatory part of it's registration system although I suspect
they will fight this all the way to the bank !

We live in interesting times my friends

Yvonne

for example if an exhibitor had
a dog that had failed it's current eye test but was up against one with a
clear test but that I as the judge knew carried epilepsy in it's lines ( a
much greater problem for my breed) then how should I place them

I don't show, and slightly off topic, but why would any need to be placed.  It's something I've always found strange.  In field trials  it is not uncommon to have no winner, nor places if the dogs do not perform to the expected standard.  Does this happen in showing? if not, then I wonder if this would be a way to go.

Showing is about the dogs conformation not tasks set out for the dog and handler to demonstrate their ability to complete ergo its down to individual interpretation of conformation against a breed standard.

Places are withheld but not so readily as trails because there isn't a cut off point for pass or fail.

Yes if they are not good enough they need not be placed.

Sorry but why should show breeders do all of this (as though not many of us already do).  Vet's have no clues re health in my opinion when it comes to breeding.  How many "pet" people do you hear on websites like this who say their vets said their dogs are fine to breed from, who have had absolutely no health tests done at all and it's purely been on sight of the dogs at the surgery?

If we show people have to do it then all those that have crossbreeds, gundogs, agility dogs, obedience dogs etc. etc. should all have to health test then before their dogs can be bred from.

> " we recommend that the KC ensure top breeders and judges at Championship
> shows look to see proof of dogs having passed health tests before awarding
> places " - and " judges need to be confident that dogs used for breeding
> are healthy and unlikely to pass genetic diseases on " - I'm not a vet how
> on earth would I, when I judge, KNOW that your dog does not carry an
> inherited disease ! - and how would this work ? - for example if an exhibitor had
> a dog that had failed it's current eye test but was up against one with a
> clear test but that I as the judge knew carried epilepsy in it's lines ( a
> much greater problem for my breed) then how should I place them ? the mind
> boggles ( well mine does anyway !) - can you imagine the huge difficulties
> this would bring ?

One point nobiody has mentioned here is that the dog is not supposed to be identified by name before judging has taken place, therefore if a judge has to see health certificates before judging, then they will know which dog is in the ring. What a field day for the "witch hunt brigade", you can just hear them winding up right now....

> I don't show, and slightly off topic, but why would any need to be placed.  It's something I've always found strange.  In field trials  it is not uncommon to have no winner, nor places if the dogs do not perform to the expected standard.  Does this happen in showing? if not, then I wonder if this would be a way to go.

Hi JenP,

At open shows judges are often expected to award places regardless of their thoughts and often open shows only attract a few entries per class even in numerically large breeds. At championship shows however entries are much larger and judge is expected to with hold prizes if they think there are no dogs good enough to take top honours. Judges are also required to dismiss from the ring any dog who shows an unsuitable temperament.

Just one point of it that I do completely support, limit on the amount of times a sire can be used IE X amount per year. This is a big problem in dogs I really believe.   The matador senario needs to be controlled I think which in the long run can help all breeds.

I get the feeling that some just like to hear the sound of their own voice. criticism,criticism and more criticism whilst luckily the PANEL could see it as " WE" do.

I would love to read some of their half full glass postive suggestions including praise for some of the dedicated.  Barely any mention of the puppy farmers from a few.

Interesting that Petplan still supports breeders and the shows through their very popular stakes competition.  You wonder why they would if they shared some of the constant negative views.  Perhaps like most of us they all see the need for immediate improvement BUT clearly accept that there is an equal amount of people doing only but the best by their dogs and their breeds respectively.

Maybe some are hoping for a Knighthood.

> I get the feeling that some just like to hear the sound of their own voice. criticism,criticism and more criticism whilst luckily the PANEL could see it as " WE" do.

Not sure what you mean here?

>
> I would love to read some of their half full glass postive suggestions including praise for some of the dedicated.  Barely any mention of the puppy farmers from a few.

I did mention the puppy farmers and that I was disappointed that there are no proposals to stop retail sales of pet animals, as this can lead to impulse buys which in turn create welfare issues for some pets purchased this way and sadly for many dogs and cats, they end up in rescues instead of lifelong homes.

>
> Interesting that Petplan still supports breeders and the shows through their very popular stakes competition.  You wonder why they would if they shared some of the constant negative views.  Perhaps like most of us they all see the need for immediate improvement BUT clearly accept that there is an equal amount of people doing only but the best by their dogs and their breeds respectively.
>

My own breed club was singles out for our approach to health issues, but we do have a stricter code of ethics than required by the KC but like the KC we have no legal powers to enforce it. I'd like to see all breed clubs have stricter codes of ethics but I also am not silly enough to think that eveyone will support them, the report in many ways is too vague and leaves a lot open to interpretation, which can depending on who you work for could be a problem. An example is that how many people truly understand shows and showing? If you look at my reply to JenP she is a working dog owner but asked about something she did not understand in showing. I on the other hand have working dogs but know about showing as I have made it my business to know and I also work for Our dogs.

> Maybe some are hoping for a Knighthood.


Not sure what you mean here?

Sorry Polly if I have confused you :-) I type half replies sometimes when working on other things, guilty as charged :-D  I meant that on reading some of the write up in the Dog Paper , I was posting whilst reading the paper and airing my views on the actual article.    For example JH is quoted on some of her comments , along with a few others but they never seem to offer anything of real construction and just seem to talk and critically comment on others !!!!!!!!  we all get the picture loud and clear, lets see what postive things the likes of JH and her co critics can come up with to help..

I did mention the puppy farmers and that I was disappointed that there are no proposals to stop retail sales of pet animals, as this can lead to impulse buys which in turn create welfare issues for some pets purchased this way and sadly for many dogs and cats, they end up in rescues instead of lifelong homes.


Totally agree with you Polly I was very suprised so little said about the PF and unregistered which certainly cause the biggest % of issues and certainly by far in my breed.   The majority of dogs with for example bad skin in my breed that I personally see come from the PF/BY breeder,       I meant by my comments " few"  that few from those within the the APGAW group and those contributing so much such as the RS-A and JH.


My own breed club was singles out for our approach to health issues, but we do have a stricter code of ethics than required by the KC but like the KC we have no legal powers to enforce it. I'd like to see all breed clubs have stricter codes of ethics but I also am not silly enough to think that eveyone will support them, the report in many ways is too vague and leaves a lot open to interpretation, which can depending on who you work for could be a problem. An example is that how many people truly understand shows and showing? If you look at my reply to JenP she is a working dog owner but asked about something she did not understand in showing. I on the other hand have working dogs but know about showing as I have made it my business to know and I also work for Our dogs.
  Agree again we need a bigger % of breed clubs to make the change and stand up and be counted. I believe my own breed club do well but didn't make their voices heard.

What some are doing is driving the buyers right into the worst type of breeder their is.

I did genuinely believe that the APGAW would not be completely influenced but the likes of the RS__A or JH soley and have taken a broader view to it.

Thankfully for dog people MPs themselves are so used to sweeping generalisations they hopefully understand to take a better and broader look at things before scaremongering the public which those that clearly have a lack of understanding in this area have choice not to.


    > Maybe some are hoping for a Knighthood.  You need not think long and hard to guess I can think of two that come over to me as celeb want to be s...

Sorry but I think some are just not helping the situation at all now and I would like to see going forward everyone involved have no personal benefit to being involved now so that the real work can be done.  Hope that clears up my comments Polly and they were in no way direct to you or any of the same

Hi Blue,

I didn't think you were directing your comments at me, I asked because I was not sure what you were saying. I pointed out things I wrote about simply because I was trying to understand what you were talking about! lol Actually I do the same as you and end up not making sense quite often.... :-D

Mind you I did think when I read your last comment about the Knighthoods..... Of two or three people who would no doubt love to have their name in the frame!!!! lol

I too read the report and it clearly stated that the report it was not focusing on puppy farmers or byb. Therefore the conclusion I came to was that it was to cover pedigree dogs and breeders that show their dogs and register litters with the KC, it was not aimed at everyone that breeds a litter of puppies regardless. Which is pity because until a system is introduced that is madatory for everyone that breeds a litter of puppies there will be a two tier system. 

    

The report was on purebreds however, it does clearly say that all dogs which do not fall under the pedigree remit should also be addressed, especially if the improvements put in place for pedigree dogs fail to filter down.  We have PF and BYB registering purebreds with the KC so it will include them.  I agree that a system needs to cover all dogs. 

Spender you wrote 'We have PF and BYB registering purebreds with the KC , so it will include them'. Yes, I agree it should but it will not (unless made compulsory for all dogs) because they will no longer register with the KC. This is where a two tier systm will be created. That is why it should be a requirement for every one who wishes to breed from their dog regardless of how many dogs they have to  make it compulsory to health screen for known hereditary conditions before that individual can obtain a licence to enable them to breed. My suggstion would be a casual dog breeding licence to enable a person to breed just once and then have their dog spayed or a commercial licence to enable a person to breed from more that one dog but limit the number of dogs the breeder can own and breed from and how often. All dogs used for breeding be indentifiable and all puppies before sold too. There is more to add to this but next time.          

I kinda think we have a 2 tier system at the moment, KC reg and non KC reg.  But yes you are right Pat, it could mean that some will no longer reg with the KC however,  the report does say that the irresponsible breeders are the ones that will require some sort of regulation.  We need compulsory registration and compulsory identification for all dogs.  I can't see why the KC could not have 2 registries, one for peds and one for non peds with both expected to meet high standards.  I can't see any other way of doing it. 

I like your thoughts, on stipulations under licensing with compulsory health screening etc, etc but again, how can they bring that in without some sort of regulation? 

IMHO the average buyer will not care. It is the demand which dictates the supply and if free ad papers are anything to go by this problem will never change unless people's attitudes change.