So ..the GSD league have refused to sign the KC contract and are actively seeking to align themselves with the FCI for registration and showing purposes - has the train left the station ?  - will there be FCI shows here in the UK and if so how many other breeds might follow the GSD folk ?....there's no doubt that many breeders and exhibitors feel let down by the KC and remain unconvinced by their stance on health testing and the ABS  ..will they follow ?...would you ?

Yvonne

Along side KC affiliation yes, but not instead of. 

In the USA many people show at American Kennel club shows and also UKC, which has different titles and Groups I believe.

Can't see the KC allowing it though as even now they frown on KC judges officiating at Non KC events.

I think a bit of history re the issue of accepting registrations needs to be understood.

Our Kennel Club was formed largely to put rules and a structure to canine competitions that were evolving, a nd the breed register went along with that for verifiable breeding records, unfortunately it did not keep pace with the fact that some people started registering only, and were not involved in any other way than producing puppies for the emerging pedigree pet dog market.

A lot of the other Kennel clubs evolved differently, and more recently, and their registration systems took into account the quality of the breeding stock, as by this time the breeding for the pedigree status pet had emerged,a nd to differentiate what they registered they set rules for what the standard of the breeding stock had to be other than having registered parents.

By the time our Kennel club woke up to the fact that a large chunk of it's registrations were purely for adding commercial value,a nd had nothing with producing quality pedigree stock based on the breed standards for competition/work it found itself in a very sticky position,a nd of course cutting off all that revenue was not going to sit well economically.

In some of the countries where kennel clubs were small, or have only recently really reformed after communism, the number of show/trial type breeding was small compared to the unpapered pedigrees that had existed, so they were not disenfranchising anyone by setting rules are wins and health tests.

Also there is the gene pool aspect.  One could say that commercially bred pedigree puppies have no contribution to make, but of curse if they are kept in 'the system' clever breeders could utilise their genes to widen the pool and by selection improve quality.  that is one argument against registering only prize winning quality exhibits.  We all know that some dogs that could not win themselves mated cleverly can make a useful contribution, and produce well.

even if historically they could not forsee the amount of unethical breeders who would  use KC registration as an endorsement of their pups they can certainly  do something about it now !- after all even the good folk here at Champdogs check details of health tests before allowing breeders to advertise - are the KC REALLY not going to step up to the mark on this ? - I take your point about keeping gene pools open but realistically what responsible breeder would ever use poorly bred,  untested dogs to 'improve' their lines ? - it is simply wrong of the Kc to continue to accept what are quite obviously puppy farmed dogs on their register - I think that to retain any kind of credibility they simply MUST put this right.

There is a lot of disaffection 'in the ranks' and I believe that if a viable alternative was available then not just the GSD breeders would 'walk' - we are after all - all Europeans now !!!

Yvonne

I think it is about time that the KC backed up it's moral high ground stance by making it a requirement of all pups to have health checked parents as well. How can they take this stance when they are not prepared to back it up themselves.
I also think that with the exception of puppies all show stock should have, as a pre-requisite to being entered for a Champ show, the health checks required for the breed and also a character assesment done. These should be printed in the catalogues and it would then be easier for Joe Public and breeders alike to research breeding sock. They expect all judges to judge for health and temperament yet do nothing to back them up. I realise it would be impossible to put restrictions on for instance a cut off point within a breed for a hip score and anyone could enter a dog with any score, but maybe breeders would be less likly to enter animals who have not got the best results if they knew those results would be available to all. That way someone who is just a novice and often picks a dog as a stud by how well it is doing in the rings would hopefully have a better chance of getting it right.
If the KC tightened up on it's own act it may start to mean something when a pup is KC REG ??
Aileen

I think the problem is were the KC rules and the law of the land meet.
I cannot see the KC rules haveing any power in the eyes of the law.
The RSPCA have a hard enough time enforcing the little amount of law there is.
The only way would to have your own section within the police to enforce the law.
(Something on the lines they have in USA) The dog wardens role and a partnership with the RSPCA,
then there would be away to combat puppy farming, fighting dogs and thelist goes on.
That is were the licence fee shoud be spent, microchip no on your licence. Lost dogs would be able to be returned etc
Every dog must be micochiped, done at the first health check at the vets.
It would take years to work its way in but in 10 to 12 years you would see the benifit.

I think as a "CLUB" the KC can impose whatever restrictions it wants to on it's members. If they say you cannot register un-tested stock with them that is thier right. So No reason not to do it!!!
Aileen

> are the KC REALLY not going to step up to the mark on this ? -

I think the KC have been tightening things up, all be it slower than we would like.

For example when I first came into dogs there were no real restrictions on registrations.

They then brought in the 6 litter maximum, and the upper age limit of 8 except in exceptional circumstances.

Then they finally brought in the lower age limit of no pups from a bitch under 12 months at mating.  Now we have no full sibling or parent offspring matings, and I expect we shall see more.

they have also encouraged breed clubs to have codes of ethics tighter than their general ones that are breed specific.

....but it's like turning the Titanic !! it really would not take much time to put mandatory health testing in place ....meanwhile the FCI are waiting in the wings with an established recognised 'European compatible' alternative -how can they not see the dangers of ignoring the obvious discrepancy between their message that they put health first and their acceptance of any pedigree dog for registration irrespective of how it was bred and raised ?

At the moment they have a monopoly ..the GSD debacle has begun to change this - if they simply close their eyes and ignore the challenge without changing their policies then just watch the world of pedigree dogs change !

Yvonne

Quite agree, though I do think it would not solve the problem of Puppy Farming one bit, just stop the KC's involvement.

We already have Puppy Farmers registries being used with the general public thinking it is the same as KC, which of course it is if they get a BYB or PF KC pup.

Educating the public with campaigns against PF is the only way, it has worked to a certain extent to raise awareness with Battery Farming, so could well be done with dogs.

I so wish that JH or someone similar had done that first, before pillorying all pedigree dog breeders, the PDE attacked generally the wrong endm abd has made things wo4rse for dogs in general by steering peopel away from KC registration, which may not mean much, but is the only registry used by decent breeders.

Correct me if I am wrong but I always thought the FCI only accepts one organisation per country as member (usually the KC's) and has nothing to do with registration of dogs?

Yes that is correct.  So it would need an alternative KC to be set up who would want to affiliate with the FCI.

Is the UK KC a member of the FCI?

No, it and the American Kennel club being older than FCI as I understand the position don't feel they need to belong to a federation.

Thank you. So there could well be an opening within the FCI for the GSD peeps?

FCI and the UK KC have an agreement of understanding...

regards spenders post the k.c./f.c.i. letter of understanding covers several areas (which may well be against e.u. law)
in that it precludes the fci from accepting uk dogs and uk kennel names for registration unless these are registered with
kc and only with kc approval these may breach eu human rights and eu fair trade laws as a kennels affix is both its "trademark"
and kennels intelectual property and is not the property of kc.
As a GSD owner and member of several clubs that have not signed up to kc's demands I hope to be able to obtain some guidance on these areas from MEP, OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING and relevant body overseeing human rights legislation.
Will post any feedback for those interested in this subject
Stan Berry
  

HUMAN rights? What about the dogs right to a healthy life?

I can't say they don't exist, but I personally don't know any GSD people who don't have the health of their dogs at heart, health screening has really been pioneered in the breed, with breed surveys etc, the KC's view put out there is very one sided but it's a contentious issue and one I don't want to get into, but would be very interested in your findings Stan, thanks :)

The FCI has approved international breeding strategies to enhance canine genetic health.  Approved by the breeding commission in Naples - 23 May 2009. 'Exaggerations should be avoided'

http://www.saluki.fi/liite3.pdf

BTW, forgot to say re the UK KC and the FCI agreement, it is nothing sinister, the FCI signed an agreement with the American Kennel Club and the Canadian Kennel club too.

I think as a "CLUB" the KC can impose whatever restrictions it wants to on it's members. If they say you cannot register un-tested stock with them that is thier right.

But the great overwhelming majority of dog breeders are NOT KC members.

but those that are should at the very least have their breeding stock tested - WHY is the KC not insisting on this? there would be no need for the ABS if KC registration meant more than just accepting money from any breeder irespective of how they breed - at the moment the public are confused about where to go - make the requirements of the ABS mandatory for KC registartion and this would send a clear message to those looking for their next pup.

Some confusion here over the difference between being a member of the Kennel Club, and being a member of the Accredited Breeder Scheme.  Membership of the Kennel Club itself is strictly limited (to about 600 at the moment I think) and only these members have voting rights or any input on the control over the whole of the dog world as run by the KC.  Everyone else has to sign up to abide by the rules every time they enter a show or event, register a litter, but have no input into decision making.  Membership of the ABS means you sign up to an additional set of requirements for breeding (which I think should be pretty much mandatory for any registration anyway) and one of those requirements is that you should have all "required" health tests done, and all breeding animals microchipped.  Because it is an umbrella type of rule, the requirement is jsut that they be tested, not that they shoudl have passed  the relevant health tests!  However being an ABS member does not give you any input into the scheme, although thye do try to put forward the idea that they are willing to listen to suggestions.

I think as a "CLUB" the KC can impose whatever restrictions it wants to on it's members. If they say you cannot register un-tested stock with them that is thier right.

But the great overwhelming majority of dog breeders are NOT KC members.

Yes I know that but my point was that in order to make the "KC REG" mean something and therefore cut a distinction for the public to know good from bad the KC must clean up it's act and back up it's "Fit for function" campagne with real teeth. The debate about BYB and PF is another one altogether, I was replying to the double standards that the KC have and with GSD'S in particular. At hte moment the KC register anything and everything without favour but if it was compulsery to health test and results were easyly available at shows it could do nothing but good.
Aieen

but those that are should at the very least have their breeding stock tested - WHY is the KC not insisting on this?

I agree Yvonne, always have done -my point was rather the KC's excuse is always they can't force people to do it as we are not KC members, unlike almost anywhere else in the world where you MUST be a member of the country's KC in order to show, breed and register pups. They would be so much better off just ding the same, membership open to everyone not just the select few, and only register pups from parents with relevant tests of good enough results.

What are good enough results?  Wd. you enforce that dogs that are tested abroad and used here have x-rays etc. again to the BVA standard?

I have a male whose hipscore was classed as excellent in Spain but not so good here in the UK when I had him done under the BVA scoring system.  He has produced dogs with below breed average scores, his grandson bred in Spain and born over here had the lowest score in the breed for quite some time and many of his offspring abroad have excellent hipscores.

I can't see the KC ever making health testing mandatory for registration.  There would be a huge revenue loss.

This post was originally about GSD's not health testing, the calls for health testing to be made mandatory would be welcomed in GSD circles, the breed clubs have even campaigned for this change.  If health tests are the be all and end all why was the GSD BOB at crufts slated on TV?  It has excellent hip and elbow scores, and I'm pretty sure it has completed a breed survey which includes 20km gaiting endurance test, obedience and temperament tests.

I appreciate the issues concerning the KC and the GSD centre on topline/hind leg angulation exaggerations, this should not be confused with simply health testing.

I appreciate the issues concerning the KC and the GSD centre on topline/hind leg angulation exaggerations, this should not be confused with simply health testing.

true but it makes it a whole lot harder for the KC to argue the case against GSD on on health grounds given their 'anything goes' stance on registration  when it is the GSD folk who lead the world in compulsory testing -

In any case the kc's tactics have not worked- they have  simply split the GSD world even further into two - and with the breaking away of the Germanic type in effect they have given sole control for the future of this breed to the breed clubs - hows THAT for an own goal !!

Yvonne

sorry otterhound, but my dogs all lead a healthy lifestyle and have there health tests done at the appropriate time, as do the dogs of all exhibitors/breeders that I know personally through my club memberships.
The dogs in my breed can be covered by the breed council charter by those signing up to it, incidentally this charter goes far beyond the requirements required by the ABS in protecting the welfare of members dogs so therefore protects there "rights" to a greater extent than any K.C. rules.
In respect of the K.C./F.C.I. letter of understanding if you have not seen it and are not aware of its implications I copy a few extracts for you so that you can consider there implications for all breeds in the future at the K.Cs. whim !

section 2 "and the F.C.I. will give exclusive recognition to the K.Cs. registry in the U.K."

section 3 "no dog born in the U.K. will be registered, or have a pedigree issued, by an F.C.I. member registry unless the dog has been registered by the K.C. in the U.K."

section 6 "The F.C.I. will not sponsor or support any event for dogs within the territory of the U.K. without the express permission of the K.C."

section 10 "Except with the agreement of the K.C. the F.C.I. will not register kennel names of breeders living in the U.K."

These as you can see would tie all U.K. owners of pedigree dogs to the K.Cs. dictates , I would also remind you that as a breed the GSD clubs have consistently called for all health testing to be mandatory and indeed has often been at the forefront in bringing them about, whereas the K.C. has consistently refused to register only pups from health tested parents, where is there concern for "the dogs rights to a healthy life" ?
Stan Berry

From the outside the Kennel Club is rather less to blame for this mess than German Shepherd breeders.  

The fact is the KC can't force compulsory testing from the position it is in at the moment - from the strop many of the GSD fancy threw it can't even force German Shepherd breeders to accept that a dog should be able to move well to win a BoB at Crufts !

Yvonne and Stan, I couldn't agree more, the KC have let the GSD folk down in a bad way.  What worries me is posts such as that by Otterhound (not a dig at you personally otterhound, honestly) because the KC have put out there this image of GSD's who aren't "fit for function" and people outside the breed really think we are creating monsters for the showring.  The KC knows the truth behind this, the campaigning for mandatory health testing that goes beyond the requirements of the ABS, the proposals of a possible 2 tier registration system etc, but it keeps this very quiet and out of the public eye.

I suppose the FCI / KC understanding is allowed simply because they are private clubs, the KC can't legally stop you registering with another club, but the FCI probably won't want to upset the apple cart?

DerbyMac that dog has been placed consistently by a variety of judges, breed specialists and all rounders, are you claiming they were all wrong and you know better?

In the same way judges have been putting up exaggerated Bulldogs, Basset Hounds etc etc for decades yes I am.  To say that show success means a healthy animal fit for function is clearly a joke - a huge number of breeds suffer exaggerations - some of which are less harmful than others but which rarely enhance the animals' life. 

Are you claiming that its movement is acceptable ?    Just look at the footage of it.

Hi Aleen, after reading your post thought you might be interested in reading this taken via the GSD League site.
The Kennel Club clearly illustrate their failure to use the powerful influence the dog shows can exert on breeders,
something which Professor Bateson highlights in his recent report.
In their (the K.C.) reply to a G.S.D. breeder when they were asked the following question :
" We are currently exhibiting a G.S.D. with a hip score of 3-47=50 (authors note this is severe hip dysplasia) we would would be very grateful if you could please clarify for us that if a judge is aware of our dogs hip score, should they penalise him in the showring although he is very sound and displays excellent movement"
The K.C. replied : "In answer to your query, judges ARE ONLY REQUIRED to consider wether a dog is suffering from a VISIBLE condition which adversely affects its health or welfare. Therefore ANY KNOWLEDGE WHICH THE JUDGE MAY HAVE  with regard to the health status of the dog, such as its hip score, SHOULD NOT be taken into account when judging and it would NOT BE APROPRIATE to base ANY JUDGING DECISIONS on such information"
Makes a bit of a mockery of the K.Cs. fit for function fit for life campaign
Stan Berry

>Therefore ANY KNOWLEDGE WHICH THE JUDGE MAY HAVE  with regard to the health status of the dog, such as its hip score, SHOULD NOT be taken into account when judging and it would NOT BE APROPRIATE to base ANY JUDGING DECISIONS on such information"

Unless the judge knows the hipscore of every single dog in the class (especially bearing in mind that such an uneven hipscore is highly likely to be due to environmental causes and not genetic causes) it would be highly unfair to take it into account when judging. All dogs should be judged on exactly the same criteria.

If the dog is visibly unsound it should not be placed. If it's sound then it's fit to perform its function as a dog.

Hi DerbyMerc, regards the BOB Crufts GSD winner that you quote perhaps a few facts on this dog (Lagos) may give you a better appreciation of the facts:
He has successfully completed all his health tests, has excellent hip and elbow ratings, completed his Schutzhund 3 title passed a very thorough Breed Survey AND a 20km gaiting endurance (AD) test, has had DNA tests There are no dogs repeated in his 5 generation pedigree so no inbreeding is obvious.
If only ALL CRUFTS WINNERS could be so well tested/assessed, by the way the clip shown on More 4 was of Lagos as he was negotiating a corner at some speed, not a sedate walk and not on a grass ring as he is more used to!
With regards the K.C. and compulsary testing , this is in fact something they could bring in with reasonable advance notice if they so chose to do, that they have made no start to this end can only be to there discredit
Stan Berry

Well Jeangenie just maybe its
All the more reason for compulsary health testing and results being widely available

I think this is where the definition of unsound is called into question, and I remember reading an article saying as much recently in DW. The term unsound when talking about a horse, means the same as lame ie uneven movement/limping usually through injury, and I would hope any dog unsound in this respect should not be placed, and preferably should be excluded on the day.

With regard to the GSD footage, the dog wa not unsound in this way.  So what is the KC's definition of unsound movement? (I'm presuming it goes back to fit for function), so which aspect of this particular movement makes the dog unfit for function?

  ETA there is a little more footage of the dog on a straight line at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksO_Xb95dbY

Hi Fate , regards K.C./F.C.I. being private clubs and therefore "getting away with it" from memory the working mens clubs which were also private clubs still had to comply with various pieces of legislation E.G. ADMISSION OF WOMEN AS FULL MEMBERS
Stan Berry

>All the more reason for compulsary health testing and results being widely available

Besides, the judge isn't supposed to know which dogs he's judging, so shouldn't be able to consider health results.

As a German national now well into her middle age and as one who's first dog was a GSD - I must say that what is now called German Shepherd is a carricature of its former glorious self. I strongly suggest that you get a copy of " Pflegefall Schäferhund - Vom Ende einer deutschen Legende" or watch it on YouTube. I would never ever get another GSD the way they are now. The GSD clubs have always insisted on getting special "treatment" for their breed and now even ordinary Germans on the street are appalled about the way the breed has gone to "the dogs".

tatty-ead, in what way do I appear to be advertising ? do you consider a person responding to a question by simply stating that "MY" dogs lead a healthy lifestyle and have there health tests done at appropriate time to be advertising ? if so perhaps you should look at some definitions of advertising.
Stan Berry

> in what way do I appear to be advertising ?

By using your affix in your posts you are advertising your dogs - which is against the ToS of the forum.

I fail to see any relevance to the matter being discussed in your nationality, I myself am Scotish that doesnt give me any more insight into
West Highland White Terriers or any other Scotish breed than a person of any other nationality may have. The fact that you have owned one or more (you dont specify ?) G.S.Ds. in the past is a relevant point to include.
Stan Berry

Fair enough, my appoligies to all,thanks for the info Jean genie I was not aware of it.
Stan Berry

Many thanks.
Jeff.

The GSD being called I think has a total hipscore of 6 and 0 elbows,  has done working tests etc. in Europe.  Might not be what we like to see in a dog in general but all breeds move very differently. 

reason for using (incorrectly) my affix was as in one of my breed clubs we have five members with same surname it identifies which Berry is adding that post
regards
Stan Berry

That anyone thinks that video shows acceptable movement sums up the problem and why the KC can not leave the breed clubs to put their own house in order.   To quote the hip scores is irrelevant - nobody is saying that the dog has hip dysplasia.  

I don't know what working tests that dog has passed but I know that an animal constructed like that couldn't physically do the work of a shepherd dog.