Could anyone please tell me what health tests are needed in Cockers. A friend of mine is looking for a pup and I would like to find a good one for her. It need not be show quality, but obviously the health is important. I have checked the KC website and there are many litters available. Also, do we have to be aware of 'cocker rage syndrome'?
Many Thanks

The old rage syndrom is nearly defunct now, Id recommend a pedigree have a look at the lines, a Bitcon, Lynwater ect... Need it be a show type or a working? they are very different, I just followed the KC guide lines. But one thing, they are such a "needy" dog leave them alone to much and they get sad and bad tempered they are only really happy when sat on or with you. Mine gets at least and hour a day walking and swimming and he can keep up with a BC, and walk further.

The cocker spaniel chat line is good and they can advise further, but its worth waiting for a good line the temperment is better.

It depends who you speak to as to which health tests 'should' be in place, and be aware that there is a definite split between working and show lines.  I know a number of people with working cockers who have never had problems associated with some of the tests now recommended by the KC, and it does beg the question why so many tests are suddenly being recommended and what proportion of dogs are affected??  Definitely worth researching and asking cocker breeders to get a feel for which tests and why, and are certain health problems associated with the differing sides, I know that has been the case with Labradors in the past. 

Cocker rage was associated with some solid colours in specific lines (and I hope I don't get shot down in flames here) but as I understand it, these were show lines, and the problem has really been bred out.  Unfortunately, any grumpy cocker is now labelled as having cocker rage, although the condition (as I understand it) also exists in other breeds, albeit as a very small percentage.  That's where the temperament part of breeding plays a major part. 

Good luck in your search, I help look after a few of the working variety and they are fabulous little characters, if a little tiring!! 

The Kc accredited breeder scheme requires( must be done) breeders to, Eye test, DNA test for prcd-PRA and DNA test for FN which is Familial nephropathy.  Then there are recommendations for hipscoring and goinoscopy.

Thank you all for your replies, I really hadn't thought of the difference in the show and working lines. As much as I like the working 'type', I think the show 'type' would be the way to go. At least now we know what questions to ask re health.

She can have my showtype then!  Never again!!
  Actually, I think you will find that a large number of breeds still aren't doing the health checks.  Most of the stud dogs are checked but the owners then let them go to untested bitches?!  This is because they know they will loss the business as there are so many pet owners (untested) would use their dogs.  I also got told that the roan line doesn't carry the HD so they don't need to be health checked!  Absolute tosh!  Eye check is a absolute must as that is such a problem in the breed as you will see with many tears and the amount of blind breeding cockers.
Rage syndrome is just angry, frustrated cockers with no manners being taken to a vet who screams RAGE every time he sees an out-of-control cocker.  This really angers me.  Rage syndrome is totally different from an aggressive dog.  Rage is more like a seiziure as the dog acts right out of character.  Anyway it is practically unheard of these days as it was bred out of the lines.
As for working v show?  That is the age old debate.  My preference?  A good, small, working springer!!lol
Good luck.

I wouldn't call any stud dog owner who allowed the use of his dog on untested (as in not hip scored or eye tested) stock as ethical. 

As for using a DNA tested clear dog on untested bitches that si slighlty different as no affected offsprign can be produced only clear or pssobly carrier (if the bitch is a carrier).

The aim is to produce ghelathy stock, though it is preferable that both parties are DNA tested, the puppy buyer should they wish to breed has that option.

> I wouldn't call any stud dog owner who allowed the use of his dog on untested (as in not hip scored or eye tested) stock as ethical.

Me neither. Unfortunately in Cockers we have large numbers of breeders producing puppies for the pet market who are only interested in the breed for the money it can make them. Most reputable show breeders do the recommended health tests and I know plenty who do not allow their stud dogs to be used on untested bitches (those that are only interested in the stud fees will of course not care and will not even ask any questions of the bitch owner)

I have a preference for the working type, simply because I help look after a few of the little blighters from time to time, the girls love having them round to play, honest......

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc182/JoanneEl/Champdogs/IMG_5590.jpg

I know three working cockers and they are all kept busy working but not as gundogs. One is a Lowland Search and Rescue dog - beautiful temparment and exceedingly well trained, second dog is just a  youngster and about to start training with LSAR and third dog is also young but will compete in agility when he is older.

http://www.workingcockerhealthscreendirectory.com/healthissues.htm  This site lists the health tests for the breed.

That site lists the same as the KC recommendations I think, but I don't think you'll find many experienced working cocker folk doing all of those tests, because they haven't seen many of the problems in their lines (I believe).  Hence my query with the first answer I posted, I'm not sure just exactly how much of a problem some of those health issues are with either side of the cocker divide, and I know at least two people who've left that site and asked for their details to be removed because of the contentious issues surrounding the health tests that are being recommended. 

I don't think you can assume that because many breeders don't test their Working Cockers that there are no problems in those lines. It's easy to say you have no problems if you don't test ;-) Testing ensures you know the status of your dogs before breeding - it's a bit late after you breed. Other breed specific forums where pet owners of Working Cockers post shows that some issues like hip dysplasia, slipping patellas, entropion etc do crop up in working strain dogs and there are known carriers of prcd_PRA also in working lines. These issues may not be common but they will become more common if breeders stick their heads in the sand and pretend they're not there (this applies to any breeder of Cockers whether show or working)

quite agree. 

My own breed has been very responsible for donkeys years with all KC registered dogs bred by people in the breed club (the majority, we get just one or two back yard bred litters from time to time, but these days these are mostly no longer KC reg) eye testing annually.

In the 20 years I have been with the breed we have had 4 cases of PRA.  We finally got a DNA test for the form we were seeing at the end of 2008, and it was quite a shock to some to realise how many dogs turned out to be carriers considering how few were found to be clinically affected.

Reasons for this would be that
a) it is late onset, so unlikely to be picked up by a pet owner
b) as few litters are bred and any one dog/bitch produces few litters the chances of one carrier being mated to another and then the statistically likely one in four affected dogs being owned by an exhibitor/breeder who tests it up to clinical signs being seen.

I don't disagree, but the working cocker fraternity are quite 'close knit' and some won't touch certain lines because they believe there's too much other spaniel in there, and they really do know their stuff.  Obviously they all came out of the field type spaniel initially, but the people I know with working cockers don't undertake hip scores, they do the relevant eye tests, and count most important the gonioscopy and bva current clear eye cert, some test for pra but not if they haven't had a problem with their lines. 

As regards hip scores, if you don't have a problem within a breed overall (and I know this is going to be controversial) then I don't see the need to risk putting your dog through a ga just to prove you don't have a problem.  If you have regular problems occurring, then yes, but that's where you need to have accurate data recording just how often these problems crop up, to show whether it is, or is becoming a problem within a breed. 

No-one I know with working cockers does the test for FN, they simply haven't had any problems, maybe some do I obviously only know a handful, and again, that's down to accurate recording of instances, and making that data available. 

How many KC cocker spaniels are there, how many have these problems, is it actually a significant problem that we need to test for, is it only affecting certain lines?  Because if we did every test brought out for breeds, at the end of the day, the only real people benefiting are people we pay to do the tests.  And we end up with lots of data telling us what we knew really in the first place, it's not that much of a problem, or it is that much of a problem.  And in some instances, the tests aren't all that conclusive (thinking EIC for Labradors here) and the mode of inheritance for some isn't reallyl confirmed yet over a number of generations, nor is the integrity of the test (thinking again of Labs and the initial PRA results). 

> As regards hip scores, if you don't have a problem within a breed overall (and I know this is going to be controversial) then I don't see the need to risk putting your dog through a ga just to prove you don't have a problem.  If you have regular problems occurring, then yes, but that's where you need to have accurate data recording just how often these problems crop up, to show whether it is, or is becoming a problem within a breed.

But how do you get accurate data if the majority of breeders don't have their dogs hipscored? I know someone who had a GR who had no outward physical signs of HD -her dog could scale walls etc but when she had him hip scored she found that he had scores at the top end of the scale and was shocked at the results. If breeders bury their heads in the sand and don't test the true picture - whether that be there is a problem in the breed or there isn't - can never be known.

That is a cop out, I know of field trail bred ESS that have severe HD, but the breeder says it isn't an issue, and of course they don't score.

A dog can be scored with a light sedative.

Replying to both of you, that's the problem, unless you hip scored every dog within a breed, you wouldn't know; if you have in depth information of certain lines, you would have better knowledge, in some respects, better knowledge than something a piece of paper tells you.  With a numerically small breed, you get more of an idea of a problem that crops up and may be a problem, and it's easier to health test.  For a numerically large breed, like Labs and cockers, it's not as easy; ask anyone a breed they associate with hip problems, and they'll say Labradors most likely, and yet overall, they're actually pretty healthy.  The majority of poorly bred animals with hip problems are pet/byb/puppy farmer bred, where they bung two dogs together without health testing, or if they do, without researching the lines behind it. 

Brainless, why is it a cop out?  Having had a bitch go through a GA and a sedative because the vet mucked the first plates up for elbow grading, I wouldn't put any dog through that if it didn't warrant it. 

I've said it before, I'm all for health testing WHEN IT'S NECESSARY; I'm not for lining the pockets of people who health test and promote health testing for the sake of it, and I don't think of dogs as a genetic tick list for clears, I think of them as animals, that will, despite any efforts, have health defects of some kind.  Some may occur during the life time of the animal, others may not, some we know about now, the majority we don't, and we may well end up in an ethical dead end when we try unsuccessfully in a few years time to juggle twenty or thirty health test results for one breed, and realise it's impossible to breed clear of every condition going.  With seven current health tests available for Labradors, and at least that amount in the pipeline, we're not that far off with some breeds.

Apols to the OP for the slightly OT posts, but I think my point is, you need to find out more about what and why some of the health tests are being recommended, don't just accept a clear tick sheet as being ethical, or a good recommendation for a breeder. 

> I'm all for health testing WHEN IT'S NECESSARY;

How do you know whether or not it's necessary if people don't bother to do it? An individual can be suffering pain but be very stoical and not show it.

How do you know it's necessary until you do test?  So do you just test, despite no overall reported problem within a breed?  Damned if you do and damned if you don't really. 

> the girls love having them round to play, honest......
>
>

Oh WOW!  What a really super photo - thank you for sharing, really brought a smile to my face.

>So do you just test, despite no overall reported problem within a breed?

That's just about it. :-) Only when you've tested a reasonable proportion then can you honestly say that any particular condition isn't more prevalent within a breed than it in the general population. Without testing you'll never know; ostrich syndrome.

Or, if you know your lines, and have had dogs for a number of years with no problems?? Health testing certainly has it's place, but I think a lot of knowledge will be lost for a piece of paper, and people will rely on the current status of the two parents, instead of the knowlege behind different dogs that was there before we had any health tests. 

He's fab isn't he, full of himself!! 

Quote Tarimoor: "Or, if you know your lines, and have had dogs for a number of years with no problems?? Health testing certainly has it's place, but I think a lot of knowledge will be lost for a piece of paper, and people will rely on the current status of the two parents, instead of the knowlege behind different dogs that was there before we had any health tests." 

Why are you saying that it has to be one thing or the other? Surely the best way is to use ALL of the available information and then to make an informed decision?

No, I'm saying use all of the information, for people who have been breeding cockers for many years, without any problems within the lines they have bred, why do they need to suddenly hip score, or use the FN test?  Where has this come from? 

Health testing on it's own tells us the status of the dog in front of us, and that isn't necessarily guaranteed, going by the past health tests that have been introduced for different breeds.  Without going into it too deeply, I do know that a few of the people from the link earlier in the thread, thoroughly health test their dogs, but neither work nor show them, but are, apparently considered ethical breeders.  I beg to differ, I think that years of knowledge, combined with RELEVANT health testing, makes a better breeder, not someone who just uses every test available because it's there.  That's why I would want to know if/what/why re the health tests that have appeared over the last couple of years for this breed, CNM illustrates this for Labradors, it was the MUST DO test a couple of years ago, and yet it isn't actually that much of a problem within the breed overall. 

> Why are you saying that it has to be one thing or the other? Surely the best way is to use ALL of the available information and then to make an informed decision?

Exactly - the two are not mutually exclusive. Breeders can still use their knowledge of their dogs and their dogs' ancestors and also make use of the scientific tools now available to enable them to breed the best and healthiest dogs possible. None of the recommended tests for Cockers (the breed asked about here, not Labs) are at all spurious or relate to conditions unheard in the breed.

Just looking at hip scores - Cockers have a range of scores of 0 - 96 and a BMS of 14: RRs have a range of scores of 0 - 88 and a BMS of 11 and I'd insist on a bitch being scored if someone wanted to use my dog, and I'd insist on parents being scored if I was buying a puppy. The KC's Health Test Search is proving very useful for reseaching scores.

If I was buying a Cocker, I'd want one from scored parents and scored dogs further back in the pedigree.

That depends on the dogs that are scored, which you won't necessarily be able to find out unless you can get hold of someone with a database of cockers that have hip scores, and are willing to trawl through to see if there's any split between the different 'types'.  Not that I'm saying it ain't worth it, before anyone jumps down my throat, but it'd be interesting to know who is having their dogs scored, and what the background is for these dogs. 

If I was buying a cocker, those are the questions I'd be asking, and I wouldn't be relying on the low scores of the parents to give me a pup without any problems. 

> If I was buying a cocker, those are the questions I'd be asking, and I wouldn't be relying on the low scores of the parents to give me a pup without any problems.

Well that's the case in any breed - there are never any guarantees of getting a pup without problems but breeders who do test are at least doing their best and are shown to be doing their best to produce healthy pups. You seem to be trying to persuade anyone looking for a Cocker puppy not to pay too much attention to health testing which is very depressing in this day and age when breeders are increasingly under the microscope by the "powers that be".

If you're really interested in researching this further, the KC can supply health reports for hip scoring, eye testing etc BUT they do not show the true picture in Cockers as only a relatively small number of dogs have been scored to date. Also many affected pet dogs are not scored - their condition is discovered when they develop clinical symptoms, some at a very young age (and of course their breeders all say "I've never had that problem in my dogs before")

Tarimoor, I kind of get what you mean.  I bought a dog(not cocker) from fully tested parents and his HD was so bad, one of his hip joints had no socket to attatch to.  I bought another dog from fully tested parents and he had severe OCD.  Tested doesn't mean you don't get the problem, it just lessens the chances, apparently! but....I also know a lot of working dogs with problems.  The working guys think that just because there actual dog doesn't suffer, it's not in there lines.  Cockers and springers all over the country are suffering because these people(breeders) are not testing.  I firmly believe that ALL breeding dogs should be tested.  No exceptions at all.  If you want to register your puppies then they should have to come from tested parents!!

As all breeds can have HD (includign wolves), and ocular problems are pretty universal, in my opinion the minimum health testing should be hips and eyes, then you get breed specific.

What is it with some breeders saying 'I know my lines, there is no problem'.... Have they kept up to date with all their puppy owners to know this? When using a sire that isn't your own in a breeding programme, you are only going on what that owner is saying about the dog if no health tests are done.
Often you'll find that some pairings don't go well together and its only when the puppies are born and growing up do you see a problem.
What about eye issues? You may say nothing in my lines, but yours could be carriers and then you go and put your bitch to a dog who's not been tested and low and behold he's a carrier too :-(
Even if health tests are done, you may know your lines, but genetics can play a funny game and bring things up you may not even come across before, so i'm sorry but to not health test is not good enough in this day and age.
Temperament and health should be a priority before anything else in a breeding programme otherwise we are setting up the breeds to fail badly...

This is not in direct play to Brainless.

Answering briefly, and not just to you suejaw, but I'm on my second glass of red after a busy day, but yes, they do know their lines inside and out. 

Just to give the other side of the coin, I know of a lovely woman with a fab Lab bitch, brilliant health test results, used a fab stud dog, brilliant health test results, all the progeny tested have incredibly high hip scores. 

Why oh why, if you know your dog lines, if you don't have any problems associated with them, are you deemed unclean for not hip scoring?  It makes me so cross that health testing boils down to knowing the results, surely it should be more about knowing your dog, and that is a helluva lot more than knowing what the health test results are! 

> It makes me so cross that health testing boils down to knowing the results, surely it should be more about knowing your dog, and that is a helluva lot more than knowing what the health test results are!

You don't seem to be hearing what we're saying - it should be both, knowledge of your dogs combined with sensible use of the health testing tools available.

It's not a choice of one or the other; the wise breeder uses all available knowledge and information, and doesn't neglect methods of learning more.

> I know of a lovely woman with a fab Lab bitch, brilliant health test results, used a fab stud dog, brilliant health test results, all the progeny tested have incredibly high hip scores.

What were the grandparents' hip scores, and those of the siblings of dog and bitch? It's all needed to know whether the lines are generally low scoring or if the two low-scoring individuals are simply lucky blips in a line of otherwise poor scorers.