Just seen an advert for my breed (medium size pastoral) in which the mum will be one month off her ninth birthday when the pups are born and her hip score is 6-13 (average for my breed is 13 total and this is quite an unbalanced score). Feel sorry for the dog (and potential puppy owners if there are any hip problems in the future), is it me?

The KC won't register the pups. They only give permission to bitches over 8 in exceptional circumstances and I doubt they'd consider a higher than average hip score good enough to qualify.

Has she had other litters and have they had uneven scores?  We don't know the full story, has she been shown, have her pups ever been shown and have they done well?  If she has produced exceptional pups with good health tests then the KC may have accepted registration of the litter.

As long as they were asked before the event ...

The breeder is purely on the working side and the bitch competes in trials. Her last litter was 5 years ago. I have seen the odd one from the breeder's lines go to obedience homes (not successfully) and I don't think they are seen much in the breed ring as they are often unusual colours/unusually marked.   

> The breeder is purely on the working side and the bitch competes in trials.

I guess if they have applied to the KC for a late breeding that would go in her favour as demonstration that her clinical score is not affecting her mobility. 
As I understand it an uneven score can often be attributed to injury rather than genetics.  It certainly does not sound as though she has been overbred if her last litter was 5 years ago. Perhaps just a delay due to her working career  so again that would probably go in favour of the mating being allowed..
I don't think too many breeds have their working lines appearing in the show ring.  Again, if they are good workers I do not see any great problem in that.

> Just seen an advert for my breed (medium size pastoral) in which the mum will be one month off her ninth birthday when the pups are born and her hip score is 6-13

As with so many other things in this life I think the answer is it depends. If the bitch is otherwise fit and well. If it is not her first litter. If the is an identifiable reason for the uneven hip score such as an injury. And if there is something special this mating can give to the breed then it might not be such a bad thing.

Never say never but I don't think I would want to breed from a bitch beyond the age of 6, they are far too precious to me to risk. And yes, I know it's a risk each time you breed, but why influence the odds. I re-read the website and the dog doesn't compete, so not a profilic winner, tho' I can see that being a good working dog doesn't always have to extend to proving your worth in competition. I just think it's far too old to be breeding. (There is nothing beside the hip score to say the bitch could have a high one because of injury, almost like it doesn't matter or is hoping that people don't pick up on it.)

Who said the pups will be registered? If not then there is nothing but morality to stop people breeding. If it says on advert pups KC reg then must have permission but if not my guess would be pups not to be registered. And christmas is on the way!! Cynical I know but seen it soooo many times, got a client here at mo who has 2 terriers who are terrible examples of their breed congential defects the lot. Has she neutered either dog? No, when I ask why I get a load of rubbish back about hip issues in the bitch preventing spaying. Rubbish she just wants pups to sell as she doesn't keep the dogs a part when bitch is in season,and pleaded ignorance to knowing the bitch was in season when dropped off with me!! It's her 3rd season I reckon she knows by now.

OK guess I have a slightly different perspective to offer on this. I wouldn't want to knowingly breed at this age, however could have been unintentional, could have been a planned mating. KC registration may mean tiddly squat if a working dog. Without appearing rude :-O KC registrations really mean tiddly squat to me too, the working register (ISDS) is what's important. Whilst I can register any of my pups, & future pups, with the KC, if I lose ISDS status in future generations I can only get it with a lot of hard work. As it is we are dual registered but I didn't use KC reg dog for my last litter - all KC registered.

If a working dog & even if no major trials accomplishments, people will still breed from proven good workers producing proven good workers, and quite rightly so. A good farm dog is a very different creature to a good trials dog, though there are some that excel at both.

Hip score may be down to injury. Whilst there are more successful trials dogs being scored this is usually the ones that have been so successful they are in demand for use at stud overseas. The European working/competing dogs tend to require scoring. It's not the norm within the working community to score here.

Blow, working on an ipod with difficulty!!

If bitch is under 9 yrs at time of pups birth, then they're eligible for KC reg based on age then, aren't they? Assuming they're BCs and not working sheepdogs (ie BCs who lost their ISDS) status.

I produce unusual colours and markings, and am sure we'll get kicked out the show ring when I venture in, but by golly I produce exceedingly beautiful, and clever, doggies :-D

>If bitch is under 9 yrs at time of pups birth, then they're eligible for KC reg based on age then, aren't they?

No, the KC regulation says registration won't normally be granted if "c) The bitch has already reached the age of eight years at the date of whelping, " That means that if the bitch has had her 8th birthday then she's too old for pups to be registered. She must be over 1 year and under 8 years, not under 9.

OK ta, wasn't sure & couldn't be bothered to check Kc site. Whilst I'm an ace typist I dont find one fingered typing on an ipod 6" in front of my nose too easy :-)

> I produce unusual colours and markings, and am sure we'll get kicked out the show ring when I venture in,

You should not get kicked out for colour alone, as all the colours are equally acceptable, even if the majority of winning dogs are Black and white.

It's like in Staffords the majority of winning dogs appear to be dark brindle, but pieds (fell in love with a yougn male at SWKA yesterday) reds etc are equally acceptable, there are just fewer top winning ones, same in other breeds where various colours are allowed.

For example most winning whippets seem to be Fawn or brindle self or particoloured, but there are more of those.

> The European working/competing dogs tend to require scoring. It's not the norm within the working community to score here.

It really should be, and I get very cross at the lax attitude among the working disciplines I meet through friends over health issues and the flawed belief that only 'show dogs' have health issues that need testing for.

Very true and any buyer can sue under the Sale of Goods Act because the health tests are there to help people make educated decisions before they breed. People excuse themselves by saying 'Well, he must have good hips because he can clear a five bar gate/run all day' but Dr Malcolm Willis said dogs with hip dysplasia can muscle up to compensate for this. And you can't tell if eyes etc are perfect unless you have a cystal ball.

An older dog in my breed in the USA fell off a second storey balcony on his owners house before the railings had been built, and dislocated his hip. 

His hip kept coming out of the socket causing pain, so the vet decided to cut the head of the femur off and the dog had no hip at all, and the muscle kept his leg in place and he was sound at 12 years old running around the large property.

It's not the belief only show lines have hip problems. I think it's much more a distrust of the scoring system & whether it has achieved anything, but mainly I think it's very much a case of trusting the lines - they see generation after generation working the high mountains to a ripe old age & with no stiffness/mobility problems. I am only generalising & in my area of knowledge, there are exceptions. I honestly fall within the two camps of thought!!

Re trusting the scoring achieving anything it is really worth reading the KC health group report http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/10884/doghealthgroupannualreport2010.pdf . 

There are rolling five year stats for hips that show that in the majority of breeds each five year mean score is lower than before especially in breeds where ti was high to start with.

So despite it's polygenic nature by scoring generation by generation and making decisions based on the pattern of scores in the pedigree (not relying purely on parental results) does reap rewards.

The USA use a different grading system, but the same can be found with them that the number of excellents have increased and more importantly the number of clinically dysplastic results have decreased.  Though the US position allows for a huge amount of pre-screening as they can have several go's at getting the result with a prelim score under 24 months.