We have just removed a breeder from Champdogs.

The breeder in question had bred a carrier to an untested stud dog. When the breeder saw that the health test results would be on the litter page they asked for the litter to be removed from Champdogs.

And when asked about the stud dog's health test results the breeder said :

"this dog does not belong to me so I am unable to comment further"

Surely the breeder should have checked all health test results with the stud dog owner prior to the mating ?

A subsequent check of the KC site has revealed the stud dog has already sired an affected dog so he must either be affected or a carrier.

I dare say the litter will be advertised elsewhere and sold. But at least we at Champdogs are not helping another irresponsible breeder to profit.

Well done. Champdogs has a good reputation and ousting the irresponsible money makers will help maintain it.

Well done for being so vigilent and keeping Champdogs free from such people - we really do appreciate it.

Well done. If you intend to breed then you should be made aware of all health tests, though there are many 'pet' owner/breeders who are unaware. If you own a stud dog you should make sure that your dog is tested and that the bitch has had ALL her tests done too. If not then say no.

A lot of people still think that having your dog health tested just means a trip to your local vet. Why aren't they made more aware, through television if need be, that health testing really means check out what your breed needs and go to the specialists.

Good on you Mark, there's just no excuse for that sort of breeding and dogdom doesn't need that sort of breeder.

Do you know if this person is a KC accredited breeder, or whatever the new term is,? If they are, you could report this matter to the Kennel Club. It's about all that can be done sadly.

Dawn R.

Well done!!!!!!!!!!

I have a carrier bitch myself, its my first priority to mate to a genetic clear dog.
Would not dream of poking in the dark!

Well done and it is good to know that you are being so vigilant. I am sure it will inspire confidence in puppy buyers who visit this site.

>Surely the breeder should have checked all health test results with the stud dog owner prior to the mating

Absolutely.. I have an 'all clear' kennel for PRCD/pra,( both by parentage and DNA tested) I have even tested a third gen. clear by parentage to make sure we are keeping the results true, and would STILL check the stud dogs' details before mating.

Well done Mark, this is how it should be!

Well done, it's a shame other sites aren't as vigilant.

I have a carrier dog, he will not be used at stud again (it was a new test that only came out in August) in my breed there are so many good dogs I dont see the point of even breeding carrier to clear as that still produces carriers, I personally think we would be better off breeding it out completely by only breeding from clear dogs (although I cant ever see that happening !)

> A lot of people still think that having your dog health tested just means a trip to your local vet. Why aren't they made more aware, through television if need be, that health testing really means check out what your breed needs and go to the specialists.

Sadly most vets and their staff are not a lot of help there either, most knowing very little about the health schemes and certainly not being pro active in advertising them and making clients aware of their existence/importance.

When I have asked about a list of eye panelists at various vets local to me I was met with blank expressions.

Ditto when insisting that they include KC registered naems as how else would they marry up test results (where a copy goes to your vet) with correct records.

> in my breed there are so many good dogs I dont see the point of even breeding carrier to clear as that still produces carriers, I personally think we would be better off breeding it out completely by only breeding from clear dogs (although I cant ever see that happening !)

Actually that is not the best approach from a genetic point of view as you are not only throwing the baby out with the bathwater (after all carriers are perfectly healthy dogs), but you are narrowing already narrow gene pools even further.

The geneticist advice is to replace GOOD Carrier animals by an equally good or better clear offspring.  Thereby not loosing the genetic diversity but breeding out the deleterious gene.

Over time the proportion of carriers will be reduced to negligible levels and only then can a breed decide that the gene pool is diverse enough, and has not lost representation of as may lines as possible before deciding to exclude carriers.

Yes by using a carrier you will produce more carriers, but you will also produce as many clears to represent those breeding lines, rather than loosing them altogether.

many liens have disappeared and genetic diversity been lost not just through popular sire use but through dropping lines connected to negative traits, as there was not other safe way of avoiding an issue.

The beauty of the DNA tests (the ones that identify the actual gene, not the marker tests) is that all dogs of merit can be safely utilised in a breeding program without producing affected offspring.

This allows for positve selection, rather than negative.

All living things carry negative traits, and if we remove all those associated with them, son there will be nothing left to breed from, and other negatives emerge from what is left.

Barbara, that is one of the best posts I have read on Champdogs in a long time.

And Dawn R the shocking thing is that this breeder in question is a KC assured breeder, an A1 judge and a member of numerous breed clubs !

then they certainly need reporting to the KC ABS manager.

I am surprised the litter has passed muster with being registered with the KC (perhaps they haven't been yet) as I know that the KC will check that both parents have had the required health testing done, even when using and overseas stud with different testing bodies.

Even though I sent in the Internationally accepted DNA results for the dog I used in USA I also had to demonstrate that Hips had been tested (the bitch of course had been tested in UK).

Well done Mark and thankyou.
I
will never be a breeder but when I go looking for my next dog its good to know there are people like you looking after our interests.

If only we could make sure people looked in the right places and checked out the right things.

Every Vet surgery should have the ABS health testing requirements for every breed on a poster.

When Mrs Smith with fluffy has her vet checked as she wants to breed a litter she should be advised strongly that the expensive health testing should be done or forget it. 

Many back yard breeders have no idea the harm they do to a breed, not as individuals but collectively, in some ways a breed suffers more from BYB breeding ignorantly than puppy farming where it is the breeding stock that suffers most.

Breeders who know better and don't do the right thing are of course even worse.

It's a shame all breeders do not publish their dogs health test results either as of course some of the testing companies cannot have their results issued on the KC website.  I don't understand why people can't be honest and open, if they do have carriers or even affecteds if it's a newly found out health problem it is not their fault and they should just publish their dogs test results.

This test in question is a relatively new one for this specific breed and it is not on even on the ABS recomended tests list. So it is not something the KC would do anything about. However that is beside the point.

> I don't understand why people can't be honest and open, if they do have carriers or even affecteds if it's a newly found out health problem it is not their fault and they should just publish their dogs test results.

I agree.

Earlier this year we saw problems in another breed where breeders have recently started to elbow grade their dogs (the test is on the KC ABS recommended list). Some litters and stud dogs were added where one of the elbow scores was 2 (we won't allow litters to be listed on Champdogs if either parent has an elbow score of 2 or greater, similarly a dog with a score of 2 can not be listed at stud).

The people whose litters and stud dogs were removed complained that they were being discriminated against and said those who did not test had an advantage. To a certain extent they had a point however if you are genuinely breeding to improve the breed you should perform all the tests you know about and certainly not ignore the results if they do not suit.

One breeder even threatened to stop elbow scoring her dogs if a bad result meant that she could no longer list her stud dogs on Champdogs !

> This test in question is a relatively new one for this specific breed and it is not on even on the ABS recomended tests list.

Is this test still under debate then?  Would it not be better to wait until the KC health committee have assessed the viability of the test. 

> One breeder even threatened to stop elbow scoring her dogs if a bad result meant that she could no longer list her stud dogs on Champdogs !

Well I would not stop testing but I think I see her point.  Openness is to be encouraged and scores should alway be taken holistically along side what ever other issues need to be considered within a particular breed. 
It is the responsibility of ever breeder to evaluate in an informed way as possible when considering a stud dog. 
The Kennel Club have veterinary resources that allow them to decide if any particular result has to be regarded as essential for any particular breed and have, accordingly, made this a requirement in registering a litter in certain breeds but by no means all test results are treated in this way.  I am not sure that Champdogs have similar resources so not sure that working outside the KCs findings is necessary.   Following the KC guidelines would seem more foolproof to me.

Sometimes things are not black and white.     We recently had a working cocker litter.   Our bitch had been eye tested, including gonioscopy, which is not asked for in the KC requirements for cockers, as I had seen a pup from someone else's litter badly affected.     It was most important to me to use a dog whose ability had been totally proven in the field(ie a FTCh), and whose lines complemented those of my bitch.        There are absolutely no FTCh stud dogs that I either wanted or needed to use who had been eye tested, let alone DNA tested, so it was Hobson's choice to use an 'untested' FTCh.

After correspondence with the KC, it was agreed that the litter registration would be allowed  on condition that I advised the new owners in writing that the stud dog was not tested, and that I approached them (the KC) if the same problem arose in the future.      As I am an assured breeder, this seemed a sensible way forward.

I'm not sure if this is the only breed with such a scenario .     I'm pretty sure that working cockers don't suffer to the same degree as their show brothers and sisters, but what to do when the 'big boys' in the working side all refuse screening?

There are of course, others who do health test, but the majority are 'companion' working cocker breeders whose dogs are not proven to the degree I needed.

As an aside, with flatcoats we have had a problem with one particular DNA test which was proven not reliable, so who calls the shots with the integrity of these testing laboratories?

Jo

> As an aside, with flatcoats we have had a problem with one particular DNA test which was proven not reliable, so who calls the shots with the integrity of these testing laboratories?
>

This is what I had in mind.  Without being rude to Mark :) I think the Kennel Club are better placed to make these decisions.

> We have just removed a breeder from Champdogs

If you are clear about your rules and guidelines for allowing breeders and litters to be listed on your site then I would expect that you need to remove people from time to time, and those same people need to know that you are being vigilant.

What I'm not too sure about though is the need for you to then raise it for discussion on the forum...

Are you looking for vindication?

Jo, I completely agree there is not always black and white in certain areas. I have spent a good deal of time this weekend researching PHPV, now that is one condition where there are lots of shades of grey !

And without a doubt the KC have more resources available to them than we at Champdogs do, but simply having more resources does not neccessarily mean they make better or more informed decisions (4 litters limit)

One thing I find frustrating is the KC lists the required and recommended tests for the ABS scheme. What they don't however provide (as far as I can see) are any rules or even guidance on how to use the results of those tests. It would appear on the face of it you could breed carrier to carrier and the litter would still be registered. I am happy to be corrected if anyone can point me to the relevant info.

Jo I would also be interested to know which DNA test which was proven to be unreliable in Flatcoats.

> (we won't allow litters to be listed on Champdogs if either parent has an elbow score of 2 or greater, similarly a dog with a score of 2 can not be listed at stud).

Now this is music to my ears as I honestly now don't believe any dog should be bred from with an elbow score of 2 or above..
However I do wonder if breeders and owners don't submit the scores do you go onto the KC site to check on them? They could just omit the results if they are a 2 for instance and make out that they haven't been scored..?

>What they don't however provide (as far as I can see) are any rules or even guidance on how to use the results of those tests.

I think you have to consider JoFlatcoats point that it is not black and white and that reputable breeders must be able to use broad judgements taking everything into consideration.  Where appropriate results are essential the Kennel Club has incorporated them into a requirement for registration.

>And without a doubt the KC have more resources available to them than we at Champdogs do, but simply having more resources does not neccessarily mean they make better or more informed decisions (4 litters limit)

I'm not sure what you mean.  They made that amendment as a direct result of the advice from their Dog Health board.

> Where appropriate results are essential the Kennel Club has incorporated them into a requirement for registration.

Have you got a link to that document ?
I am interested to read if it has specific recomendations for specific conditions.

I am not wishing to bash the KC in this thread as I actually think they are finally waking up and that their ABS scheme is getting better. However the point I was making about the 4 litters rule is that we at Champdogs, despite far less resources, have had the same rule in place years before the KC adopted it. Similarly the KC will still register puppies from dams a little over 12 months old whereas Champdogs will not, and hopefully in time the KC will change that as well.

> Have you got a link to that document ?
> I am interested to read if it has specific recomendations for specific conditions.

One example http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=911

With respect Mark it is very easy to set the perameters high but to have credibility it has to be evidence based.  The Kennel Club took advise from their Health Committee who in turn seek advise from Veterinary bodies.
Regarding the age of dam issue there was a recent thread where this was discussed and several posters pointed out that for some breeds the younger age is desirable due to anotomical changes. 
For these breeds there really is no physiological reason to wait longer than their physical maturity but if you have any evidence from your research to suggest differently I would also be interested in seeing it :)
The Kennel Club recognise the needs of different breeds and I don't see any suggestion that will be changed any time soon.

> One example http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=911

Thanks. The problem with the KC site, as with many large sites, is that it is often very difficult to find the information you are looking for (have you ever tried to find anything on the IBM site for example).

> it is very easy to set the perameters high but to have credibility it has to be evidence based

It is actually far easier to set your parameters low just look at some of the other popular all breed dog websites around :-)
However in all seriousness sometimes no is evidence required. Gut instinct says if you breed more than 4 litters from a single bitch then you are just breeding for the money. Those are not the sort of people we want to have on Champdogs.

> The Kennel Club recognise the needs of different breeds

The KC 12 month rule for dams is a blanket rule for all breeds as far as I am aware. We at Champdogs use 24 months unless the national breed club specifies differently as we recognise that the members of the breed clubs know far more than we are ever likely to know about their own specific breed.

Personally I don't find the Kennel Club site too tricky but it is a very large one with a great deal of information.  I don't know what the IBM site is so I am not sure I would find anything there :-D

> The KC 12 month rule for dams is a blanket rule for all breeds as far as I am aware.

Not for their Assured Breeders.

> we recognise that the members of the breed clubs know far more than we are ever likely to know about their own specific breed.

Good to hear it :) 

>Personally I don't find the Kennel Club site too tricky

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din! :-D

What's tricky?  They have drop down menus on all the major subjects relating to dogs and when you have made your selection you can have a glorious time reading all the related articles to the right hand side.  All else fails you have a little searchy box :)
Got to be as easy as finding the Champdogs Diary:-D

Admin edit: added link to the diary just incase you can't find it. Come on how hard is to find  champdogs.co.uk/diary :-)

> Got to be as easy as finding the Champdogs Diary

:-D :-D

>but what to do when the 'big boys' in the working side all refuse screening?

We have a similar problem here over prcd-PRA with the hunters/breeders in the country of Origin not taking up the Optigen test as they do not deem it necessary as the condition is late onset in our breed, generally not showing in eye tests until around 5 or 6 years of age and not affecting a dogs sight until much later than that. 

They argue that a dog could as easily go blind with age related cataract before, and of course the dog would be past working age anyway.

I got round this this time by using a US son of a top Norwegian dog for my latest introduction of new blood, but in future I may be faced with the same choice to use an untested dog on my clear bitches.

I am hoping that perhaps the Scandinavian hunting fraternity will start testing in the next 5 years or so.

> Not for their Assured Breeders.

And therein lies the biggest problem for the KC with their two tiered system. I am sure they would love to apply their ABS criteria to all breeders, however I suspect they simply can not afford to do so due to the inevitable reduction in income which would occur if they were to.

In the meantime they will have to continue to take a softly softly approach and promote the ABS breeders above the others and hope that more and more breeders join the scheme.

I have a lot of sympathy with KC's situation, if they decided to take a hardline stance it would ostracise thousands of dog breeders and force them into the realms of the less than reputable alternate registration schemes.

> I have a lot of sympathy with KC's situation, if they decided to take a hardline stance it would ostracise thousands of dog breeders and force them into the realms of the less than reputable alternate registration schemes.

Precisely and I would say this is the main reason.  Loss of income?  Well they are a non profit club so all surplus goes towards projects in health and welfare so that would be noticed but I doubt it drives what they do.

> In the meantime they will have to continue to take a softly softly approach and promote the ABS breeders above the others and hope that more and more breeders join the scheme.

I wonder if Champdogs could be doing more to promote the scheme? :)

    > The KC 12 month rule for dams is a blanket rule for all breeds as far as I am aware.

Not for their Assured Breeders.

No Mark is right. It is only for a very small number of breeds that an age of 2 or similar is mentioned -and then only as RECOMMENDATIONS. Not one breed has as a requirement that they have to be over 12 months to have a litter.

I am not sure that Champdogs have similar resources so not sure that working outside the KCs findings is necessary.   Following the KC guidelines would seem more foolproof to me.

The fact that the KC advice that only elbow scores of 0 and 1 should be used for breeding (regardless of breed), and the BVA advice that no dogs with scores of 2 or 3 should be used, surely means CD are perfectly right in refusing scores of 2 in stud dogs. Even IF somebody by some remote chance had a dog that was extremely valuable to its breed and perhaps an entire breed/colour/coat type/whatever would die out if it was not used despite it having a score of 2, surely then nobody would go and ADVERTISE the dog at stud, but would rather put together a carefully considered breeding programme together with the breed club.

> Not one breed has as a requirement that they have to be over 12 months to have a litter.

Not that it makes a huge difference, but the KC rule is that no litter can be registered to a bitch that was MATED at under 12 months old, so no bitch should whelp before 14 months. 

Yes I worded that badly -I meant the ABS does not have any requirement for any breed to have to be 18 months or 2 years or similar before being bred from, all breeds are the same, only some have recommendations to be older, and that's only a small number of breeds.

> The fact that the KC advice that only elbow scores of 0 and 1 should be used for breeding (regardless of breed), and the BVA advice that no dogs with scores of 2 or 3 should be used, surely means CD are perfectly right in refusing scores of 2 in stud dogs.

I would not disagree with that.  My comments were really concerning the test that has not yet been verified by the KC.

My comments were really concerning the test that has not yet been verified by the KC.

Ah I didn't get that. :)

> No Mark is right. It is only for a very small number of breeds that an age of 2 or similar is mentioned -and then only as RECOMMENDATIONS. Not one breed has as a requirement that they have to be over 12 months to have a litter.

You are right although they do use the words strongly recommended.  However I would still say there are breeds where 24 months is not only unecessary but perhaps even undesirable for a first litter.

> Not that it makes a huge difference, but the KC rule is that no litter can be registered to a bitch that was MATED at under 12 months old, so no bitch should whelp before 14 months. 

Exactly, and as few bitches will oblige by going into season on their first birthday most will be a good month or two older than that.

Jo I would also be interested to know which DNA test which was proven to be unreliable in Flatcoats.

Hi Mark

Sorry - been busy and only just picked this up.

It's the JRD test carried out by Doggenes.   There was a 'clear' to 'clear' litter which was anonymously 'tested' as all 'carriers', which put the cat among the pigeons with the integrity of the company.

Jo

though of course it could also point to the integrity of the parentage.

> though of course it could also point to the integrity of the parentage.

Easy to rule out these days.
Laboratories, particularly in countries with poor regulation, have been found wanting on other occasions.  Genetic testing is very big business so the temptations are there.

Well yes, but just pointing out that it isn't necessarily the test wrong, could be the parentage not as registered.

I know of such an instance in Obedience circles where an affected dog turned up where if parentage correct this could/should not have been the case, and it turned out the sire was incorrect and the breeders own dog had obviously mated the bitch before/after the registered sires mating and sired at least some of the litter.

this is a bit like watching a police drama where the DNA catches the culprit. ;-)

In Response to Brainless
though of course it could also point to the integrity of the parentage.

No, it absolutely did not - proved by DNA ID checks afterwards!!

Jo

Yes I assumed so, that would always be the first step in case the parentage was incorrect.

So what happened, was the DNA test found/sold as only to be a marker test (so only an indicator), or was if found to be inaccurate, if the latter I would have thought people would have a  claim re false advertising etc??? with ref to Advertising standards?