Read about this in todays DW and wondered what everyones thoughts were. Personally I cannot see the point in increasing their revenue when the original scheme is still so flawed. I know I will be possibly shot down in flames by some who say that they have to start somewhere, and that the scheme is a step in the right direction, but it has been flawed from the start and I just think they should sort out the original scheme instead of trying to 'guilt-trip' others into parting with their cash.

What does it say,

That the scheme previously for breeders only is now being opened up to stud dog owners. (Plus a lot of stuff about stud dog contracts etc)

Well since the stud dog owners powers are limited they can only advise to what the breeder should do, the stud contract isnt binding as they do not own the bitch or her puppies. They can have an agreement which they agree upon to allow the dog to be used at stud but are these actually binding. I could say you must worm, microchip and endorse all the pups and sell them to nothing but the best of homes. This isnt binding although there needs to be an element of trust for you to allow them to use your dog but people do lie. Think its just extra £ for them to earn, if they get more £ from this maybe they can reject registrations???

Once the fee had been paid and the kc reg number handed over can anything be done? Stud owner cannot stop them from selling to idiots or fulltime workers without a clue etc etc, but this can be stated in the agreement.

I know I will be possibly shot down in flames by some who say that they have to start somewhere, and that the scheme is a step in the right direction, but it has been flawed from the star

Out of interest, what do you consider to be flawed about it now? To me it seems the problems are getting ironed out one by one.

I can see the point of getting stud owners on board, their dogs would have to have all the breed specific health tests in order to remain a member and bitch owners can be pointed towards Assured Breeder studs rather than the hundreds of adverts offering dogs as studs with no mention of health tests etc.

Too many stud owners think their responsibility ends when the stud fee is handed over, seeing it as easy cash for very little hassle to be repeated as and when they felt like it, studs would mate 365days of the year if offered the right bitches, no waiting for seasons twice a year.

I think this is going in the right direction.

I doubt it will increase their revenue, they loose money on the scheme.
Anything that encourages responsible breeding and helps the public find it has to be a good thing as far as I am concerned.

>

> Out of interest, what do you consider to be flawed about it now?

The same flaw it has always had. In my breed, the only recommendation is that breeding stock should be hip-scored. It doesn't matter what the results are. When a member of the public contacts the KC for a puppy, they are directed to 'Assured' breeders purely because their stock has been scored, so they think they are getting a healthier puppy than if they buy from a breeder not in the scheme, even though the latter may have stock well under the breed average, and the Assured breeder could have puppies from stock with three or four times the breed average.

> so they think they are getting a healthier puppy than if they buy from a breeder not in the scheme

Then the answer is join the scheme and be there with your lower scoring stock!
The scheme is not just about health schemes it covers a variety of areas regarding how the pups are bred and raised, how they are sold and how the buying public are supported.

>

> Then the answer is join the scheme and be there with your lower scoring stock!

That, unfortunately is what the KC reps always say, not an answer in my opinion.

As an ABS 'breeder' I have to use dogs that have the required health tests.

If stud dog owners are included they could only allow use of their stud dogs on bitches that are likewise health tested, if any litter registrations were received where the bitches didn't comply they would get kicked off.

It may also help stud dog owners who are approached by untested bitch owners as they can make it clear that they can't allow the dog to be used so saving embarrassment and offence.

I think stud contracts are more about the terms of the dogs use, which would be an advantage to bitch owners making it clear in writing what was offered (number of matings, free return, when stud fee paid etc).  We often get posts about this so it would help to clarify matters.

> That, unfortunately is what the KC reps always say, not an answer in my opinion.

The Kennel Club have repeatedly and repeatedly explained why they do not dictate acceptable scores but with the scheme the information is there alongside the information to the public on their website that a lower score is better.

The same flaw it has always had. In my breed, the only recommendation is that breeding stock should be hip-scored. It doesn't matter what the results are.

But they've recently announced that this will no longer be the case! They are changing it. It has to be a GOOD result as well. It was in the dog papers the other week. I remember wondering what they will classify as a good result, such as will they only allow registration of pups from parents with a hip score bang on the BMS or below it.

>

> But they've recently announced that this will no longer be the case! They are changing it.

Now THAT is good news, this is what I said needed to be enforced from the start. If and when they enforce this, I will be happy to join the scheme.

>I remember wondering what they will classify as a good result, such as will they only allow registration of pups from parents with a hip score bang on the BMS or below it.

The problem is always the animals that are poor in one aspect but outstanding in another. If a dog has a higher-than-average hipscore for the breed, but is genetically clear for a condition that affects its breed, who's to say it's wrong to breed from it?

Health tests are just tools in the decision-making process, not the be-all and end-all.

Exactly and this is precisely why the KC have not dictated so far.  I wonder if the new rule will be to prevent very high scores being used. 

And of course a high score in one breed can be a very low score in another.

> If and when they enforce this, I will be happy to join the scheme.

I don't understand your logic.  It was never the rule that had to use a higher score.

The problem is always the animals that are poor in one aspect but outstanding in another. If a dog has a higher-than-average hipscore for the breed, but is genetically clear for a condition that affects its breed, who's to say it's wrong to breed from it?

With the risk of sounding like a broken record (or should that be a broken CD these days, or corrupt MP3 file?) -it works in other countries!

> -it works in other countries!

How are you evaluating "works"?  It will be easy to evaluate if hip scores are lower but less easy to evaluate what effect it is having on other health aspects surely.

If you have a functionally normal dog, but which is scientifically shown to be less-than-perfect in one aspect, and which is outwardly and outstanding example of its breed, should that dog be ruled out of the gene pool when an equally functionally normal dog (but scientifically better in that one aspect), but which is otherwise substandard physically or temperamentally, be ruled in?

How are you evaluating "works"?

Well seeing as such rules have been in place for many decades and the results has not been a decline in the number of dogs registered, less healthy dogs or other health problems appearing, or more untypical dogs etc, I would say it works.

both my best producing bitches have hip scores above breed average (only a point or two),  above the BMS of 13 (though sometimes it's 14), one of their daughters sister to one I kept has a hip score of 20, her sister that I own has one of 11, both are the only pups from an overseas stud I used a few years ago to be bred from, both have produced pups  scored with better results than the parents.

Now I suspect the other bitches score might have been a bit higher due to her being brought up with a male only a few months older than her and much bigger during early puppyhood, and as a result being exercised more than would be ideal.

Now a score of 20 is a functionally normal score and with many low scoring ancestors, and littermate the decision was made to breed from her in our small gene pool with new bloodlines. She is a better bitch than mine and has won a RCC with very limited showing, due to location and owners family commitments.

I tend to compare our scores in conjunction with the rough comparisons with the grading systems, where under OFA a score of 18 - 25 would be borderline.

A score of 11 - 17 Fair, 6 - 10 Good and under 6 Excellent, allows the scores to be put into perspective.

This is why having the decision making taken out of the breeders hands is not the best idea overall, I hope ti won't be done in a cut and dried arbitrary fashion.

If you have a functionally normal dog, but which is scientifically shown to be less-than-perfect in one aspect, and which is outwardly and outstanding example of its breed, should that dog be ruled out of the gene pool when an equally functionally normal dog (but scientifically better in that one aspect), but which is otherwise substandard physically or temperamentally, be ruled in?

No JG -ONLY the ones that have it all will be used because a) breeds that can have dodgy temperaments will not be allowed to be bred from unless they also have undergone a temperament test and b) unless the parents have been shown or worked with a minimum result gained, it will cost the breeder a lot more to register the pups, so therefore it's generally not done. Unless you have a breed on the verge of extinction (and these days, with a pets passport so easy to get, that should never need to be an issue) I don't think there should have to be any major problems in having similar rules to what other KCs have. For instance if I wanted to register a litter of Malinois pups at home in Sweden, both parents would have to be hip scored, would have to be scored as to NOT be affected by HD (assume that means A), would have had to be elbow scored, and would have had to have been been temperament tested.

The trouble is there are too many people who think they know better than what is just a recommendation as opposed to a rule -such as all those that think hip scoring doesn't matter if a litter is bred to be sold as pets only. I see no other way to stop such people than to have hard and fast rules. Not everyone will be as incapable, and if a responsible breeder decides to use a dog that say has a hip score slightly above average but has something else really worthwhile to make use of, then yes they will be the ones effectively punished, but like I say, it does work elsewhere -and KC registration would start to mean there was some form of assurance of quality.

> less healthy dogs or other health problems appearing

Have there been any studies such as the one the Kennel Club conducted a few years back to compare?

> such as all those that think hip scoring doesn't matter if a litter is bred to be sold as pets only.

There could also the danger of things going the other way and BYBs ticking all the boxes of the numbers exercise.

> For instance if I wanted to register a litter of Malinois pups at home in Sweden, both parents would have to be hip scored, would have to be scored as to NOT be affected by HD (assume that means A),

Excellent article here explaining the main schemes and criter4ia used by each: http://www.tierspital.uzh.ch/Kleintiere/BildgDiagnostik/Fachgebiete/Dysplasiekommission2/links/Scoring_radiographs_for_canine_hip_dysplasia_The_big_three_organisations_n_the_world.pdf have saved it :)

Anyway the FCI gradings
A = No signs of Hip Dysplasia
The femoral head and the acetabulum are congruent. The craniolateral acetabular rim appears sharp and slightly rounded. The joint space is narrow and even. The Norberg angle is about 105°. In excellent hip joints the craniolateral rim encircles the femoral head somewhat more in caudolateral direction.

B = Near normal hip joints
The femoral head and the acetabulum are slightly incongruent and the Norberg angle is about 105° or
The femoral head and the acetabulum are congruent and the Norberg angle is less than 105°.

So I expect A and B gradings would be allowed and even possibly C??? in some breeds???

C = Mild hip dysplasia
The femoral head and the acetabulum are incongruent, the Norberg angle is about 100° and/or there is slight fl attening of the craniolateral acetabular rim. No more than slight signs of osteoarthrosis on the cranial, caudal, or dorsal acetabular edge or on the femoral head and neck may be present.

D = Moderate hip dysplasia
There is obvious incongruity between the femoral head and the acetabulum with subluxation. The Norberg angle is more than 90° (only as a reference). Flattening of the craniolateral rim and/or osteoarthrotic signs are present.

E = Severe Hip Dysplasia
Marked dysplastic changes of the hip joints, such as luxation or distinct subluxation are present. The Norberg angle is less than 90°. Obvious fl attenting of the cranial acetabular edge, deformation of the femoral head (mushroom shaped, flattening) or other signs of osteoarthrosis are noted.

Have there been any studies such as the one the Kennel Club conducted a few years back to compare?

Compare to what? You can go online and check health results for any dog, you can check the information for your breed -much the same as the KC except it was in existence for a long time before the KC did it. You will get more info as well -you can for instance find out how many dogs have been hip scored or eye tested within a breed since 1990 (presumably that's all they were able to put online but the rules were in force long before then), with what results, and similar things. There are graphs showing how results have changed from year to year. It will tell you how many pups were registered, from how many litters, how many different dogs and bitches were used for breeding, how many pups they produced, what was the average litter size in the breed, levels of inbreeding of course, results of temperament tests etc -it has got a LOT more than Mate Select. You don't have to have the names and registration numbers to find out info, unless you are looking for a specific dog and want to be quick -it will tell you names of dogs that have produced litters etc.  I.e. there is nothing hidden.

>

> I don't understand your logic.  It was never the rule that had to use a higher score.

That isn't actually what I said. My gripe has always been that Joe Public is given the names of Assured breeders when they are looking for a pup, yet in my breed, the assured breeders (not all of them I hasten to add) are the ones breeding with double and treble the average hip scores. If I was a member of the public looking for a family pet (and didn't know what I know) I could be forgiven for thinking that the names given to me by the KC would ensure a healthier puppy.

So I expect A and B gradings would be allowed and even possibly C??? in some breeds???

I have seen mainly pedigrees (in my breed) with ONLY A in (for instance my Dutch dog has only A in his) but I have also seen the odd one with the odd B in. No idea about other breeds. Before this new system was introduced, in Sweden it was fairly clear cut. You had * which was perfect hips (my first dog's pedigree has dogs like that -he was a Golden born in 1979), UA when there was no sign of HD, then 1,2,3,4 and 5, (5 being severe HD) and you only bred from * and UA.

Your breed has a similar hip status to mien so I would expect to see only A's and B's used, but this may not be appropriate for all breeds, though something to aim for.

There could also the danger of things going the other way and BYBs ticking all the boxes of the numbers exercise.

Not by using my example -parents must have minimum results from show or working tests, otherwise registration costs almost double -that would put the people off who bred just for profit. In fact I think compulsory hip scoring and annual eye testing alone would put such people off as it would eat into their profits too much, and would be too much hassle -fancy having to find an eye specialist rather than just popping down to your closest vet if you absolutely had to.

>ONLY the ones that have it all will be used

So many babies will be thrown out with the bathwater. :-(

The mean score over all breeds is a touch under 20 (19.83 or something), so really anything under 20 can be considered good. (Perfect is, of course, 0:0; anything other than that is the beginning of compromise.)

Until the invention of BAER testing dogs were considered either deaf or hearing. Now we know that there are unilaterals, which are functionally normal (before BAER they were unheard-of because they couldn't be detected under normal living [ie non-laboratory] conditions), so it wasn't known why two hearing dogs could have a higher number of deaf puppies. Nowadays only bilaterally hearing dogs are supposed to be bred from - but there's no mention anywhere of what other qualities they need! Breeding an otherwise excellent unilateral (to a bilateral) has got to be better for the breed as a whole, keeping the gene pool open, than breeding two bilaterals who have cow hocks, curly tails or poor pigmentation. Baby and bathwater.

Test results should be considered a guide and a helpful tool, especially with something like hips, where a dog with a score of 6 can be affected with pain, yet one with a score of 25 can function with no apparent discomfort.

Just to add: it's like making sure you only breed carriers of a condition to those clear of it, not limiting your gene pool to only clears.

> Not by using my example -parents must have minimum results from show or working tests, otherwise registration costs almost double -that would put the people off who bred just for profit.

But surely these people will then just abandon the KC and use one of the toytown registries?

Can a dog with a 6 be in pain through hd? My youngest with a score of 6/3 is definitely not in pain, and her mother with a slightly higher score isn't either at 7 years old. In my bitches line only a couple are scored and they have A hips, where on my males lines the all but one of his paternal male relations Isn't and the ones that are are A, and another daughter of my own boy has come back with a 5/3 so I am happy. But this is classed.as free.from hd? if a dog with a high score isn't.lame them surely this dog is extremely stoical or time hasn't.caught up with him yet, he will suffer.tremendously in the future. Age therefore on his side. In my breed with a high average I think its.not.working in our favour.some Dogues that are winning in the ring are.coming back.around average so this breed mean will only ever come down slowly if at all, they are not.wrong to do so as its a.few point above average but. If you always do as you always did then things will never change. There are now definitely enough in our breed to use the lower scores. But still like I was the majority are not.scoring, I will never have another litter without both being scored.

> But surely these people will then just abandon the KC and use one of the toytown registries?

most of them have done do (gone mickey mouse registry), it tends to be the smaller scale poor quality breeder who still uses the KC.

A lot can depend on breed conformation.  The highest scoring ever in our breed at 61 had poor movement and arthritis when older.

>Can a dog with a 6 be in pain through hd?

Yes; the referral specialist said it was unusual but not unheard-of. It if all the points of 'failure' are in the same area on a hip then you get a much greater effect than if they're dispersed around it.

> But this is classed.as free.from hd?

I usually go by the broad FCI comparisons that deem a score of 6 or less to be HD free, provided neither side scores more than 3.

> ... in pain through hd?

It's not the HD itself that generally causes pain. The muscles surrounding the hip joint usually hold the joint in place. It's the arthritis that develops over time that can cause lameness and pain.

> In my breed with a high average

I think your main breed has an average score of 22 which I don't think is particularly high for a breed of this type. That's not to say that breeders shouldn't try to get it down, but they will need to keep in mind all the other issues (skin, temperament, longevity etc) so maybe slow progress is the right way forward.

Do think perhaps there is too much emphasis being placed on hip scores here and we need to breed the best available dogs and concentrating on hip is a shame because of all the health checks this is one of results that is least reliant on inheritance.

We all know that by the time a dog is scored many things can have altered and changed hip to say nothing of our incomplete knowledge of how two dogs with poor hips can throw a litter where most if not all will have better hips than their parents and conversely a pair with good hip can throw the odd pup with a huge score.

Feeding, exercise, general husbandry and above all castration can have a huge effect on the hip so lets not make that too important in the choosing of a mating pair there are more important and more accurate health tests to take into account to say nothing about temperament and general conformation, breed type and ancestry.

> You can go online and check health results for any dog

Yes, but what evidence do we have that a restriction policy has had no effect on other health aspects due to a reduced gene pool which might be demonstrated, say, in a study of general health and longevity such as the KC conducted a few years agao.

> parents must have minimum results from show or working tests, otherwise registration costs almost double

I don't think there is any chance of introducing such rules in the UK now where there is no cultural history to it.  The huge numbers of breeders who do not show or work would simply not bother registering and would therefore never be persuaded to observe the health requirements encouraged by the Assured Breeder Scheme.

Yes I agree and I suppose its not the highest With otterhound being in the 40's. Some breeders getting the dog scored at 12 months to the day to try and get the lowest score possible and vets also believe that even at 2 years old the hip will have started to degenerate, whereas my own opinion it gives a greater knowledge of the hip health once matured. Not that the hips start to faulter before the dog is even mature, If they are bad the score will increase but good hips won't? Anyway yes some think the hips are the be all and end all, but there are just a piece of the puzzle, there are many pieces to put together to see the dog as a whole. Longevity is a huge thing in dogues, many not making 5. A record of post mortem details would be a start into identifying the reasons why they don't live long. I know they are large breeds which will never live as long as other breeds because of there size. But I'm going off on a tangent.

If a stud owner was to join the scheme ie could only allow the dog out to bitches that are tested with The recommended tests. Then they would end up turning many away which in turn i think wouldn't give the Bitch owner incentive to test, but more likely look elsewhere for another stud of probably lesser quality with no health tests.

Meaning either not many would sign up to the abs or they would have super quality dogs that got used a handful of times and poorly bred puppies would increase. The byb stud owner is generally someone with a pet quality dog, that  doesn't even know what hipscoring is and knows nothing of breeding. There needs to be an incentive for the public to health test, and I think cheaper registrations for those who do would be one way. 

> If a stud owner was to join the scheme ie could only allow the dog out to bitches that are tested with The recommended tests.

I wasn't arguing against that at all.  I am all for it, it's the logical extension of breeding bitches being required to be tested.  There is no excuse for not testing when it has been identified as important to the breed.  What you do with that information is then down factors that may be variable but you must know what you are dealing with.
Cheaper registration?  It's hardly expensive as it is.

More expensive for those who don't and the cheaper £12 for those who do

I was at an Optigen testing session the other day with our working cockers.    Flabbergasted to see some of the show cockers with muzzles on, and some working sheepdogs kept outside in the car until the last minute, as they could 'have a go' if they came in.

These are potential breeding stock!

Now I dare say the chances are their tests will be fine - need I say more?

Jo

> Flabbergasted to see some of the show cockers with muzzles on

I suppose you mean "show type" cockers as I have never seen a cocker at a show with a muzzle on and I doubt any would do well in the ring :)

The highest scoring ever in our breed at 61 had poor movement and arthritis when older.

Actually, there was nothing in Scuti's movement to suggest how poor her hips were when she was young and the score was a shock.  She was arthritic by the time she died, at ten years of age, rather earlier than I would expect had her hips not been bad.

Yes I should really have put poor movement due to arthritis when older, to make it clear there was nothing noticeably amiss when she was scored :)