One top stud [PRA cord1 clear,took part in trials] from the 90's has produced at least 39 litters/75 pups, probably more as those are the only ones recorded on a dachsie pedigree data base, many litters only mentioned one pup so there may be siblings not mentioned.

His son then took over the title of top stud [PRA cord1 carrier also took part in trials] produced at least 35 litters/60 pups again many litters where only one pup was mentioned.

None of this is connected with the poor PRA results as these litters were produced before the test results from trials was available.

This database depend on folk passing on info re their dogs to them.

There are probably other breeds out there where a popular stud was used far too many times.

For any dog that has at least one offspring health tested (official KC scheme) you can go on the KC health checker, type in their name and then on right click on compare to progeny and it will tell you how many litters and pups they sired (or are the dam of).

It depends on the breed. £ 800 in cash at the time of mating is pretty usual for some breeds A second mating may be offered and free return following season if no pups. Maybe this is not the place to say this but my husband trained for 8 years and would need to work for a weeks full time to get that amount of money . But this is not the issue. Health screening aside, the problem is the overuse of popular studs and the impact this has on the gene pool.

"the problem is the overuse of popular studs and the impact this has on the gene pool."

Whilst I can understand why breeders will want to use the most successful show dogs at stud, the impact on the breed should also be taken into consideration. Certainly in my breed, some dogs do get over used. Stud dog owners carry such a massive responsibility here, but for some, maybe the money is just too attractive.

Thank you everyone for all your comments and input.  Am now going to compile into a report for tomrrow's Canine Alliance SG meeting.

> Am now going to compile into a report for tomorrow's Canine Alliance SG meeting.

Good luck, should be an interesting meeting. I'm looking forward to reading about it soon.

I do slightly worry that some recommendations that might sound like a good idea, will in fact be impossible to actually carry out, I'm thinking of inspections for all before joining (manpower, expense etc).

Then there's the effect of the outcomes of the desirable health tests on people's choice of sires. I think most people would agree that popular sire syndrome, for whatever reason, is not a route to be recommended.

And of course the KC is a registry open to all pedigree dogs at the moment (and non-pedigree for reasons other than showing). If we advocate restricting registration with the KC to only health tested dogs (particularly if we are going to insist on better than average results), we are going to be shrinking the gene pool quite drastically. And also, will such a restriction make it difficult to research pedigrees and lines as we do now? It could be that by advocating a restricted registry for the KC, that we end up letting in and enlarging rival registries.

I'm sure everyone concerned will keep in mind the maxim 'first, do no harm'. Looking at some of the comments on the E C&V board I do wonder though. But you guys on the SG are all very experienced so I guess we can rely on your collective wisdom.

All the best!

Ok, point taken that perhaps the number of KC reg dogs isn't an ideal way to monitor things. 

Perhaps it should be more about the max number of litters a year someone can register.  What about a max of 2 litters a year for an AB?

I think your comments are spot on Esme.  A much reduced registry would also reduce the relevancy of the KC as a body when negotiating with government and other agencies with an interest in the control of dog ownership or breeding.

Sorry Rabid but restricting the number of litters bred by ABs would be playing into the hands of the irresponsible and commercially motivated breeders. The GP would be forced to go there because there simply would not be enough responsibly and ethically bred puppies to meet the demand.The Kennel Club have introduced a policy whereby breeders ( ABs and non ABs ) will be required to have a local authority breeding licence if they breed 5 or more litters a year. Registration of puppies will be refused if the breeder does not conform to the local authority requirement for dog breeding. IMO, this is a really positive step towards addressing the problem of commercial breeders.

> What about a max of 2 litters a year for an AB?

No, I don't fancy that one. That would mean ABs, who after all, are complying with all the KCs T&Cs, would only be allowed to breed fewer litters than everyone else who could do as they like! I'm afraid I don't know what the answer is really. I just feel that it's important that we don't end up doing more harm than good.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The Kennel Club have introduced a policy whereby breeders ( ABs and non ABs ) will be required to have a local authority breeding licence if they breed 5 or more litters a year. Registration of puppies will be refused if the breeder does not conform to the local authority requirement for dog breeding.

All those who breed 5 or more litters a year have been required to appply for a breeders' licence for quite some time. The only change is that the KC are now enforcing it for those who register puppies. with them.

> I think if we need to have accolades how about one for breeders who have consistently health tested their stock over many years
> Then the KC would need to record details of many tests that they don't currently - BAER, for example.

I was not meaning the individual dogs but an accolade for breeders the person who has consistently been health testing their dogs over many years. It should not be based on individual dogs as then you get into all kinds of difficulty such as whether to place a limit on hip scores as another poster mentioned. There would be no need to use results just that a certain breeder has taken dogs to be health tested.

>I was not meaning the individual dogs but an accolade for breeders the person who has consistently been health testing their dogs over many years.

As I said, the KC would have to record details of all tests that are currently done, not just elbows, hips and eyes. I know breeders who have BAER tested many generations of dogs but none of these results are acknowledged or recorded by the KC.

>There would be no need to use results just that a certain breeder has taken dogs to be health tested.

I can't tell you how we wish that the KC took BAER seriously.