Just wanted to know how many people on CD know about this rule? In theory we should all know it as we sign our KC paperwork saying we agree with it.

(Taken from the BVA web site)

Correction of breed-related defects and reporting of caesarean operations

2) Upon registration with the Kennel Club, dog owners give consent to the disclosure of information by veterinary surgeons. Therefore, a veterinary surgeon is permitted to report to the Kennel Club. The Guide to Professional Conduct states:

Registration of a dog with the Kennel Club permits a veterinary surgeon who carries out surgery to alter the natural conformation of a dog or a caesarean operation on a bitch, to report this to the Kennel Club.

3) Veterinary surgeons are encouraged to report this information because the collection and analysis of data by the Kennel Club assists in identifying and addressing animal welfare issues associated with breeding.

Client Confidentiality

4) If a dog is registered with the Kennel Club, no further consent is required from the client to report the alteration of natural conformation or caesarean operation. It is advisable to tell the client that a report will be made, as covert reporting may be construed negatively by the client.

Yes, but how often do vets ask if the dog is KC registered or record the pedigree name?  I have only ever had staff grudgingly add KC names on records.

I have always worked on the assumption that my vet is able to report any surgery, and always asked for permission to show if there was any chance at all the dog might be shown again. Even did it in the 80s with a dog that was shown once or twice a year at local shows only. It doesn't bother me the slightest -but like Brainless says I think it very unlikely most vets would even think of it.

Would think everyone who is a serious owner/breeder would know but I have never known a vet report anything, any communication with my vet from the KC has been instigated by me I doubt my vet would know my dogs registered names.

I assume they can report that they have operated on a dog and the owners name and address could be used to track them and therefore the dog down.

I know the KC is planning to remind vets and are getting together a letter and copies of the forms so vets can report anything done to date. The BVA, RCVS and BSAVA are backing this move too.

Can't see why anyone would be worried most have always accepted that vets can report and most honest people will do the reporting themselves.

A new computer program was supposed to be introduced to automatically upload health issue data.

If the vet has your name and address, your dogs sex, breed and DOB, I imagine the KC can get lots of info from that.

Exactly what I think Nova, honest people will report it themselves, but the reason behind this question is because I was surprised to find a number of people did not know this when I was speaking to them recently.

I therefore contacted the KC to ask how vets go about reporting these changes/c sections and was told by the KC the biggest problem they have is vets not reporting it. So I have been asking vets if they know how to report it and it is interesting to hear all sides of this particular rule. A lot of people think a vet should hold their records confidentially and not divulge information to anyone, but they did not realise that they sign away this right when they sign KC papers registering their dogs with the KC.

That is still going ahead and I am told there are links on the BVA web site for vets only to report to the KC. With the KC also writing to the vets to remind them they should report to the KC it will be interesting to see if they will do so.

Going off on a new line of thought wonder how the vets stand with the data protection I think you could bring a case if they divulged your details without your agreement no matter what you arrangement with the KC - could be wrong but I think there are very strict rules as to how a customers data is used.

When you sign the KC papers I suppose you are side stepping the data protection act as you have essentially given your permission already.

Don't think any of this is new is it, they may be reminding people and the vets but this, I would guess, is just a reaction to JH and the like and not really anything new and lets face it will do nothing to improve the breeds. Now if they were to insist that all registered pups had health tested parents who had passed to an acceptable level now that really would do some good.

When you sign the KC papers I suppose you are side stepping the data protection act as you have essentially given your permission already.

But not to the vet, you give the KC permission to ask but you have not given the vet permission to share your address and personal details with a third party.

An awful lot of KC registered dogs are never shown.  I am sure that there are far more out there that are kept as pets, and the owners wouldn't know a thing about the Kennel Club or showing.

If they are expecting vets to tell the KC every time a KC registered bitch is spayed, that would be an awful lot of work for them.

>I think there are very strict rules as to how a customers data is used.

We're not allowed to give any information to a third party without the owner's permission - even the police have to get a warrant for information about a dog attack, for instance.

> you have not given the vet permission to share your address and personal details with a third party

The information being requested/shared is presumably about the dog only NOT the owner.

It still seems ill considered though and relies too much upon the vet who can only work with the information they've been given by the owner - some of whom don't ever use, or care about, their dogs KC registered name! 

Might it all one day be a bit easier if microchip technology is used a little differently... ?

We're not allowed to give any information to a third party without the owner's permission

That is rather what I thought JG one would have to sign the right over to the vet before they could give your address to a third party to research into what animals you owned.

>The information being requested/shared is presumably about the dog only NOT the owner.

That's irrelevant; we're still not allowed to give it.

> we're still not allowed to give it.

So how does that square with Polly's point 4 in her first post JG?

> An awful lot of KC registered dogs are never shown.

I think a lot of the data they want has nothing to do with show dogs per se. Probably got little to do with 'policeing the show world'.

More getting a true picture of the state of certain breeds. The KC survey  carried out was very poorly supported giving very skewed data.

In my breed there is a lot of anecdotal reporting that early onset MVD is being reduced.... but only data from those who attend cardiology specialists and or health clinics is being used to form this opinion. It takes no account of all the pet dogs, a much larger sample.

>So how does that square with Polly's point 4 in her first post JG?

I have no idea. We're not allowed to give any details that would identify an animal without the owner's express permission.

>The KC survey  carried out was very poorly supported

The overall response was 24% which is a terrific figure when it comes to survey response, although they'd hoped for 40%.

-The recent issue of the BRS is the first one I have seen where c/sections[emergency or elective] are recorded since the 2 c/section limit was introduced at the beginning of the year, presumably there is a place when the pups are registered for the breeder marks off if a c/section was done and which type. Previously was it recorded as a courtesy rather than a KC rule it is now.

When this rule change was first mentioned I understood that Vets were going to have to report them too, I can understand that there isn't time to report each individual section but a list put up in the surgery and basic details completed on it and at the end of the month the practice manager or such would search out the full details and forward to the KC, more crucial if there is clear evidence of at least one previous section.

If there isn't the backup from the vets then there is the chance for the breeders being selective with the truth especially in the breeds who rarely whelp normal.

If your pet is insured then the details of the pets registered pedigree name is asked for on the insurance form which is handed into the vets when making a claim.  Information could be taken from this too.

>If your pet is insured then the details of the pets registered pedigree name is asked for on the insurance form which is handed into the vets when making a claim.

Nope, only the pet name's needed; the insurance company has no need to know the registered name. My boss is the one who completes the forms for the owners (FOC) and all the owner needs to give is their name, the animal's pet name and the policy number. No pedigree name is needed.

Every insurance company I have ever been with/had a quote from has only ever wanted the pet name.
The problem is that vets get so many dogs that may be pedigree but not KC registered, and also some that are a cross that go down as a breed because they look like one parent. This would skew the figures for health in certain breeds.
The statisitics will always look like pedigree dogs are less healthy than cross breeds and mongrels, because more mongrels are neutered these days there are less mongrel puppies born, also in general an expensive pedigree dog is more likely to have insurance cover so the owner is more likely to take it to the vets.

> The overall response was 24% which is a terrific figure when it comes to survey response

Overall being the operative word here.

Some breeds had no replies and some of the so-called high profile breeds had much lower figures. Pugs at 16%  Bassets at 17%.

If you take my breed.... boxers,the return was 15% which represented only 245 dogs. Given he median lifespan given as 10 years and BRS figures of around 8000 boxer pups per year.........245 dogs used as the study of the whole breed is totally useless statistically.

>245 dogs used as the study of the whole breed is totally useless statistically.

The study which linked the risk of mammary cancer in bitches to when they were spayed was, I believe, based on less than 20 individuals, yet the results are widely taken as gospel ...

One shouldn't write off the whole KC survey as being unreliable because not all breeds responded as hoped.

We are reminded annually by the dachsie breed council to fill in the details of any conditions our dogs have developed and the age and cause of death of any we have lost in the previous 12 months, then the figures are published.

toolz said, >'I think a lot of the data they want has nothing to do with show dogs per se. Probably got little to do with 'policeing the show world'.
More getting a true picture of the state of certain breeds. The KC survey  carried out was very poorly supported giving very skewed data'.<

I think you're right they hope to collect more data these days, and it may be the only way forward to do so with any chance of getting substantial numbers to add to knowledge.

>> The KC survey&nbsp; carried out was very poorly supported
> The overall response was 24% which is a terrific figure when it comes to survey response, although they'd hoped for 40%.<

The survey was not compulsory, and as such is flawed simply because of the lack of returned surveys and numbers of people filling it in. I didn't complete the survey which was asking about flatcoats, mine all seem to live long lives and are really quite healthy, but friends who filled it in had had dogs die at 8 or 9 years all filled it in. So from that I would have believed no flatcoat lives past nine which they clearly do.

Thinking a bit more about this topic, suppose somebody had something done to alter the appearance of dog and it was winning in the show ring or on the working field, I suspect if you used it at stud or bought a puppy from it then you would be pretty peed off if you subsequently found the same fault appearing in your pup and discovered it was an inherited trait. So if vets don't report it then everyone is the loser not just the breed health records. Do you think in that case the vet should report it? Or not?

> suppose somebody had something done to alter the appearance of dog and
> Do you think in that case the vet should report it? Or not?

I have no issue with vets reporting operations, conditions etc but they would need clear guidelines about what information to share and how to report it.  Clients would also need to sign permission forms when registering with the vets acknowledging they understand what information might be shared.

However I do have question marks over what the information is subsequently used for, and who else it might be shared with, so I'd be looking for much more data before I wholeheartedly endorsed such a policy....

> dachsie breed council

I always think what a great example of co-operation your breed council is Rhodach. Last time I looked at their website I was so impressed that everything seemed so transparent. Good stuff!

If this new data program flags up every case of MVD, bone cancer, HD etc with ages, it could be a very good source of research material.

Unfortunately many dog breeders have it firmly in their mind that the KC is checking up on them, with cruciate, unbilical hernia, dental procedures  being 'reported' and will be suspicious of the motives.
This new BVA scheme should be about the health of individual breeds not the actions of individual breeders.

Esme I am quite proud too of what has been achieved in quite a short space of time.

If breeders are continuing to breed from dogs with congenital problems then they aren't going to want their names out there for all to see, naming and shaming is sometimes the only way to bring a stop to some things.

I would be ashamed to be the breeder of the PRA cord1 affected mini long dachsie that appearred on the list recently, she should have known better,she has been in the breed longer than me and there was also an affected male born in 2005 added to the list and he has been a stud, need to check how often,thankfully we don't have the option of keeping these things secret.

Out of curiosity if you were a vet and operated on a dog which resulted in changing its appearance would you report it to the KC?
Also if as an exhibitor you discovered somebody in your breed had got a vet to operate on their dog and this changed the dogs appearance, and it started winning when it had not before been winning, would you report this exhibitor?

Not a vet, but in my experience of working with many vets they simply haven't the time (or inclination - there are many far more important things to be doing) for paperwork unless it's absolutely necessary.