I know it has been mentioned on here a few times about the implications of buying a puppy without relevant health tests from a breeder and what could happen.

There have been discussions about possible proceedings against a breeder if the puppy develops any conditions that could have been prevented or minimised by the parents being health tested.

So has anybody got evidence of an example where a breeder has been proved liable for this by selling puppies where the pardnts were not health tested and how the puppy/dog owner went about getting the evidence and how they proceeded?

Thanks
Lucy

no, it would be interesting to see a case of TNS or CL where no health testing was carried out as these are easily prevented by testing, not sure about HD where the causes are so wide - however clearly mating two sufferers together would be careless.....

I would be interested in cases of PRA cord1 where the breeder has been successfully prosecuted, the testing in mini long dachsies will have been available for 8yrs come Feb '13, there is no excuse for producing affected pups these days, it can be eliminated from a line so easily and quickly with the right pairing of mates.

I notice in adverts it says parents unaffected by PRA but they could still be carriers, it should state clear or carrier so buyers know 2 carriers haven't been mated possibly producing affected pups.

I know it's not what you want to hear but I asked Trevor Cooper what come back puppy buyers have if a dog develops a condition that could of been prevented for health testing the parents and he said none. If its not advertised as being done then it's sold as seen. I used the example of Labradors and eye testing and he said if not advised as eye tested clear then the puppy buyer can't do buying about it and they should be more savvy when it comes to buying a puppy... Just like when we buy cara we research and look into it and he says all puppy owners should be doing the same!!!

Things need to change then,if the KC/breed clubs say certain tests need to be done with good results before a dog is bred from then the breeder needs to explain why they weren't done when a pup they bred then comes down with a preventable disease, not mentioning something in an advert shouldn't be a get out of jail free card.

This is why the puppy farmers can happily carry on, if the pup was reasonably healthy seeming at point of sale.

> I asked Trevor Cooper what come back puppy buyers have

I've heard him say that too. Shame, but I guess it's best to have a realistic idea of what can be done before going off down some expensive path of litigation that's doomed to failure. In fact Trevor Cooper said that he often advises people to let it go if he believes they can't win.

My neighbours 9 month old gsd pup has been diagnosed with EPI and when she made contact with the breeder to let her know, she was met with quite a nasty attitude. She continues to breed and has a bitch from a previous litter. So incredibly frustrating.