Why mate 2 dogs together that both have faulty elbows ....? (even if only mildly affected) and especially in popular breeds where there are countless dogs with good elbows to choose from, it just doesn't make sense to me.

I thought the objective of 'Health Tests' was to breed known health problems out.

Also, when 2 dogs with faulty elbows are mated together (even mild to mild) then surely this could increase the chances of intensifying problems for puppies born from such mating's.

Should the Kennel Club step in and insist that anyone with a bitch with faulty elbows must use a stud dog that has 'good elbows' if they want to K.C. Register their puppies.

The KC will never insist on such a thing as long as they're happily registering pups from untested parents. I would love to see them refusing registration for these sorts of matings.

No real good reason to do this (dodgy elbows x dodgy elbows) in a numerically strong breed, but people make worse breeding decisions. I imagine it comes from ego, politics, convenience or fashion sorts of reasons.

Some people see health tests more as a tick box exercise than guidance in their breeding choices.

I agree,  with elbows when 1 scores should only be bred with care the mate should be 0.

Also with DNA tests for recessive conditions one Parent must be clear,  and only pups from at least one clear parent should be registered.

Of course - in an ideal world only the best should be bred to the best.   In my own breed, where gonioscopy is the main test done under the BVA/KC scheme, it's either a fail or pass and a fail result is noted on the Registration papers of any progeny.  This worries me to some extent as the test only shows a pre-disposition to eventual glaucoma, not that it WILL happen.   I've known some really good dogs be lost to the gene pool -throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Not so with Hip and Elbow scores (or are they so noted?), which of course, can and is also done with my breed, but not so often.  But as long as we live in a 'free world' it's going to be impossible to dictate which dogs should be bred from, and which shouldn't be.    We can only educate the buying public and I suppose, less caring breeders!

And never forget that with displasia, environment/rearing does play a part although not as big a part as genetics.

The BVA now recommend NOT breeding from dogs with a score higher than 0 in any breed

I think you might guess by the hundreds of adverts, for breeds that we know suffer from all manner of inherited problems, where the breeder declares the puppies "lovely and healthy" , parents not health tested but "healthy", to see that Jo Public is easily drawn into buying a puppy. Along with the hypo-allergenic and non-shedding, cross breeding does away with the health problems according to a fair number of breeders so what hope is there unless we can really educate the buying public which seems like an uphill struggle.  Sadly the KC and BVA have no teeth and are not likely to get any so all of us have to just keep doing what we can.

> Sadly the KC and BVA have no teeth and are not likely to get any so all of us have to just keep doing what we can.

Again the downside of living in a 'free society' .     I'm not sure which is better really, being controlled as in Switzerland or having the ability to do what we like, hoping that the good breeder won't abuse.  

I agree with all your posts on here.

Also, I think it doesn't help assist the public when they are looking to buy a nice 'family pet' and the elbow scores just sound so low example: 3 (only three) compared to hips it just sounds brilliant, when in fact 3 (three) is severe. I think the best thing to do with elbow scores is replace the numbers 0. 1. 2. 3. with the words Good Elbows, Mildly Affected Elbows, Badly Affected Elbows & Severely Affected Elbows that would be much clearer for the buying public to understand.

Good posts everyone.