All this 'discussion' recently has got me looking at what the KC recommends for health testing.

Looking here for Labradors: https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/breed/health.aspx?id=2048

There are a number that should be 'considered' but then are also in the KC's own CombiBreed package for priority testing.

Surely if the test exists, any responsible breeder would have them all done and display the results. Also, if the results are not of an acceptable level, the dog should not be bred from under any circumstances? (Endangered breeds possibly excepted in certain circumstances if the results are only just outside acceptable.)

Thoughts?

I can only agree with you and cannot figure out why there are some who don’t test especially with the dna tests available for a number of inheritable conditions.
I learned about testing when I bought my first golden in 1987, thankfully the breeder I found was very into testing and told me exactly what I should look for and why they were done and what the results meant. I know low hip scores don’t mean a puppy will automatically have good hips as well, there are other factors including environmental, but it stacks the chances in the pups favour. So far I’ve not had any hip, elbow or eye problems appear in any of my dogs.

Exactly. It's about the odds being in your favour as you said. There isn't really any excuse not to do them and, if a new one becomes avaialble and you don't hear about it for a while say, as soon as you do find out (in whatever way that may be) you get it done staright away.

An excellent question and one I have personally been looking at and asking myself daily for a long time now.

I don't wish to knock the KC nor derail this thread before it gets going however you will note that if you look at every breed nearly all their mandatory tests are the ones they have put their name to ie. eyes, hips and elbows (do they have a financial interest ?), whereas many of the available DNA tests are only recommended.

Furthermore you can get perfect results - unaffected eyes, zero scores for both hips and elbows (for both parents),  and still have no guarantees regarding the resulting puppies. Contrast that with a DNA test where only one parent needs to be clear in order to guarantee no puppies will be affected by that condition.

I agree Mark. They should all be mandatory in my view as the health of the dog should be of utmost importance. It may well be because of financial interest yes. It remains for me though, that responsible breeders should do all the tests, whether mandatory or not in order to reduce the risk of unhealthy puppies. Just because a certain few tests are the only ones the KC say breeders have to do, doesn't mean a breeder's responsibility stops there.

I agree too. I’ve just had my young girl hip and elbow scored, no result as yet due to the backlog. She’s had two annual eye tests clear and is PRA1/2 clear also. Gonioscopy still to do. I’ve  also had her tested for ICT and she’s a carrier. There aren’t very many stud dogs tested for ICT and loads that don’t think it’s important, so the pool of suitable studs is already very small. I’m not prepared to take a chance on a untested boy, in case he turns out to be a carrier or affected. Why risk producing affected puppies (even if some people think ICT is trivial) if it can be avoided? So at the moment I may or may not go for it, it still depends on hip/elbow scores and the availability of a nice ICT clear boy whose pedigree complements my girl’s. I’m not prepared to proceed with less than good quality.

ICT is a new thing for me, on learned about it over the last year or so. None of my goldens have suffered from it thankfully. I also like to see DM on the list of test results.

Bang straight into a sticking block - ICT-A in golden retreivers !

"Why risk producing affected puppies (even if some people think ICT is trivial) if it can be avoided?"

In an ideal world you shouldn't. However in the real world there is an answer you have already provided yourself.

"some people think ICT is trivial and the pool of suitable studs is already very small"

And therein lies the problem, the difference between the ideal world and the real world.

I am just going to list a few dogs I found on Champdogs. Should breeding from dogs who are not tested to a similar level be illegal ?

https://www.champdogs.co.uk/dog/73426
https://www.champdogs.co.uk/dog/73865
https://www.champdogs.co.uk/dog/75044

The JRT is interesting! I've got more testing to do!

I don't think making it illegal is something that could be enforced unfortunately but I do think sites like CD should be stricter on who they allow to advertise their dogs on the site.

Mine are PLL, LOA and SCS tested. Need to get JBD/JE done (easy enough with Laboklin) but I can't find where I would get the Patella testing done... ANy ideas anyone?

The pool of suitable studs for me is very small, because people won’t test which I think is why it should be compulsory. If the bitch is clear, there is a much bigger pool. But yes, if there are tests available they should be used. I read somewhere a while ago (can’t remember where so I can’t supply the source sorry) of a breeder being taken to court because a puppy had developed a condition for which it’s parents could have been tested and weren’t. The argument being that the breeder hadn’t been sufficiently diligent in their preparations. No idea how it turned out, but if puppy owners are doing their homework they will be aware what problems are out there and which can be tested for. So breeders of all varieties should be very careful and not just for the future health of the puppies they produce.

Looking at that Jack, I think those tests might have been done abroad (it was imported as an adult I believe) as none of the other dogs owned by them have had those tests done (just the PLL, LOA, SCA). I've found the JBD/JE I can get done. Looking for Putnam testing facilities now...

ETA - think it's done at the vets? Is that right?

I agree that breeders should be testing for everything relevant for the breed, “trivial” or not. Ichthyosis doesn’t sound very nice for the dog at all and I don’t understand why breeders would just ignore it.

I’m sure it’s been discussed before but more widespread testing will lead to bettering the breed, not only in reducing or eradicating a condition but also because the potential mate pool will be that much wider if the guesswork is gone.

So many of the tests are bundled now as well, often testing for diseases that aren’t even present in a particular breed, so why not get everything done?

I hate hearing “I don’t test, I don’t have that problem in my lines” - no problem until it shows up out of nowhere, and it’s too late for the affected puppies that would never have been produced if you’d just done the tests.

I think putting the  bar high and only accepting advertising from breeders who fully health test is something cd should be doing . I know testing changes all the time as more tests are available but high standards are important imo .
If they want to stand out from the rest and show they are only prepared to have those breeders on board it would not only help protect dogs but potential owners as well

Might be an obvious comment but 'breeders who fully health test' could mean
He was hip and elbow scored but the results were terrible so I won't actually give the figures
as could 'DNA tested for x/y/z' -but he is carrier/affected so won't mention result.

Seen various Ads in papers/magazines etc and if you don't know better you could think oh thats ok then.

"breeders who fully health test" - Would someone care to choose a breed, any breed, and define what that means ?

It’s all tests that are available that are specifically relevant to that breed. That’s what fully health tested is. As also mentioned. Results should have to be acceptable to breed from before being allowed to advertise on cd in my view.

So for example - JRTs - PLL, LOA, SCA, eye testing, JBD/JE and patella testing (the last two of which I’ve only just found out about via this thread and will be getting done ASAP.

Border Collies

Clinical tests:

Hips, elbows, BAER & annual eye testing

DNA tests:

CEA(CH), TNS, CL, MDR1, IGS, SN, DH, GGD

Not sure if there is a PRA DNA test available

(Just tagging on to the end).

DNA tests are useful BUT they are currently being used by less than responsible breeders to sell their puppies at great profit. "5 clear health tests!" "20 clear health tests!!" "Extensively health tested!" etc etc, and when you look closely they are ALL DNA tests. Often just for the stud dog as well and not the bitch. ("Stud dog clear for everything which guarantees your puppy will be healthy!") No x-rays, no actual physical eye examinations, but it sounds great so it sells. I've started using mydogdna in Finland which is the best value and tests for every single canine genetic defect there is, and all dogs gets tested for all so that includes problems only known in certain breeds. (Well some tests that are licensed by other laboratories needs to be paid extra for, such as PRA.) It's well over 100 conditions. Very useful indeed but again, it's still not enough on its own. It can't tell you the status of hips, elbows and patellas or a number of other conditions.

I'm also far from sure that all dogs should have the same tests. It's been said many a time that ALL breeding dogs should be eye tested -yes, can't argue with that.  But what would be the point in starting to demand hip scoring for the smallest toybreeds when there clearly is no problem? Should everyone MRI scan for chiari like malformation even if their breed is Whippet and not Cavalier? Where do you draw the line? The KC required and recommended tests are for Assured Breeders. That means it's a good guide, but not all breeds have tests listed. The KC is often berated for not demanding more tests, but in fact it is the breed clubs that have to request for further conditions to be included! This is why Papillons now have to be DNA tested for PRA, for instance. Those that aren't happy with what is included, why don't they take it up with their breed club? And WHY do the breed clubs not demand everything? Could it be because in some breeds, some problems are not known? After all, the breed clubs are those best placed to advice what conditions occur in a breed.

Cavaliers should be hip scored & patella tested as there are large number of dysplasic & slipping patella in Cavaliers.

Syringomyelia & the Chiari Malformation are most commonly found in miniaturised(small) breeds with a shorten skull & muzzle, however as it also occurs in humans without the skull shortening it could occur in other breeds

> After all, the breed clubs are those best placed to advice what conditions occur in a breed.

In an ideal world I’d agree with you Goldmali, but from what Rozzie says that doesn’t seem to be the case with ICT in goldens.

Breed clubs of course know the breeds best, but they are also the ones most invested in their lines and their individual dogs. How much does that investment affect their open-mindedness to new tests? I’m not sure.

Not accusing anyone of anything, but I can’t help but think that having unbiased outsiders involved would help keep things a bit more scientific. It sometimes takes a public outcry for breeders to take a step back and realise they’ve lost sight of the health of their dogs, because if they’re  winning in the showring everything must be fine, right?

What’s hip laxity 1 and 2 and being a carrier for this in the 3rd link Mark gave for the GR? Not heard of that before.

Neither have I, this is the only specific link I could find. Can’t pretend I understand it all.
https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/hip-laxity-and-the-risk-of-degenerative-joint-disease

To be fair, I don't think it's up to the KC to demand breeders do health tests, they are a registration body, and shouldn't get involved with what should/shouldn't be done when it comes to breeding on. 

However, I do think they have made a huge mistake with the ABS, it was set up in haste and hasn't done them any favours; members of the ABS should be a 'shining example' of a breeder, and sadly many are not. 

For me, for Labradors I want hip scores around or below the BMS, the KC changed to using the Median from the Mean, so an acceptable total for me is 12, 6/6 being my cut off point, and obviously 0/0 is the best score possible.  Also nice and even, 12/0 would be a no, but 5/6 would be fine to me, towards the top of the acceptable range, but I would also be looking what is behind the pedigree of the dog and the EBV before making the decision. 

For elbows, nothing but 0 really, particularly with a stud dog, this has been the KC advice for a number of years now, it changed probably about a decade ago from being acceptable to use a 1 grade to advising only breeding on from a 0. 

I would also look at the EBVs, a useful tool that has been around for a number of years now, and would want them to be in the green; not a guarantee, but another tool any good breeder knows to use.  As well as that the CoI tool is a good guide, I'd not want to go above 12% with Labradors, obviously around the CoI for the breed is a good aim. 

For genetic tests, there are only really 5 that are a problem within the breed, and even then not all of them are common, and those are PRA, CNM, EIC, HNPK and SD2; I'd want at least one parent to be clear, and would test at least every other generation to ensure human error doesn't have a chance to creep in.  There was one Laboratory that did produce some erroneous results, meaning that Labradors were bred that had the potential to go blind, and I think the KC is spot on in limiting the CBP status, yes it is an extra cost, but any good breeder would support such a move. 

My 8 year old bitch, now spayed, is clear for over 150 genetic conditions, and only a small amount of those are actually related to Labradors, and only those main 5 are considered a problem within the breed really; I see lists of tests for things like Narcolepsy, and wonder why on earth they are needed as I've never heard of a Labrador with narcolepsy, or ever seen one with an affected status if I'm honest.  Perhaps they stumbled across the genetic marker and just included it as a test?  Who knows!

Lots of great responses to this thread.

"I don't think making it illegal is something that could be enforced unfortunately but I do think sites like CD should be stricter on who they allow to advertise their dogs on the site. Mine are PLL, LOA and SCS tested. Need to get JBD/JE done (easy enough with Laboklin) but I can't find where I would get the Patella testing done."

So do you think you should be removed from Champdogs until you have had the two additional tests done ?

With a little more research I have found that people also test JRTs for Degenerative Myelopathy (DM), Hyperuricosuria (HUU) and Neonatal Ataxia (NNA) -http://www.jrthealthregistry.com/

Should I remove everyone from Champdogs who hasn't had these 3 additional tests as well and would anyone care to guess how many JRT breeders we would have on Champdogs if that were the case ?

And when you have had those 3 tests done what about the 100 other tests from mydogdna.

There is not a lot of point in having a website for dog breeders if you set the bar so high no one can actually get over it to get in. "Fully Health Tested" is the easiest phrase in the world to say and the hardest in the world to define. Well actually it isn't that hard because there is no such thing as "Fully Health Tested" as it is impossible to achieve.

> So do you think you should be removed from Champdogs until you have had the two additional tests done ?

No I don't think I should be as I am now aware of the other two tests and will get them done. For current members perhaps a grace period to enable time to get new tests done should CD decide to set requirements (and should any new tests be developed for existing conditions in a breed). But new members have to get all done before being accepted. I would be quite happy with this had this been the case when I joined CD. In fact it would have been helpful as I would have got more testing done than I originally knew about. Although if CD were to cease memberships and start again with full breed specific testing then I would be fine with that too - as long I got refunded for the remainder of my membership! I don't actually need to be a fully paid up member of CD, I do it to support the idea of responsible breeding and it has actually crossed my mind to cease my paid membership because of recent events on this forum.

As sleeping_lion has said there are hundreds of tests that can be done on each breed but only a few are relevant. Those that show up in each specific breed are the ones that should be done by all and I think those should be required by champdogs to be able to advertise. Not those 100 that are not a problem in a specific breed.

The problem is if you are not health testing then you are not being responsible. Champdogs is a website that promotes responsible breeding but also allows those that have no health tests or poor results to advertise. No one ever stops learning (as long as they are receptive to the idea that other people may know more than them...) and so as long as members are willing to increase their knowledge and responsibility by getting new tests done when they are made aware of them that's great. That is responsible breeding.

> Should I remove everyone from Champdogs who hasn't had these 3 additional tests as well and would anyone care to guess how many JRT breeders we would have on Champdogs if that were the case ?<br />

This view to me is a problem. CD claims to promote responsible breeding. There are currently 41 JRT breeders on the site, if you removed all those without the three well known ones of PLL, SCA and LOA you would be left with 8. That has to say something doesn't it? Only 8 breeders health test their dogs to what now looks to be a basic level. I have just noticed that my eye testing results aren't showing up on my dogs (and one has LOA on twice), can you tell me how to rectify this please? Including myself (despite them not showing I know their eye tests are clear), there are only 2 that have eye testing.

If it turned out that there were no responsible JRT breeders then so be it. I will (god forbid) have to assume that the main reason there being very few (or no) responsible JRT breeders on CD is a problem is more about finances than anything else. CD should be making a stand on this matter.

As for the three other tests from the American website, I will look into those and if they are actually prevalent in JRTs they will be done as well.

In an ideal world some 'body' or other, be it the KC or CD or breed clubs, would make a comprehensive list of the tests available for each specific breed and it would be made mandatory so that everyone was working off the same sheet. But we don't live in an ideal world so I don't expect it to happen.

> There is not a lot of point in having a website for dog breeders if you set the bar so high no one can actually get over it to get in.

I don't think, even if all the tests mentioned were made requirements, the bar would be set too high. How can the bar be too high when it comes to the health of dogs. If the tests are available then the how is the bar unachievable?

> "Fully Health Tested" is the easiest phrase in the world to say and the hardest in the world to define. Well actually it isn't that hard because there is no such thing as "Fully Health Tested" as it is impossible to achieve.

The perhaps the phrase should be changhed to breed specific health tested. And if the bar is set high enough, it's not needed anyway as all will be at the same level.

> I don't think it's up to the KC to demand breeders do health tests

I do feel they have some responsibility here as they, like CD claim to promote responsible breeders but happily register litters from known puppy farmers. Financial reasons behind this I'm sure.

> However, I do think they have made a huge mistake with the ABS

Definitely has loopholes. I'm a member and shocked at what I've heard goes on under its banner. I'm not perfect I'm sure ( as we have found out with the two, perhaps more, new tests I need to get done) but I am at least happy to be informed of these and more than happy to act upon it for the benefit of my dogs, any puppies I breed and the breed in general.

Completely agree with the rest of your post!

I think it should be the other way round, I think the KC should offer discount to breeders who aren't ignoring health test results, and who are trying to prove their dogs, rather than just letting anyone be a member of a scheme like the ABS and giving them discounts even if they breed on from dogs with failed health tests.

This is a very good idea!

I think I understand what’s being said in the link RozzieRetriever, but I don’t understand how they can be a carrier

Hiplaxity

https://www.combibreed.nl/en-gb/Webshop/DNA-Tests/Details/Dog/H919-Hiplaxity-1
https://www.combibreed.nl/en-gb/Webshop/DNA-Tests/Details/Dog/H421-Hiplaxity-2

Just to be clear before I go any further the reason we are discussing the JRT here and your comments in particular masajackrussell is because you stepped up and offered an answer to my original question. There is nothing personal in anything I say even though at times I will talk about you personally. We could have this discussion about any other breed and with any other breeder. And just because we are disccusing your breed it does not preclude anyone else from answering as the principles are the same across all 200+ breeds.

"This view to me is a problem. CD claims to promote responsible breeding. There are currently 41 JRT breeders on the site, if you removed all those without the three well known ones of PLL, SCA and LOA you would be left with 8. That has to say something doesn't it? Only 8 breeders health test their dogs to what now looks to be a basic level."

On what basis have you chosen these 3 specific tests, I have found 5 other tests why did you not include any of those ?

"If it turned out that there were no responsible JRT breeders then so be it. I will (god forbid) have to assume that the main reason there being very few (or no) responsible JRT breeders on CD is a problem is more about finances than anything else."

Of course there is a financial element to this. A business with no customers is no longer a business

"CD should be making a stand on this matter."

I am not surprised that you think this and, to a certain extent, I agree (which is why I am engaging in this discussion). However I was genuinely shocked when Sleeping Lion said "I don't think it's up to the KC to demand breeders do health tests".

You are kidding surely ??????

If anyone could make a difference and raise the bar it is the KC with all their financial resources and years of experience. Yet you expect a small website building company (that is what we started out as and still are for many people) to sort out all that is wrong with dog breeding ?

> However I was genuinely shocked when Sleeping Lion said "I don't think it's up to the KC to demand breeders do health tests".

The KC are a registration body, to be perfectly honest, I think they need to scrap the ABS and stay out of it completely, as setting up a scheme to support 'good' breeders, above 'other' breeders has stuck them right in the mud. 

Your website however, unlike the KC website, is set up to promote good breeders (not register them), so why do you put 'health tested' on litters where dogs have failed health tests?  Surely if you're promoting good breeders, you put 'failed health tests'?  Or for those where they haven't tested to the recommendations of breed clubs 'partly health tested'. 

Both are guilty of saying they support/promote good breeders, and falling far short of the mark in my book.

The KC are in it to make money so they're hardly going to take actions that will results in less revenue. I'd hoped that the ABS would set a higher standard, yet there are many of us outside the ABS who have standards over and above the requirements of the scheme.

On the subject of Champdogs and health tests though, I've just seen a litter that's recently been added where neither parent has ever had eye tests. It would be nice to think that Champdogs would restrict ads to those with very basic tests as a minimum.

> Just to be clear before I go any further the reason we are discussing the JRT here and your comments in particular masajackrussell is because you stepped up and offered an answer to my original question. There is nothing personal in anything I say even though at times I will talk about you personally.

Yes I'm aware of this and that's fine. I can only answer for me.

> On what basis have you chosen these 3 specific tests

Because they are the ones that are known about as a general rule in my breed and the ones that are recommended by the KC ABS. Along with BVA eye testing.

> I have found 5 other tests why did you not include any of those ?<br />

Because the dog you highlighted is the only one to have had those done in the UK that I can find and those were done abroad before he was imported, not by his current owners whose other dogs only have those three tests previously mentioned and eye testing. I have been doing more research on these tests this evening and chatting to some knowledgable people. None of those are actually a problem in the breed, some are only noted against JRTs because they are a problem in PRTs. Most have said that if it is not a known problem in the breed then it isn't an issue. You test for problems, if you start testing for conditions that aren't a problem, and excluding breeding stock then are you doing any good for the breed overall? Probably not.

> "CD should be making a stand on this matter."<br /><br />I am not surprised that you think this and, to a certain extent, I agree

You really do need some sort of criteria if you are going to successfully champion responsible breeding, not just anyone who pays the fee.

It is a difficult thing to make a hard and fast decision on what is necessary to test for in each breed that's for sure, I don't envy anyone who tries to create my 'ideal world' I mentioned - I certainly don't have the knowledge to! Within each breed, I suppose, people can only go on what is highlighted as a problem rather than markers that can be found but don't cause any issues. I'm all up for testing when things are a problem but having taken a lot of advice, if any of those materialise significantly in JRTs I will be the first in line to get them done.

> Your website however, unlike the KC website, is set up to promote good breeders (not register them), so why do you put 'health tested' on litters where dogs have failed health tests?

This is a very good point.

All the breed clubs for a breed have to agree in order for the KC to be able to restrict registrations to dogs from parents that have had specific health testing done & in the case of DNA tests from at least 1 parent that is DNA normal/clear. Otherwise they could be sued under the restriction of trade legislation.

In only 1 case has this happened-CLAD/PRA in the two Irish Setter breeds

For years the GSD clubs that promote the type of GSD, so despised by most of the members of this forum, bred on the continent tried to get compulsory health testing for GSDs, unfortunately the"Alsatian"promoting clubs( lead by the GSD(Alsatian)Club of UK)refused to even discuss the subject( their type presumably do not have any health issues) so sadly compulsory health testing for KC registration was dropped. Instead the pro testing clubs hold breed surveys which require health testing to be done before the dog is surveyed( as on the continent)

The ISDS only register puppies bred by their members & so can require health testing to be done, as it part of the membership contract. The KC could make a new level of membership & only register puppies bred by a member, then they could require compulsory health tests for all parents of puppies

Surely if you're promoting good breeders, you put 'failed health tests'?

And who decides what is a failed test, when it isn't just a simple case of affected or clear? Sure eyes and elbows would be pretty easy, but hips?

Set a benchmark, speak with the breed clubs, as I've said previously on here, set a green - acceptable, amber - border line, red - failed.  Easy enough to sort out.

It is a bit of a mishmash.

All the Tests our breed club REQUIRES are not listed as requirements.

I do the 3 DNA tests and, Hip Score and Eye test.

I have also decided to Elbow score, even though it does not appear to be sn issue in my breed.  Virtually every one of my breed scored, USA, Scandinavia and UK has been elbow 0, but there have been around half a dozen 1's spread over several decades, so bearing in mind our small gene pool in the UK, with the only way to widen it is to import, I have chosen and advise Elbows be done too, especially as diagnosing elbow problems is pretty expensive, often needing a specialist referal.

Having heard of new owners vets suggesting elbow problems when a pup has been lame, ( a pup a friend bred had Pano) perhaps being able to show parents had good test results and other options be considered before jumping to expensive conclusions..

> I hate hearing “I don’t test, I don’t have that problem in my lines” - no problem until it shows up out of nowhere, and it’s too late for the affected puppies that would never have been produced if you’d just done the test

In 2008 we were able to ascertain that the low number of PRA cases in our breed were down to prcd-PRA. We were fortunate that when a third case became known in our breed two 15 year old litter sisters affected previously were still alive and samples for research able to be gathered.

We were also aware of ocasional cases of Open Angle Glaucoma, careful breeding had also meant no known cases for a long time. Two 6 year olds developed it, and in 2014 they were part of the study that found the gene for it and a test became available ion 2015.

At this point I had been breeding for 20 years, 7 homebred generations and never produced a case of either disease.

The breeding age bitches tested for prcd-PRA were by luck clear, initially about 30% of those tested in UK were Carrier or Affected status.

When it came to POAG similar rate of the gene within the breed, as with prcd.

Of my own girls tested from 4 generations (though the Kennel club are not recording the results from the ones used in the research) it turned out the oldest (born 1999) was a CARRIER, but her daughter (born 2003) was Clear.

That clear bitch had two daughters; One of her Daughters (born 2006) is a CARRIER, though her daughter (born 2012) is CLEAR. 

The second daughter (a half sibling born 2008), is also a CARRIER, and again her daughter (born 2011) is CLEAR.

Worse still the Carrier bitch born  2006, was inadvertently mated to a Carrier dog producing a litter in 2011.  I advised all the owners to test, so if any turned out to be at Risk (not all dogs with two copies of the gene develop symptoms), so that pressures could be regularly monitored.  Only 4 chose to do so, and of those three are Clear and one is a Carrier.

So with Recessive diseass you can never say you don't have it.  One generation you can be clear of it and the next not, and back again.

> Your website however, unlike the KC website, is set up to promote good breeders (not register them), so why do you put 'health tested' on litters where dogs have failed health tests?

I'm not sure CD can do anything about this, it's for a puppy buyer to check results. They are after all health tested, even if the results aren't great. If CD were to start to police results what criteria do they use, on several threads we've not been able to agree ourselves what is acceptable.

Elbows are easy, you could say only 0 is acceptable, hips more of a sliding scale, but what about dna tests, CD can't refuse to list litters that are carriers when a lot of breeders have said they have no problem breeding from carriers to keep the gene pool as wide as possible. Others would say that only clear is acceptable.

It's not easy to say what is a fail or a pass all the time.

(I'm just playing devils advocate here, I personally don't agree with breeding from carriers, high hip scores etc)

I've never once suggested not listing litters or excluding breeders. 

Hips, easy, the breed mean for Labradors was 12, the BVA/KC now use the median which is 9, as I said in my post, to me anything around or below is acceptable, so use the mean as a cut off for a 'green' level, then have an 'amber' listing, ie health tested but not a good result, and even possibly check the EBV and use it in combination, and then anything above that is health tested still, but in the red (which they currently use across the board, even for hip scores that are really poor and even worse, with really poor EBVs). 

If you go onto the list of current litters, pretty much all of them flag up as being 'health tested' which, to the uneducated looks as though it's a green flag to say the hard work has been done by CD staff, so anyone wanting to buy a puppy need not look further.  As any educated breeder will know, or puppy buyer for that matter, actually, probably only two or three litters have any thought behind them, or full health testing.

The only issue I see with taking that approach, is that you won't weed out someone breeding solely for health test results, so the breeder who deliberately seeks out a 0/0 hips and elbows stud dog in the misbelief it will produce lower scoring progeny, without looking at what's behind the pedigree, or even thinking about the type of progeny the mating might produce.

You cannot hide hip/elbow/Dna Test Results undertaken at any Laboratory from the Kennel Club if the dog in question has Official Pedigree Registratiin Papers.  The Testing results area automatically sent directly to KC and all results are published on their site.  It is mandatory. The ones I have used are BVA, Optigen, Anagene & Leominster Veterinanry Eye Hospital & most recently the Combi Breed Option .from KC which states they will automatically be published..

CD verifies every single result on each dog held by KC before acceptance of any advertising.

By raising the bar too high, the opposite effect will take place as it has with Breeder Licensing in October 2018. You may find the 'gene pool' is enhanced on the CD Members Arena however certain sections of the 'shooting world' un the UK start to offer their 'untested for anything Puppies' to their Clients so the number of Puppies born to BYB will soar resulting in even more badly affected Puppies as time goes on.  There is always a  negative consequence to unconsidered actions.  I've seen it happen on Commercial Shoots throughout the UK in the past 2 years.

> The Testing results area automatically sent directly to KC and all results are published on their site.

Not so unfortunately, just to confuse the issue, there are DNA tests that are not listed on a dogs record.

A breed has to apply to the Kennel Club to make the results an official scheme, and even then not all labs report results to the Kennel club, and it is up to the owner to submit the results.

I have for the last 5 years been keeping records for my breed, for  DNA test results for Glaucoma, Dwarfism, and 2 others, that are no longer offered, as it seems they are considered to no longer apply to the breed.

This has also meant keeping track of  the hereditary status of offspring, and even their
offspring.

Finally in January the KC agreed to add these to dogs records, but only those with test results done by the labs, and none of the results for dogs whose DNA was sent in for research!

I have all the certificates, the results have all been published in club publications, been shared on-line.

I offered to send in the copies to KC for them to update records.  Unfortunately they insist they must be owner submitted.

I have found so few have submitted their dogs results. In some cases the owner is no longer active, the dogs have died, people haven't a scanner, can't remember how to log on to see their results, can't find the email, or deleted it after printing etc.

In a move to get more results into KC I have emailed the certificates I hold to the owners/breeders in my address book, with the address where they need to go. So they need only to hit forward, and ask them to be put on.

Apathy amazes me, as on checking KC records so many still haven't done it!! Especially purely pet owners.

Apologies, I should have been more specific.  I was purely refering to my experience with KC, Laboratories and with the Gundog Grp Members I am involved with. This is interesting though that KC claim to record everything but don't?  As these posts continue it seems DEFRA, Councils & KC will need professional Solicitors to get through the minefield of do' & dont's.
Re Owner Only Submission, I suspect this is more to do with Data Protection.

From the Kennel Club website:

DNA tests recorded by the KC
Not all DNA tests available for breeds are recorded by the Kennel Club, however you can find a list of  which DNA tests we do record here.

Obviously I haven't copied the hyperlink, but anyone with any ability to read can easily google and find this page.

>You cannot hide hip/elbow/Dna Test Results undertaken at any Laboratory from the Kennel Club if the dog in question has Official Pedigree Registratiin Papers.  The Testing results area automatically sent directly to KC and all results are published on their site.  It is mandatory.

Only if the test is recommended or required for that particular breed. If an owner tests for PRA or vWD (for example) in a breed where those tests aren't recommended, the results won't be recorded.

>This is interesting though that KC claim to record everything but don't?

They never have claimed to record everything.