Subject moved from Here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the Health screening schemes are voluntary, so the KC does not make it a prerequisite for registration. I would be for it being mandatory to do relevan heath tests as a prerequisite for registration, but not for them to set the range (hip scores) as there is more to the breeding decision than the score of hips, and that decision should be left to the breeder based on the averages in the breed, and the relevant frequebncy of poor hips in the breed or line! I do like the fact that the results of parental health screening is on the Pups registration, and discerning puppy enquirers are becoming, in my opinion, more knowledgeable, judging by the enquiries I receive!

What do others think about this?

Yes brainless I agree with you about mandatory health checks as a pre-requisite for registrtaion for the really debiliating or potentially fatal hereditary problems, like HD, Von Wildebrands, heart probs etc. Then breeders who persistantly, knowingly breed from unsound stock would have to change their ways if they wanted KC registration. I dont see why there should not be a limit for scores like those for HD. They could be quite generous, say 25/25. I know am not "in" big dogs any more but no matter how good a dog/bitch was I would tremble at using a dog with scores higher than that, but my knowledge of giant breeds is nil. Are there any breeds where such a high score is the "breed average" or "acceptable"? Hereditary problems in my breed very seldom "out" til many months of age, the only thing I can test for is eyes, and there are no hereditary tests for the probs Westies can inherit like Perthes or CMO.
Yes, I have found potential owners are much better informed these days and have done much more homework about the breed/caring for /socialising puppies than used to happen years ago. I think this has come about since the internet has been so available to all the last couple of years.

My main reason about the Hip scores not having limits is that in some breeds there are few dogs with low scores, and this could result in removing otherwise valuable animals from thegene pool, when HD is not entirely genetcic, and the mean scores are different. I to would think that a limit of x above the breed mean could be established as an idea. From what I have read Malcolm willis suggests not breeding above a total of 30. As I am no expert on what score would actually give a dog with problems leading a normal life?

I find people that come to me via one of the monthly dog magazines that has a list of breeds and their hip and eye status, seem well informed. this mag also gives fre ads to good breeders. that is those who health check, give back up and take responsibility for their breeding, and raise in a hoime environment. More education of the general public is needed!

It must be most confusing, as even among ourselves reputable ethical people cannot agree about dog breeding. Is it a hobby proffession, lifes Passion! so how do people determine a good breeder. this forum is great, at least we stopped the Potential Rottie owner from buying from a dubious source. If people knew not to buy from dealers and puppy farmers they would go out of business, or at very least raise their standards!

Hi Brainless, couldn`t agree more. I am so tired of repeating what you say.,but apart from the magz not a lot of info seems to get to the public.Life with dogs is a vocation, for me anyway & the pups I have bred will be my responsibility for life. If I hadn`t bred them they wouldn`t be here,I do the very best that is in my power to do for them & try to mke good judgements from the conflicting conclusions of the "experts". Even then, after doing my best, it is still impossible to predict the future health of any animal
Thought Id tell you about a lab I see about 3 times a yr. His hips are 54-58 cant recall exactly, swims, walks, runs, no sign of any probs, he`s about 7yrs now.
Christine

A limit of 25 would be terrible in, for example, Flatcoats who's average is 9 but almost impossible in Clumbers who, at one time anyway, had an average of 40! Possibly an average relative to the breed concerned would be ok but as Brainless said, a dog is rather more than just a pair of hips!

Regards, John

A long time ago in Pembrokeshire, we had a meeting to go up to the KC, basically to try to suggest guidelines to 'help' the KC stop puppy farming. Many very reputable people were present from all relevent local bodies. One of the proposals (amongst others) that was put forward to the KC was that only stock tested for all relevant hereditary disorders should be allowed to have registered stock.

We had a very curt response
'Thank you for your communication, the details of which have been noted'

This, after months of work getting the meeting together.

That was then, and this is now, but I don't think the scene has changed a lot really. The KC still need as many registrations as they can get (to make ends meet?) and have recently put up the registration fee.

I suppose that any restriction by the KC gives more money to bodies such as the 'Dog Lovers Whatevertheycallthemselves Club'

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

I think this is the can of worms been opened! If KC refused to register any puppies that had not had the basic health checks for there breed taking in to account the breed average, people breeding just for money would have to think again and also this business of breeding every season, I assume all KC would have to do is pull up dams history on pc see pups registered within last year/and or relevent health checks not recorded, and send out a, a warning, b, refuse to reg the pups of this litter (which in turn could lead to culling) but I am sure it would deter anyone trying to do the same thing next time as unreg pups sell for less and as you all say people are well informed these days and may just ask the question why? and decide not to purchase. There is a big BUT to this and its the amount of unwanted puppies in rescue homes would this grow year on year or would it grow initially and then fall as people realise breeding just for money is not worth it!

But not every one buys a pup to show ,so would you not get good puppies selling for a cheaper rate ? still giving a good income to the moon lighters ?

you are right that not everyone wants a show dog but if you want a pedigree and are going to pay pedigree money it is in your own interest to get the best you you can and if a pup is not registered i would want to know why when i was parting with a lot of money.

There is always going to be a black market as such for anything but as dog lovers first and foremost we should explore ways to make it harder for them to breed and harder still to make a lot of money with bad stock ( and by that I don't mean bad dogs just not doing well up against the breed standard and having above the desired scores for health checks).

I am with you all the way ,I would never have purchased a pedigree pup from a back street place .But i do think this dog business should be more policed by the kennel club
what stops people registering wrong bitches to a litter,

A scheme similar to the one you propose was taken to the KC by Prof Bedford, he tried to get it started, and suggested that the KC rather than lose control and revenue should perhaps consider a two tier registration scheme. This was to be implemented in two stages. Those animals clear of eye problems and with hips scored should have it printed on the registration. It was put into place, but then the breeders themselves have stopped this from going further to it's next stage, by asking the KC to remove from certificates of registration the results of eye tests and other problems. MRD being one such test, which is now being removed not only from Golden Retrievers but from English Springer Spaniels and American Cockers registrations! The next stage was to look at reducing registration fees for those who did test their stock. The scheme is instead now being slowly but surely stopped by the breeders themselves. Yet everyone who voted for the removal of test results or gets a "European" eye test certificate would claim to be responsible breeders doing the best for their breed. We cannot have it all ways, but this is what some are trying to do.
Years ago a friend of mine had a litter of eye tested health checked rough collies. A buyer came to view the litter and asked "Why are your puppies dearer than those of Mrs X" So having patiently explained that the sire and dam were tested and the litter was tested and all were ok, the buyer went off and bought the cheaper puppy, which by the way was blind at a year old! So the other reason it wouldn't work is that the public sometimes just want something for nothing.

Perhaps one way of being more sure that the dam is who the breeder says she is, could be done by mandatory micro-chipping of all breeding bitches. The micro chip number appearing on the reg form. Then at least 2 litters could not be registered to the same bitch within 12 months, using false papers. The pregant bitch would have to be scanned for the chip number and the vet confirm the pregancy/chip no in writing, after examination/chip scan, before registration of the puppies could take place. It could still be abused I guess if a breeder had 2 bitches mated the same week, but it would be something. Sadly there will always be some potential owners who want a cheap puppy and think that the more carefully and thoughtfully bred/reared puppies and therefore more expensive, are just a rip off. In some ways its understandable. When you only buy a pedigree dog every 10-15 years, the price of pedigree puppies has soared since then, perhaps doubled and they are genuinly surprised that a well reared puppy costs £400-£500 now, when 15 years ago the same calibre of puppy was around £250.

I suspect that it is already happening judging by the large litter size produced by puppy farmers, in breeds that have small litters. I have bred and reared 41 puppies in 7 litters, so that is an average of 6 pups per litter, the smallest reared was 3 the largest 9!

I think the situation with MRD in Goldens at least, is that it is an anomaly not affecting the sight in any way, and there is still lack of clarity as to the mode of inheritance judging by some cases!

Eye and Hip test results have been included for the parents on all pups registration papers for some years now!

I've had this argument so many times Brainless, MRD in Goldens has not been responsible for blindness in any Golden IN THIS COUNTRY but it has elsewhere! What is responsible for is a reduced vision the degree of which is related to the extent of the folds. So the question is, just what degree of visual impairment are Golden breeders prepared to accept? (That should put the cat amounts the pidgins!!!)

Getting back to the original thread, the KC have gone on record so many times as saying that they are not in the business of policing the breeders. I think personally, that they have been pushed into a corner over the puppy farmers and have acted (re the breeding regs) into doing something purely in order to be seen to be doing something. In fact the regulations are completely worthless. It is so easy to register as many litters in a year as the breeder wants in exactly the same way as it is possible to get a good hip score with bad hips of a passed eye test with a blind dog! Most people could work out how to do it but I won't go into it here because I have no intention of helping the crooks any more than I can. Suffice to say that we know it goes on and sooner or later their hour will come!

Maybe it's just me getting bilious in my old age.

Regards, John

And there is also the matter of companies ripping honest breeders off by claiming they have the test that will determine 100% if your dog has pra or not. Healthgene used to do the test for labs but fortunately do not anymore because their claims were false & I am happy to say I was one of the people who exposed them.
Christine.