>these are the kind of people who will opt to be KC Accredited Breeders, not people who are geniunely concerned about the quality and health of the puppies. 

I'm sure you didn't mean it but the way you have worded that is a little unfair on all the very good breeders who have signed up to the scheme :)
Is the Optigen test a requirement of your breed club if not I can't see why the KC can be asked to include it in their scheme surely it is for the consensus of breeders within a breed to decide what is to be standard practice on these matters?

No, I didn't mean it like that Isabel, :)

What I meant is, just because they are KC Accredited, it doesn't mean that the puppies they produce will be any better health/breed standard wise than those of people who decide not to be accredited, does this make sense?

Optigen is not a requirement, but surely if you knew your stud dog was a high risk for being a carrier of a known health problem within the breed, wouldn't most responsible people have the test done?

I know this persons stud dogs sire is a carrier as he is in my bitch's pedigree, so I have had the Optigen test done so that I know what dog I can put her to, i.e if she was a carrier ,i would have to put her to a Optigen A1 dog, as it is, she is Optigen A1 so I can safely put her to any dog knowing that none of her puppies will ever be affected.

>it doesn't mean that the puppies they produce will be any better health/breed standard wise than those of people who decide not to be accredited

It does within the scope of the health screening tests that the scheme is a present stipulating.  To be fair to the KC I don't think they can reasonably be expected to insist on tests that the consensus of the breeders within the parent breed club haven't agreed on.

It's a bit of a nonsense, though, when breeders who don't test for anything can become Accredited as easily as those who do, even though the breed clubs recommend that testing is done. :(

Agreed, they really need to sort out these discrepancies but nevertheless, in response to chockymolly's post, as some health testing is covered we can say that there are instances where it shows a standard of healthier breeding.  As, I think, we have all come to the conclusion that accredited breeders ought to be obliged to be breed club members that would deal with the discrepancy.

OK everyone I have been following the posts and so far nobody has posted how they would run the scheme and what they would make compulsary and what not to.

Several of you have mentioned involving breed clubs which is a good idea. We do realise that "one size fits all" is not going to work so we need to have a scheme which benefits the dogs and encourages breeders to want to be members.

So just how would you run and monitor such a scheme?

Imagine no scheme exists at all and the KC said to you "Right we would like you to come up with a scheme which good breeders will want to join, we want to improve dog breeding and dog welfare through this scheme and we want to make it easy for people looking for a dog to be able to buy a good puppy from a responsible breeder.

Well I think I would keep the scheme as it is pretty much, including DNA identification, I'm afraid Brainless :) because it is such a little thing to do and may be useful in parentage dispute or health screening results where the dog has been identified in this manner.  Its certainly something that would become increasingly useful as these things are developed, costs little and is hardly an invasive procedure.  What I would do is drop any of the recommended health screening and just make it a requirement that breeders are a member of the parent breed club of any dog they are breeding and that, therefore, their code of ethics was conformed to.

For a starting point, I would like to see that nobody could register pups until they had been a member and involved with a club for say a minimum of 5 years - be it show, agility, obedience, working (and whatever I don't know about!:)) because whatever your chosen discipline, meeting and talking to other more experienced breeders is where the most information and knowledge is gleened.  Maybe attend a talk on anatomy - even someone breeding for obedience ability should understand what happens if they don't also consider an upright shoulder or bend of stifle, although they won;t of course be concerned about size of eye or ear carriage!  I can't see it being considered as the income from puppy registrations will be cut enormously!

Whilst I consider health testing to be important,  there is soooo much more to consider when mating a dog to a bitch.

I think that TV programs to educate the public on how to buy a happy, healthy puppy are an excellent idea.  Joe Public are interested in animal programs and it would be useful not to show how charities perform free caesarians for pedigree dogs belonging to owners on benefits!:rolleyes:

Well after hearing what I've heard on the Crufts coverage this evening, I think that I'll disassociate myself from the rest of the dog world and keep quietly doing what I've been doing for for the past 22 years!  I despair!

Do you mean the promotion of the Accredited Breeder scheme in which case if you are going to have such a scheme of course you are going to promote it but then I would say that wouldn't I :)  However if you mean the promotion of the Labrador Poodle Cross then I share your dispair but let's bear in mind this programme is entirely directed and edited by the BBC not the KC. 

The Kennel Club should insist that it has more influence or at least insist on making a program to redress the balance.  How on earth can the public make an educated decision when they are fed such drivel?  Can you tell I'm angry???

For a starting point, I would like to see that nobody could register pups until they had been a member and involved with a club for say a minimum of 5 years

That's all very well but what about people who (for reasons of all the politics involved in some breed clubs) they don't WANT to be a member of a club?  There's no way in hell I'd be a member of my second breeds club because of the total dishonesty involved there.

I agree with attending a seminar on construction and also breeding.

Debs

I think education has to be the key here, as with so many things. I believe that the danger in (as on BBC last night) promoting the KC's Accredited Breeder Scheme as THE source for a healthy puppy is that people will believe that an Accredited Breeder couldn't possibly sell them anything but. We all know this is far from the truth.

Where the KC is requiring a certain test for a certain breed, do they also provide details to puppy buyers on what the results of that test mean? (They may do, I haven't had a litter in four years and haven't investigated the AB scheme as I feel I do what I need to do anyway.) In the instance I know of an accredited dog with a hip score above 40, will owners who buy a puppy from that litter be thrilled that their chosen sire/dam is accredited and has such an excellent high hip score? :rolleyes:

To be honest, I'm all for such a scheme if it is actually something to aspire to, and not cheap advertising for a year for any old puppy producers who don't actually have many hoops to jump through. DNA identification was meant to be mandatory within a year - is this now in place? How will it be checked? Are the visits to breeders' premises taking place? Will, at the least, the Kennel Club make spot checks where a fairly high number of litters are being registered? Will reports of unregistered litters being sold in between the registered ones be leapt upon?

Diversifying, Labradoodle breeders must be praying to images of Bruce Fogle today, what excellent advertising.

M.

There will always be issues regarding just what results are suitable for breeding but ensuring all the recommended ones are done does ensure that that information is available and in the case of KC/BVA tests will be appearing on the registration documents a lead perhaps for the puppy purchasers to find out more and consider whether the results are acceptable to them.
I understood that when DNA identification was carried out it was recorded by the KC so therefore it can be quite clearly seen if the dogs registered with that accredited breeder have done so but I do not know if that has been brought into force.
It says quite clearly in the literature that the random checks are by way of contacting purchasers not visiting breeders. A check with the purchasers would be able to tell them if all the requirements of the scheme are being met as it is really covering things like written records given, offered followup support etc.  I would imagine if the interview revealed any welfare issues the appropriate agencies for that sort of thing would be contacted as I don't think the KC would have the power to enter someones home anyway.
As regards the number of litters, the KC have allowed people on the scheme to use the Puppy Sales Register even when they produce more than 4 litters a year so I presume they regard the scheme as a way of allowing them to demonstate their responsible breeding without it being mearly a number count which I must say I have never felt a definative way of defining puppy farming in itself.

>Will reports of unregistered litters being sold in between the registered ones be leapt upon?

I would hope so :)
As you say you have not investigated the AB scheme I have included a link to the literature :)

Actually Jan, I'm not even sure whether dogs need a CLEAR certificate? Do they just need to have been tested? (Not being sarky here, genuine question.) I know of accredited dogs with far higher hip scores than I would consider acceptable, eye tests may be different.

M.

Good point! I went to check, and the KC says Accredited Breeders must:

>Make use of health screening schemes, relevant to their breed, on all breeding stock. These schemes include DNA testing, hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia and inherited eye conditions.

At the bottom of the list of health checks it says that the relevant breeds "should have a current eye examination certificate (within 18 months of the date of registration of a litter)". They only issue a certificate for satisfactory results, don't they? (Never seen one!)

Hmmm, being technical (or is it picky LOL?) I think the certificate is issued for all tests and the pass or fail is marked. Not sure though, only certs I have here are for clears.

M.

Edited to add - certificate has conditions listed, and tick box for Affected / Unaffected. Does this mean that a fail has fulfilled the KC's requirements?

Nowhere can I find anything to suggest that the dogs must have passed these tests ... ... what an oversight! :(

I can kind of see the logic behind the omission, to be honest - taking my own breed at the moment, if you mandated that accredited breeders could only breed from RCs clear of CEA at puppy test, you'd have virtually no accredited RC breeders, I suspect. If you mandated it on DNA test, you'd probably have none!

I guess the wording is there to encourage people to health test without throwing the baby out with the bathwater and making it too clear cut. Unfortunately, we all know that there are people who will work within the 'spirit' of it, and those that won't.

M.

I agree M!!  I think that I'm right in saying that the majority of 'big' breeders, certainly north of Watford ;), don't eye test their litters.  And there's no way that we'd get our breed clubs to agree to all pups being eye tested.  A few will litter test but not through the BVA scheme.
It's fine to allow scope for those who are responsible and take these things seriously, but for those who don't ...............

That's my perception too Val about 'oop North', but I don't know what I base it on so could be entirely unfair LOL.

I take it with RCs they require us to test annually for PRA, Val, and that's your concern?

From looking at the KC web site, it seems they only require eye testing for our breed? I would have thought they'd have asked for hip score too, to be honest, and I think if there is to be an 'elite' scheme, breeders should be asked to go that bit further. For my part, I have every expectation that hip scoring will eventually be required, so I'd rather get ahead and work out what I've got now.

What IS positive about this scheme, in my view, is that at least some of Joe Public will be made aware that there are such things as health tests, and will be less likely to be fobbed off by those breeders who don't bother to test because they've never had a problem in their kennel ... no, they sell their problems to unsuspecting puppy buyers instead. :rolleyes:

I think it's a good idea, badly executed at this stage. I can entirely see the point though that feedback as to how it can be improved is needed.

M.

M. Does your breed club require you to hip score?  If we are talking about Border Collies I posted the link to their Code today and I thought I saw it saying just recommended.

Roughs here, not Borders Isabel.

Numbers of people scoring in Roughs are increasing, but there is no requirement as far as I'm aware. I do it anyway. With scores ranging from 0-89 on 726 dogs scored, I would have thought it should be a requirement. With a (much reduced) registration number of 1258 in 2005 alone, you'll see what a small percentage that is.

As I said earlier, if there is to be an accredited scheme which carries any sort of 'status', I think it should require people to go the extra mile.

M.

I don't think we can have a meeting of minds there M. :)  I don't think we can expect, even desire, the KC to ask for something that the Breed Club hasn't agreed upon.

Again, in my breed, the parent club would probably advocate that no testing at all was necessary. I'm sure you're correct that we should be trying to change this through the Breed Council and parent club but, rightly or wrongly, many of the people who are the keenest advocates of responsible breeding feel they are far too little fish to attempt to change such things in any way but living to their own standards.

Where the KC has evidence through their genetic/health defects research that a test is advised, I'd be all for them mandating it. It's their scheme, not the breed clubs', and they are entitled to set the rules. Personally, I am in a breed where the breed clubs set very few (if any?) standards to their members.

I don't see any purpose in a scheme that raises one set of breeders above another if it isn't that little bit harder to reach the standards required.

M.

All members, even the little fish have a vote and big fish just get one like everyone else.  Breed clubs are run as democracies and I think we have to accept that the status quo is the majority accepted one and therefore forms the largest concensus.  Certainly in one of my clubs there was a recent upheavel with the removal of several doyens of the breed from the committee because the little people were in the majority of not wishing to continue in their ways so it does happen when the majority wants it :)
If it's not happening I think we have to accept the majority are in agreement with the committees decisions so I will stick with my belief that the breed club is the best judge of the breed requirements as that is the concensus.

That's my perception too Val about 'oop North', but I don't know what I base it on so could be entirely unfair LOL.

I base my personal conclusions on owners of stud dogs that I've enquired about and the general exchange of information at shows over the past 20+ years!

If the largest concensus within the breed ie the breed club does not think a test is necessary then I don't think we can expect the KC to take a different line or do we want the Kennel Club to be able to dictate to the breed club? ;)

I think in some breeds Isabel, the parent clubs/breed councils are run by old schoolers who don't even meet the minimal requirements. (Not casting aspersions on any particular breed, of course ...)

M.

Thats as may be but it is better for the membership to sort it out rather than be dictated from outside isn't it?  You all get to vote the committee in don't you.

As M has pointed out there are certain instances where it would not want to be dictated, perhaps in vulnerable breeds where the use of one affected parent may be essential to provide any hope of expanding the gene pool.  The important thing is the testing is done and the result is available, printed on the registrations documents even.

"They only issue a certificate for satisfactory results, don't they? (Never seen one!)"

Nope you get a certificate to show the dog was tested and it will be ticked affected or unaffected for whichever condition.

Good debate, folks :) This is what you get with a group of people showing respect for the opinion of others

Excellent debate - unfortunately I've just realised I was meant to pick my sister-in-law up 5 minutes ago LOL, so I'll back to it later.

M.

I realised many years ago that my personal ethos was out of step with the vast majority of the 'big' breeders in my breed and I can only do what fits with my conscience and I can only be responsible for the pups that I produce.  Luckily there are a number of 'little' people who share a commitment to the breed.