Hi All
I was just wondering why in some breeds, most (or a lot) of breeders do hip-score, whilst in others, very few do?
I understand that some large breeds, and those with flatter faces sometimes have difficulties with anaesthetic (sp), and I'm not meaning the difference between toy dogs and working say, but for example, breeds within the Pastoral group, bred to do similar types of work.
I was just reading the latest BRS, and was very surprised to see so very few Rough Collies have been hip-scored (less than half dozen), yet there are numerous litters registered? Anyone have any ideas?

Regards - Kay

I would be very interested too, as plenty of poor scores in breeds that are rarely scored when the odd one is.  If they aren't scored then how do they know if a problem is building up.   We all know that movement is not a good indicator of hip status.  Even toy breeds get HD,.

Because as many of us know who score dogs that move wonderfully can have the worst hips going and dogs who move terribly the best and many people think that because a dog can run, jump etc. that there's nothing wrong, unfortunately this isn't true.  I think all breeds should be hipscored except maybe ones that have real problems with anaesthetics etc.  I doubt that this will ever happen but it does annoy me when people with breeds and mongrels say that it is not a problem with them, it is, they just don't see it because they don't score.

The other thing for me is not only do I do hips but elbows too. However, my bug bear is that there is a litter about 5 miles from me being advertised on the KC website puppy list, both parents not hip scored. Now, I feel if the KC provide and encourage these schemes for my breed then they shouldn't permit unscored dogs puppies to be on the list. Rant over!

If they are KC accredited breeders then you can report them to the KC and they will be in touch with them!  If not then there's not a lot that can be done.  Your breed Club though needs to tell the KC what health tests should be included for KC accredited breeders because even if a breed is on a list for having their eyes done etc. if the Club doesn't request that all breeders should have this done and advise the KC then they won't do anything.

Unless there have been any changes to the rules the puppy list does not indicate an Accredited Breeder. Anyone who registers a litter can pay to have their litter added to the list.  It would still be worth asking the Breed Club if they are members (again appearing on the list does not mean they are) and whether all they are doing complies with their codes.

Hi Isabel if you look at the puppy list online it does indicte those that are memebers of the accredited breeder scheme. When someone phones the KC they are informing prospective purchassers which breeders with litters advertised are members also.

When the ABS started I enquired whether the requirement was to breed from low scores or just to have stock tested and the Kennel Club told me that the scores were irrelevant which IMO makes the scheme useless and no guide to help the public buy a carefully bred puppy. :(

We have some Accreditted Breeders in my breed that I wouldn't touch with a bargepole. :(

I think it is down to individual Breed Clubs to indicate what are acceptable scores, Val, as different breeds will have different issues as regards other health issues, limited gene pools etc that must come into the equation.  I am rather glad that the KC does not see its job as to interfer over and above the Breed Clubs in this respect.

But the Breed Clubs weren't consulted before the 'requirements' of the scheme were decided and published by The Kennel Club.  Here is part of the reply that I received from The Kennel Club in June 2004. 

It has always been our intention that the scheme requirements would evolve and we intend to contact all breed clubs in the very near future to get them to suggest what they consider appropriate health checks to be an Accredited Breeder in their bred.

The public are led to believe that Accreditted Breeders have quality, healthy stock, and that is just not the case. :(  It just means that they pay to have them tested.

They started with the BVA/KC schemes which seems like a good place to start to me :)  As they say the scheme is evolving.  I don't have any problem with that and don't see why it needed to wait to be thrashed out by committee after committee to reach a polished state before introduction in fact you would expect it to be under continuous review and evolution with new data, feedback etc.
The stated aim of the Scheme was to 'recognise good practice' and health screening is certainly that.  It has always been up to the consumer to research what these schemes and results indicate.

I always supply BVA leaflets that explain the schemes to each of my puppy buyers.  don't see the point of them having health screening if it isn't explained to the buyer what the results mean.

Yes I have looked at the new lists and see the information is on there now :) but what I really meant was appearing on the list does not necessarily mean you are an Accredited Breeder and I see this is still the case.

No Isabel anyone that registers puppies can advertise on the KC list but my point is the KC do point out the accreditted breeders to prospective buyers. Fine if the scheme actually meant anything but as Val says it doesn't all it proves is they have paid for the minimum tests to be done, not that they have necessarily got good results that may minimise any health problems in future generations.

Well yes it does demonstrate you have performed the tests and that results will be known to the purchaser which is an enhancement on a merely registered litter, there are other requirements to the scheme over and above the general KC code too plus the accountability aspect so I think it is erroneous to say it means nothing :)

So breeding from Hipscored dogs that have bad hips is ok as they have been  tested ? KC still registers puppies from this breeding and because the breeder has paid money to be on the accredited breeder scheme it is fine? The KC isn't going to stop registering or  advertising these litters. Where is the accountability ? What does it actually mean Isabel?Breeding on from bad hips is no better than breeding from unhipscored dogs in my opinion.

It depends how you define bad hips.  As I understand it breeding from a dog with an above average score will be acceptable to some Breed Clubs where the advantages offered to the gene pool are considered greater.  As I say, I think it best for a consensus of breeders ie the Breed Club to determine what is acceptable in each case not the KC. 
Being in the scheme and therefore being obliged to score and make that known to the purchasers is an enhancement on not doing it is it not? 
The accountability is being removed from the scheme if you do not comply.  The schemes aims and requirements are clearly laid out on the KC web site when one starts to follow the links from "purchasing a puppy" and puppy purchasers are encouraged to feedback if the breeder is found wanting.  That is what I mean by accountability.

Depends on what the average score is too.  In a breed where the mean score is already high then breeding from dogs much higher would not be a good idea, but in breeds with low scores a couple of points above in the grand scheme of things will not be so bad, as long as the general trend isn't for scores to go up.

I have used a male whose hipscore is way above the breed average but it is known around the world that his pups and grandchildren etc. have low hipscores, this has also happened so far here in the UK.  Of course I am going to be careful that he is not put with high scoring bitches, all of the ones that have been used have been below the breed average score.

I think it would be a shame if he hadn't been used as I think that he has improved certain areas in the breed and I'm more than pleased that I've used him and also have had feedback from other people who have used him and they are also happy with what he has produced.

I have a dog whose mother is 3 times the breed average, his father well below. All scored pups (but far from all were scored, the dam had 4 litters) were well below the mother's EXCEPT mine who has a score of 96. So sadly it can go either way.

Yeah but of course the same thing could happen in a line where it seems that all dogs are well below breed average.  Maybe one day with the advances of DNA etc. we will be able to improve on what we have and ensure that we use valuable dogs in the breeds. 

Anyone with a registerable litter can simply pay to advertise their pups on the KC's puppy list. No need for club membership, or health tests - simply registerable puppies.

It is becoming more common to hip score the Roughs now ... gradually. Many of the 'big' breeders are now doing it, so I assume more will follow. We do have mostly OK scores, but there have been some horrors.

M.

I presume that's Rough Collies is it?  I think that they should have started being hipscored many years ago.  I can't believe how the breed has changed in the last 30 years.