Apparently the KC are hosting a live webchat tomorrow to answer concerns that people have following the BBC programme.

A brave move, if some of our work webchats are anything to go by, they can get a bit hairy LOL. Will be interesting.

M.

Just received an email about this :)

Preparing my questions now!!  Never done a web chat before - can they filter questions first?

Do get to see other people's questions and answers?

Peanuts

Yes, in my experience you get to see other people's questions and answers.

Not sure if they're able to filter questions. If not, it really could get entertaining.

M.

This sounds fun, it will probably crash due to too many users! LOL :-)

I've been trying to get on for 15 minutes now but just get a blank screen, perhaps they're overloaded! :-(

I cant get on the site either.

same here ! how frustrating - just spoken to my hubby (in London)  who has also been trying for over 20 mins with no luck

Yvonne

I'm on OK - can't say you're missing much so far. More about how mandatory testing would just push people away from the KC and how the Accredited Breeder Scheme is going to save the world.

M.

send off my question at 8 am this morning but cannot get on site it must be very busy.
i wouder once it finsh can you got on the web site to see what they have chatted about or wrote back,

just need to know what reply i got back with te post i send,??????

Well that's it ... they're finished now. Not sure whether it achieved anything really. (Maybe it will be available to play back later on the KC website?)

They do say that they are apparently going to answer as many questions as possible through the website later.

M.

tried but could not get on
the Kc have got their heads in the sand as usual if they think the ABS will save the world
i know people on it i would not buy a stuffed dog from let along a living one
just as there are good breeders on it to
mandatory testing is the way to go, decent breeders would not object, only those in it for money would

I wanted to ask how they could think insisting on testing would make people walk away from the KC. I know most of those Cavalier people featured, and they live for showing & breeding their dogs. If the KC refused to register puppies unless the parents were scanned and heart testing in accordance with the Cavalier Club guidelines, those people would be queueing up to get their dogs scanned.

totally agree lucydogs
both my breeds test and  most puppy enquires do ask are parents tested
the Kc are more afraid of the cash loss  of puppy registrations from puppy farmers than the decent breeders

> mandatory testing is the way to go, decent breeders would not object, only those in it for money would

Decent breeders are doing it already.
The KC have stated their aims are to encompass as many breeders as possible into a higher ethos rather than simply recognise those who already act responsibly.  We may all wish that everyone would just jump to it if they insisted on testing as mandatory across the board but my feeling is that nobody will have have a greater understanding of the breeding world or the market for the registrations, if you like, than they have.  If they thought they could insist on mandatory testing I feel they would.
I was disappointed not to be able to get onto to the web discussion to view it but I did hear a couple of interviews that Caroline Kisko did on the day of that programme tranmission which pretty much reinterated the information, points and sample question and answers already laid out regarding their views on the future of breeding and the ABS on their web site anyway so not sure what points they might have added.  Not sure what difference seeing them again would make to the posters that have not accepted them so far.

> I know most of those Cavalier people featured, and they live for showing & breeding their dogs. If the KC refused to register puppies unless the parents were scanned and heart testing in accordance with the Cavalier Club guidelines, those people would be queueing up to get their dogs scanned.

They might although goodness knows why they are not doing it already but thousands of puppies are bred by people that do not show and therefore have no pressing need for KC registration as opposed to another registration.

Decent breeders are doing it already.

Yes but not all people heavily into showing and breeding do. Like Lucy said, there certainly ARE people who would start testing if they were forced to. The BYBs wouldn't bother as they don't show, but sadly there are still a lot of exhibitors that don't bother with any testing at all, and these people could then be reeled in.

I think becoming involved in sites like this are instructive. I thought I would breed from Whistler but I would get him screened for hips, bloods ect before I did. Now I am not so sure as I have appreciated that just because he's KC reg that does not make him "good". I would have to be really reassured that his bloodline was good and really as he is to big to show I would debate (with myself) the advisability of breeding him.
Before Champdogs I had it all planned in my head but I would wish to be "responsible" so would struggle with the morals of bringing forward pups from a less than suitable stud!!! Whissy my man, you may be in for the chop ( breeding wise that is).

> The BYBs wouldn't bother as they don't show

In most breeds  these are a sizable proportion of those producing puppies if not the majority and therefore efforts need to be directed towards them.
Show breeders already have breed clubs, peer pressure and stud requests to encourage them. 

but, if the KC made testing compulsory and made sure the general public were aware that KC registered dogs were all health tested it would draw people away from the byb's and the puppy farms.

They already make them aware of health testing and that Accredited Breeders must health test so not sure that would take you any further.

I don't think it is as simple as that. Those that don't care about showing, won't care WHERE they register -and they already have an alternative that Joe Public believes is as valid as anything else. I don't know what the answer is. But there's still plenty of show people who are not breed club members and who do not test. Often if a certain stud dog wins enough that's all people worry about. Some show breeders like to tell stories about who the various schemes are flawed (HD in particular) and therefore they don't bother with them as "they don't believe in them". They manage to convince a lot of people -especially the beginners who happily WANT to believe. There's even several judges that act like this, I've bought pups (2 breeds) from no less than 3 such judges in the past. (Never again!)

They already make them aware of health testing and that Accredited Breeders must health test so not sure that would take you any further.
I'm sure it would. If KC registration meant the parents HAD to be tested, with good results, and HAD to have been shown or worked with at least average results, then KC reg would suddenly mean quality.

> Those that don't care about showing, won't care WHERE they register -and they already have an alternative that Joe Public believes is as valid as anything else.

Exactly.  The KC believe they have more chance of effecting a change amongst these breeders towards a more responsible way of breeding by encouragement rather than enforcement.

But its already proved it doesn't work. But the forceful way works in other countries. Should be an easy decision. :) So many people won't do what they don't HAVE to, especially when it involves money.  Like, who would pay for a TV license if it was voluntary?

The difference is you will be heavily fined if you do not pay your TV licence.  The KC have no such powers and I can't see the Government introducing them either.

but if the KC wont register the pups then that is as good as a fine because the dogs cant be shown so are "potentially" useless.

> but if the KC wont register the pups then that is as good as a fine because the dogs cant be shown so are "potentially" useless.

We are back to the point of whether show breeders, and in particular show breeders who do not already test, are of sufficient number to target in this way at the possible risk of alienating a much, much larger group of breeders who do not show.

so what are the other options ? those who dont show probably dont KC register anyway but if we make KC the "gold standard" then more people will want a KC registered dog.

Why is all the discussion about health testing? as I saw it there are at least two sides to the problem, the health testing, and the breeding to produce exaggerated  caricatures of what a breed once was.

The second problem is more worrying in that the KC have a hand in it, don't they train judges? don't they host the shows?

They condone it from what I can see.

I

> so what are the other options ?

The ABS. 

> those who dont show probably dont KC register anyway

Many do.

> The second problem is more worrying in that the KC have a hand in it, don't they train judges? don't they host the shows?

They recognised this problem some time ago Robert..  They have altered standards and have stressed the importance of health to breed clubs and have even added something to that effect to Challenge Certificates. 

I can't see the Government going for compulsory licencing or legislation.

I think it is down to the Kennel Club & Breeders to actually do something about the welfare and health of the dogs that are bred from to remove the terrible debilitating illnesses.  They should introduce compulsory health screening & refuse to register litters from dogs to be known to be carrying those problems.

I know its expensive to breed, that's why I don't do it at the moment. But I can tell you anything I bred from would be health screened and temperament checked, whatever the cost.

Karen

This is why I was not too bothered about missing the web discussion.  The Kennel Club have, on several occasions, given their opinion on why they think it inappropriate to introduce manditory testing but others hold other opinions and that is the way it is :-)  Who is right and who is wrong who can say but for my money when it comes to such a choice I would always plump for where the greatest experience lies.

My OH says that if the KC insisted on testing then breeders would just use other registries like has happened in the US where apparently there are loads of alternative registries that the byb and puppy farmers use. But surely people like the Dog Lovers registry can't hold dog shows?? I thought that even companion shows had to be licensed by the KC or they would be fined but he says the KC can't fine people and they could do nothing if he decided to have a dog show in the front garden tomorrow, surely that can't be right?? (need my puzzled smiley)

> But surely people like the Dog Lovers registry can't hold dog shows??

Yes, they can.  The only thing stopping you showing at a non KC show is they can bar you from showing at their shows.  I think we are over estimating the extent of showing amongst people that just breed dogs though.
Have you watched the webchat.   Many of these points are addressed.

But they don't have high profile shows with top quality dogs like the KC champ shows surely? I know the puppy farmers don't care about the showing but I'm thinking about the top show breeders that don't health test.

Again, I don't think we should overstimate the importance of showing to a lot of breeders that register their puppies and in, most breeds anyway, top show breeders do test their stock.

I know most of those Cavalier people featured, and they live for showing & breeding their dogs. If the KC refused to register puppies unless the parents were scanned and heart testing in accordance with the Cavalier Club guidelines, those people would be queueing up to get their dogs scanned.

This is what I don't understand.  If they live for showing and breeding their dogs, why aren't they doing it now.... why do the KC need to make it mandatory before they do... If that is the case, then they deserve to be uncovered as the programme did.

....hmmmm interesting ....i've just watched a rerun of the webchat  and some of the responses quite frankly just do not add up .

For instance the reason they state  that they need to continue to register pups from anyone who applies irrespective of their breeding practices ( and even as they admitted from puppy farmers ) otherwise they would go elsewhere does not stack up with their insistance that the Accredited Breeders Scheme would "elbow out bad breeders' by reducing puppy sales from them.

Surely if this worked  the 'bad breeder' would not bother with KC registration anyway ! - they only register with the KC because it helps them to sell their pups .

The Kennel club cannot sit on the fence with this - they cannot credibly continue a two teir registration system KC registration should equal a certain standard of breeding practice this would make the whole issue crystal clear for any potential puppy buyer - as it now stands good breeders who are not part of the ABS will now be lumped together with the same puppy farmers that the KC so willingly register !.

...and furthermore the ABS itself is meaningless unless the Kc insists not only on health testing but on GOOD RESULTS - what use is it to health test and still  be an Accredited breeder if you go on to breed from those who fail their tests ?

Yvonne

Because they don't believe or don't want to believe that SM is as much of a problem as it is, and to be honest because at present the scan isn't very useful, it's just the best we can do at present. Clear scanned dogs can produce affected puppies, and I have heard a rumour of affected dogs producing clear puppies, though I personally have no proof, it's just what people in the breed have been saying. So the mode of inheritance is still very vague, but the scans are helping for research.

So the mode of inheritance is still very vague, but the scans are helping for research.

I cannot believe that scans are only helping research.  The mode of hip displasia is not fully understood, and dogs with low hip scores do throw high scoring pups.  Equally, high scoring dogs do produce low scoring pups.  That is no reason not to hip score, and surely the same could be said for cavalier breeders.  To assume that the scan is not useful and is just the best we can do at present and the breeders don't bother with it is outragous and indefensible.  The fact that it exists should alert the breeders.  IMO the producers were quite right to expose this head in the sand attitude.

I have just been having a look at the ABS requirements, it says that all "you" breeding stock be either micro-chipped, tattoed or DNA profiled.  So what happens if we were to go out to stud and the boy that we chose isn't identified in one of their required ways?  Would that mean that we could use the scheme for that particular litter? 

The downfall that i find with the ABS is that the KC does not check to see if the health tests have been done.
I know a chap who is on the ABS and has had 7 litters this year with not one health test between them, what is the point?

Peanuts

> as it now stands good breeders who are not part of the ABS will now be lumped together with the same puppy farmers that the KC so willingly register !.

The KC have laid out very clearly what the intention of the ABS is and asked good breeders for their support.  If good breeders choose not to support those aims for whatever reason they cannot then turn round and complain about being left with the breeders who would not be acceptable to the scheme.  You either believe in the scheme or you don't.

>the Kc insists not only on health testing but on GOOD RESULTS

They have also explained, can't remember if it was mentioned again during the webchat, the dangers of being too prescriptive about results.

> I know a chap who is on the ABS and has had 7 litters this year with not one health test between them, what is the point?
>

Are these health tests defined as mandatory within the scheme.  Not all tests are.  If this is the case you should report it. 

Maybe the Kennel Club should be more restrictive about the ABS?  Limit litter numbers, amount of dogs used for breeding in a year, number of different breeds produced from one kennel? Investigate complaints from buyers and remove bad breeders accordingly?

But then it probably just comes down to fees.  The KC is a business and they get paid by puppy farmers the same as they do by good breeders.

I think the best thing to do is buy on the merit of the breeder, hopefully a good one will have a great health track record, be recommended by other people, be happy for you to visit a few times and offer an after sales support package

> Investigate complaints from buyers and remove bad breeders accordingly?
>

They do and they have.

> But then it probably just comes down to fees.  The KC is a business and they get paid by puppy farmers the same as they do by good breeders.

That doesn't make sense.  The are a not for profit organisation, all the money they raise is ploughed back into the interest of dogs.  This was one of the issues touched upon in the web broadcast.  Have you watched it yet?

Hi Isabel , Yes the breed council state quite clearly that if you are on the ABS then all stock must be tested.

Peanuts

PS It's not the breed of my avatar!!