Last year I was approached for my boy to be used on an unhealth tested bitch. I gave freely advice that she needed to be hip scored, elbow scored and hold a current clear eye cert. Later this year the same person approached me to use my boy, she had a very good hip score but had failed her eyes with MRD, he had attached a letter from Dr J Sampson basically telling him unless the gene pool was rather small (it is massive) that he would advise not to mate this bitch (she is a pet) as it would not be beneficial to the gene pool. I refused to let him us Hamish as things like this madden me, why do people bother with tests and then totally ignore the outcome (such as V high hips) and carry on. No more was thought until I looked in BRS and noticed he had gone ahead and had a litter of 9 pups. The stud dog owner is a member of the Accredited Breeder scheme and on his website he goes into reams and raptures why health testing is important both with Goldens and Nova's.
To cut a long story short the KC AB dept do not want to know as the member hasn't 'broken' any rules as it wasn't one of his bitches that had failed her eye cert. This makes another complete farce of the AB Scheme, and it is about time the KC got off it's gilded perch and show people it stands by what it states> Rant over

There have been so many cases recently of supposed ABS breeders having bad breeding practises and the KC not wanting to know. I support the KC and think they have the power to do so much good with every breed but they are not enforcing the rules of the ABS and are giving these people respectability by having their seal of approval regardless of what they are really doing.

Seems like just another way to make money, anyone can pay their 15 quid and sign up.

I am getting very disheartened. More and more problems seem to be rearing their heads. The front page of the Dog World  shocked me this week when the Old English Mastiff Club and Mastiff Association have served a writ on the KC for registering the dam of a dog as Mastiff dam unknown. It just makes a mockery of what honest breeders are trying to strive for. If this is truly the case then I totally applaud the Mastiff club. Scares the pants off me that this could be allowed to happen.

To cut a long story short the KC AB dept do not want to know as the member hasn't 'broken' any rules as it wasn't one of his bitches that had failed her eye cert

If this person is a GRC member they have however broken the code of ethics and can be reported for that. ALTHOUGH the KC of course made all clubs change their c of e's to their new ones!! Which now is a lot less clear and no longer mentions this scenario... In the past though I queried with the GRC if they'd do something about a stud dog owner who had allowed their stud to mate a bitch that had  a health problem (in this case it was a high hip score) and they said yes, they would.

Again all the Kennel Club appear to be doing is letting the public hear that they are doing something but when something goes wrong they do not want to know as Alison will testify from last year. All the KC are interested in is £££££.

> ALTHOUGH the KC of course made all clubs change their c of e's to their new ones!!

As I understood it they had to have the given code as the "core" but were able to add whatever else they thought appropriate.

> There have been so many cases recently of supposed ABS breeders having bad breeding practises and the KC not wanting to know.

Can you be more specific.  Polly has recently posted that the KC has expelled over 50 breeders in the past few weeks so clearly action is taken when found to be necessary.

>Seems like just another way to make money, anyone can pay their 15 quid and sign up.

Do you mean money making for the KC?  It runs at a loss so, in fact, the more people that sign up the more money the KC spend on the scheme.

The KC may have expelled breeders from the  ABS  but will the actually refuse to register pups from kc reg parents .So things go on as normal .those that health check and those that dont  unless the kc puts their dentures in it will never be able to use its teeth

> but will the actually refuse to register pups from kc reg parents

That just goes back to the arguement as to whether we need a ABS.  The KC have explained why they do not consider it viable to apply the same rules across the board and, following recent events, I would say they are in an even more vulnerable position without legislation to support that type of move.
Going back to the original post.  I can see why the KC might not wish to include stud dogs, at this point anyway.  There are many reputable and valuable breeders who have not joined the scheme.  I don't think it would be fair to them to exclude them using stud dogs in their breeding plans belonging to equally reputable and valuable breeders who have joined.  If the KC made such a rule I think they might complain that that amounted to coersion even :-)  Beside the scheme is to enable the general public to find breeders of a certain standard in order to source a puppy not a stud dog.

I have to disagree with that comment Isabel. If the stud dog owner is a member of the ABS he or she should follow the code of ethics set down. For my understanding all of the breeders stock (ABS member) will fall under the code and thus this should apply to anything that the abs member uses be it an outside sire or a dam coming to use a stud dog. There is no point in setting rules if they can easily be broken with no repercusions whatsoever. The whole purpose of the ABS is to encourage breeders to breed responsibly, using a stud dog on a bitch that failed it's eye cert is double standards aside from the abs if they are equally responsible breeders they would not allow this to happen. The principal of the KC/BVA tests are to try to eliminate hereditary diseases from the gene pool such as clad in IS, I can only draw the conclusion that such double standards are only motivated by finacial gain with no respect for the future progeny- if you disagree with this sentiment (Motivation) please advise what possible motive could driven such irresponsible actions.

>The principal of the KC/BVA tests are to try to eliminate hereditary diseases from the gene pool such as clad in IS,

Indeed, and I do think in this instance they have behaved irresponsibly but the tests were done and will appear on the registration documents so the scheme has been complied with even if the breeder herself was not a member.  As already said the KC have explained why they are not applying a blanket rule regarding test outcomes.  Although this breed may have a large gene pool others do not. 

As I understand it, the requirement is for breeding animals to be health tested to fulfill the requirements of the ABS, however, a successful/pass for those tests is not required, therefore as long as the animal has been tested under the relevant scheme then it would fulfill the crieteria for registering a litter actually under the ABS scheme itself, therefore for an ABS member to use their dog on a bitch who would fulfill the criteria is also OK.  IT makes little or no sense to me, and when I queried it (with American Cockers specifically in mind) a well tested excuse was trotted out that the reasoning is to make people use the testing scheme, but the decisions and interpretation of the results is up to the breeders themselves.  I can sort of see a point when it is a subjective test (such as hip scoring) but for something with a simple pass or fail?

> but for something with a simple pass or fail?

It may still leave some potential when you have a gene pool that is blighted with something even more prevalent or devastating to the dogs health.  With the growth of available DNA information the potential for always breeding to clear, for instance, to build of pool clear of something else is there if you don't have blanket bans.

When I raised the question with the KC (at one of the "Roadshow" type things) I was specifically talking about HC in American cockers, at this moment in time when there is no DNA test available.  For the furture if/when we get the DNA test, then there may be every reason to breed a genetically clear to an affected, as the worst the mating can produce is carriers.  However, until such a test is produced I see no justification for using affected dogs in a breeding scheme at all.  The team refused to answer my straight question, but went into the ramifications of tests/breeds with results open to interpretation.  OF course, this is not just a problem with my breed, but others with similar problems and without DNA tests available yet.  It seems to me that the problem expressed by the OP may well fall into this category.

I've had a similar situation.  Well, 2 actually.  Last year I was approached to use by boy - bitches hips and eyes had been done.  Asked her to send me copies and it came to light that eye certificate was out of date - she didn't realise eyes should be tested annually so as her bitch was ready to be mated - I said sorry I can't let you use my dog.  But a few days later on another website I noted that the bitch had been mated with another KCAB's dog.  I spoke to her and she said 'I forgot to check the certificates'!!!

Recently, another breeder wanted to use my boy.  She had an eye certificate but was waiting for hips/elbows to be done.  Well, hips are back - totalling 35 - almost double current average - so I've said no again.  She said her vet said the score is totally acceptable and she should go ahead.  She is adament she wants a litter, so what happens now?  Do I let her use my boy who has a very low score aiming to improve on bitches score or let her use just any old dog who may now even be scored at all? 

I am currently sticking to my original decison and saying no, but would appreciate other points of view on the situation.  But I do think this is what is happening to some extent - and can see why some studs are being used when really they shouldn't be.

Ells-bells, I would definately stick to your original thought and say no. It imo is unaccetable to breed from a bitch with a hip score of 35, I presume that this a golden retriever and  if so quite rightly I would say no as the breed average is 19. Unless this is an exceptional bitch either a CH, ShCh or Ftch and the said owner has no other way of keeping an exceptional line open (which I doubt very much as it sounds to me like a pet bitch) I would politely turn her away. That way your consience is clear and as we now live in a litiginous society they  (future progeny owners)will have no come back on you.

Yes, she is a pet Golden Retriever bitch with a nice pedigree.  I have heard no more from them since I refused so I, like you do, keep an eye on future BRS's to see who she has mated her with.

IMO - it is far easier to say no, rather than be anxious about potential puppies.  I honestly don't know how some people sleep at night - at least my consience is clear.

If you said yes and the pups had problems - my guess is that you would be the person blamed and this would reflect on your breeding and reputation :(   No point in the risk really for a pet bitch ;)

Good for you sticking to your criteria and not being blinded by ££££  :-)

Dill - undoubtedly the stud dog would get the blame!  My boy deserves to only be used on tested ladies that are well below breed average.  If that is to only be very occasionally - then so be it.  I really cannot understand why people do not take notice of results etc.  A reputation can take many many years to achieve and perhaps only minutes to destroy!  No way is it worth it.

I have a dog that would have been a fail on a certain test (she will never have the condition as her score was in the normal bracket but not totally clear), I have used her with a clear dog and now have a lovely puppy who is clear to.  I think that we have to be careful on what is rejected and what is accepted myself, especially in breeds with a small gene pool.

I have a dog that I would have loved to use with my girl this time, they produced pups last time with brilliant results and many of his offspring with other dogs have got good results with one of his grandchildren having the equal best hipscore in the country.  I have decided not to use him even though what he has produced has been wonderful.

I do believe, IMHO, that it is better to "breed out" than to completely rule out all dogs that don't pass absolutely ALL tests with a "clear" score.  I think it is worrying (and dangerous) that many people are of the opinion that if a dog gets a less than perfect score for a test (obviously depending on the test) that that dog automatically has nothing to offer the gene pool.  I agree with Perrodeagua that you have to be careful what you rule out.  Obviously the OP made the right decision.