Ive been wondering for a while (should have asked at the KC roadshow I guess) how the KC decide which health tests a breed should have to have? Do they look at the number of "permission to show" letters (which personally i dont believe many people ever do), do they study data from vet surveys, or from vet claims? How do they decided that breed X, that previously had no health tests recommended, should now have to have its elbows screened routinely? Any one know?

As far as I know it's the actual breed club's who request these and no-one else?

The breed clubs are in a much better position to monitor health within a breed.
Very often you will find members of a breed club are advised or even compelled to do a lot more tests than the KC recommends.

It is not the decision of the KC.. It is the Breed Councils recommendations

For some breeds like the PUG there are no recommended health screening tests which is a shame. I know of some excellent pug breeders Germany, Uk, Canada and Australia that eye test, hip score, check patellas and have spines checked for hemivertebrae.
All 3 welfare reports highlighted the lack of proper data on genetic and conformation related disorders.
I think this is why a system of anonymous data collection from veterinary surgeries to show the true prevalence of genetic and conformation related disorders is being developed by Paul Mc Greevy (university of Sydney).

It would depend on what condition is being looked at.   If it is the eyes, it is the BVA opthalmologists who centrally collate all the information received from a breed and if any one condition was being seen then the breed would first go on Schedule B - under investigation, with a view if appropriate the condition may be moved onto Schedule A.  However, it does depend on breeds being presented for a routine eye examination in the first place.  Breed Clubs can help with this also if they think that there is an eye condition that is causing concern they can request for this to be put on Schedule B, and then between the KC and the Eye Panellists a decision would be made.   There are now a number of DNA tests available for certain eye conditions for some breeds - see information on KC website.

Other conditions would be monitored by the Breed Clubs and if the club runs a health survey then these conditions should come to light as and when surveys are repeated and the results analysed.  Breed Clubs can also help by raising money so that if any one condition should need investigation there are funds available to make a start, I think that Breed Clubs can also approach the KC with regard to help with funding e.g. a DNA test for certain conditions.

Now that all breeds have a Health Co-ordinator and should by now have a Health Plan in place, will receive all health information from all clubs, this information is collated and the clubs can now work in collaboration with the KC to monitor any condition causing concern.  The Health Co-ordinators also have access to the KC/BVSA Scientific Advisory Group if there should be a need.

but the one's that slip the net are the breeders that are not members of the breed club puppy farmers.that dont do the testing for that breed.

plus do the kc register the puppy's if the dam/sire are not health test for the breed,

do the kc make the rule that all the breeds have a health tests ?

In one of my breeds I would say it was the BBC who dictated the KCs actions.

> but the one's that slip the net are the breeders that are not members of the breed club puppy farmers.that dont do the testing for that breed.
>

Unfortunately, yes there are those who do not belong to a breed club and the information from those i doubt would be forthcoming.

> plus do the kc register the puppy's if the dam/sire are not health test for the breed,

Depends on the breed I thinkthat Irish Red & White setters have to be DNA tested for CLAD:

>

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=911

That is just one example there are others.

> do the kc make the rule that all the breeds have a health tests ?

The KC as well as Breed Clubs can also make rules as part of their COE's again it would not affect those outside of the Breed Clubs.

A Breed Club can request the KC to put in place certain health tests, then the KC would consult their advisors before a decision was made.

Communication is the key to improving health, and leading by example and hopefully others will follow, but it will take time.  Nothing will be achieved overnight.  But it is possible, look how the breeding parameters have been put in place for some breeds whose breeders who are ABS - who would have thought that would have happened, maybe in the future it will extend to all breeders not just ABS (this will still have to be policed).  

This is the problem with self regulation (which by the way I am in favour of as we have too many laws already) some in positions of power lack the integrity or knowledge to act responsibly.
I know a breed club where the committee members and officers have repeatedly used dogs with hip scores above 65, used dogs that are known carriers and/or affected with genetic diseases and
"omitted" to tell the KC about conformation altering operations with hardly a murmur from the KC when discovered-but I am sure the fact the person concerned is a KC member is pure coincidence!
Breed Clubs are definitely in the best position to decide what tests are needed but only if they have integrity!

that good for Irish red & white that the puppies will not be reg if the dam/sire are not tested both clear of clad.

so it down to the clubs and the kc to state the the breed's that are test for  health test for that breed recommandtion,
that no puppies will not be registed if the dam/sire have not been tested.

> so it down to the clubs and the kc to state the the breed's that are test for  health test for that breed recommandtion,
> that no puppies will not be registed if the dam/sire have not been tested

Yes, but it does depend on the condition, and the frequency that it is seen within the population, and whether is is life threatening, would all have a bearing on the action taken, usually the KC allows time for breeders to get their dogs DNA tested and to begin their breeding programme in order that they can breed out a condition, without taking out of the gene pool important dogs/bitches and blood lines, DNA testing allows them to do this and at each generation they know the DNA status of the parents.   If this was not done the gene pool would be narrowed and allow possible other deleterious conditions to become prevalent.

At the moment there are not any DNA tests for polygenic conditions of which hip dysplasia is considered to be, science has not quite got that far, but would imagine that it is on the horizon.   DNA testing is improving all of the time.

> I think this is why a system of anonymous data collection from veterinary surgeries to show the true prevalence of genetic and conformation related disorders is being developed by Paul Mc Greevy (university of Sydney).

I think this can only work if the breed is proven (as in vet has proof from a registration certificate). 

In popular breeds with a lot of unregistered and possibly not even purebred stock (thinking staffies for example) sending in health results from dogs that may be exhibiting a health issue not known to be a problem in the breed,  from dogs that my actually be crosses, might give a lot of red herrings.

One vet I went to wanted to put my champion bitch as a crossbreed (I was seeing them out of hours, as they do cover for my vet) as their database didn't have my breed!!!  conversely many surgeries will list anything black and white as a border collie, vaguely GSD like as GSD.

Testing all breeding stock is what most seem to aim for but to be really effective all stock should be tested. Unless the health status of issue is checked you are unaware of problems that may skip one of more generations.

Remember back in the days when there was a push to get all GSDs hip scored and everyone was doing there best to reduce the norm it was suggested that you needed to know what sort of scores were passed to the offspring therefore owners were encouraged to hip score their pups once it reached 12 months and indeed some breeders even added the cost of hip scoring when selling that was returned once the new owners got the dog scored.

I doubt most breeders could afford £200 per puppy just for Hips, and many owners don't like the idea of having it done, GA, or some just prefer not to know in case it isn't good, strange attitude but one I have come across.

For many breeds the Health tests would equal or be more than the cost of a puppy, it is not far off that for my breed.  That is just Hips, Clinical eye test, Kidney function blood test, and one DNA test.

In our breed we are lucky in that by testing all breeding stock we get a very reliable picture of the breed as a whole as about 20% of all registered dogs end up tested, a much higher proportion of breed population than in most breeds.

I live on my own and have a mortgage always have lived on my own.  There are times when I can't afford a meal in a week and go to my parents LOL.  I hipscore, eye test yearly, gonioscopy test and now DNA test my dogs before breeding. Surely if I can do it any "breeder" can?  Let's face it, if they look at it in how man pups they are likely to get it's nothing.  Though saying that the last three litters have produced only 7 pups in total and my health testing on just one of my girls has cost me almost £700.00 and I've not bred from her yet.  On and I've kept 2 out of the 7 pups and sold another very cheap on breeding terms which the owners will now not follow!

> Surely if I can do it any "breeder" can? 

You misunderstand we are talking about health testing the puppies not used for breeding. 

Testing breeding stock goes without saying, though the costs are part of the reason few new people come into the breed and become breeders, that and the investment of time that many people can't afford, or the long term responsibility for puppies bred and sold.

We had just five puppies registered in the first quarter of this year :) and that a pet owner who had the cost of health testing her bitch, and then DNA testing the resulting five puppies at $200 a time plus vet, shipping expenses etc, per out breed clubs rules, because her bitch is a carrier for prcd-PRA. 

As far as I know all those puppies are in pet homes and unlikely to be bred from, all carrier or clear will remain unaffected, and their status is not relevant if not bred from, I doubt the owner of one that is local to me and just started at training class knows or cares her pups status (it probably isn't on the registration docs they have, if they have even scrutinised them) but is on their KC record, once the results came back.

Can anyone tell me if there is a reason why the KC advises these tests are done rather than making them compulsory in order for puppies to be KC registered?  Wouldn't this help people to identify puppies from puppy farms, who would undoubtedly not want this added expense, and also help to improve the health of breeds like the Cavalier King Charles which currently seem to have widespread serious health problems.

Think it's like everything in life Annie ns you cannot force someone to do something, you have to advise what is best and that's all the KC can do in reality.

> Can anyone tell me if there is a reason why the KC advises these tests are done rather than making them compulsory in order for puppies to be KC registered? 

How long have you got?
The ability to verify results and verify the actual dog by permanent ID has been given as the new era of, what is widely discussed as, the new open access KC health portal. The system will have two methods of info gathering, one from specialists/panellists/biolabs and other acceptable sources
and two verifiable info from breeders eg date of death and cause of death...two very useful statistics if declared by vet surgeon - anecdotal evidence not acceptable.

> and also help to improve the health of breeds like the Cavalier King Charles which currently seem to have widespread serious health problems.

Ah now here is a very complex picture and far more so than many realise.
The new BVA/KC scheme for SM will not be up and running until the autumn...so...... if I want inclusion onto this scheme, and as a ABS member I will have this recommended at present but required eventually, I am in the position that all of my previous scans may not be acceptable for inclusion onto the database as they were performed before the new panel agreed their protocol.
But this will only have any bearing on concientious/ health focused breeders - the 'others' wont pay £300-400 per scan and they will opt-out of the KC and go to a Micky Mouse registry. None of which will in any way affect upwards of 75% of puppy buyers who still dont seem to  know or care about such things!
Out of every 10 people who contact me for a puppy or puppy buying advice, when asked, " did you contact me because I am screening for inherited diseases in the Cavalier?" only 2 or 3 have a clue what I am talking about.... the others usually say something like...." Er, no I only want a pet"........ Give me strength :-(

you have to advise what is best and that's all the KC can do in reality.

But that seems to just leave the door open to puppy farms and other non ethical breeders who just don't care enough to follow the advice and personally I feel the KC should be doing more than that.

oh well that means that none will get recommended for my breed then :( (sweep under carpet mentality)....i shall just continue scoring regardless and hope one day theres a more organised approach.

Thanks for that comprehensive reply tooolz which certainly showed the issues involved.  It must be very frustrating when you are trying so hard to improve the health of the breed to have prospective purchasers not aware of the difference between breeders like yourself and others who carry on regardless.

In my breed we have a DNA test for PRA available. The breed club asked if this could be added to the compulsory list of testing, which the KC did, but at the same time then reduced the yearly eye test to 'recommend' only. The breed club wrote again asking for the yearly test to be re-instated as 'required', explaining that it screened for other eye conditions. The KC refused, saying that there had not been enough 'problems' with other eye conditions in the breed.

I am talking about a numerically small breed (approx 1500 dogs currently in UK).

There are people who are not doing the DNA testing and producing puppies that will develop PRA. There are now people who are not doing yearly testing too.