SilverLinings
Well-Known Member
And it doesn’t matter if they are crippled by 5.
It seems ridiculous to put all that work into training and producing a good dog but not make the effort to breed ones that will live for a decent number of years.
Crufts roll call!
- Thread starter druid
- Start date
It seems ridiculous to put all that work into training and producing a good dog but not make the effort to breed ones that will live for a decent number of years.
blackcob
🖖
What age are they when they start trialling, is there a minimum? Health testing aside for a moment I can't personally imagine having any certainty beyond a 'hmm, showing promise' in a 7 month old dog. Heck of a punt to assume you'll title it.
The results do speak for themselves and his confidence has been rewarded but I wonder about the longevity and 'wastage' rates, plus the headache of planning matings when a popular sire is cropping up left right and centre. I don't suppose that matters too much either!
The results do speak for themselves and his confidence has been rewarded but I wonder about the longevity and 'wastage' rates, plus the headache of planning matings when a popular sire is cropping up left right and centre. I don't suppose that matters too much either!
AShetlandBitMeOnce
Well-Known Member
Well, not to mention that from a purely financial point of view, you cannot yet charge titled stud fees or sell the puppies as being the litter of a title winner - so no real economic benefit either.
Last edited:
Clodagh
Playing chess with pigeons
Some triallers lose interest in the dog once it’s won the silverware. So unless they are making a fortune at stud it saves retirement costs I suppose.It seems ridiculous to put all that work into training and producing a good dog but not make the effort to breed ones that will live for a decent number of years.
.So few spaniels are tested. It should be obligatory for registered litters. But it’s just shouting into the ether.
SilverLinings
Well-Known Member
Some triallers lose interest in the dog once it’s won the silverware. So unless they are making a fortune at stud it saves retirement costs I suppose.
So few spaniels are tested. It should be obligatory for registered litters. But it’s just shouting into the ether.
I've certainly noticed the lack of testing with cockers, most (not all) breeders of working cockers I've met look at me like I'm mad if I enquire what testing they do, they are only interested in whether the dog works well or not. I'm not a fan of the KC on the whole, but at least they require some testing. The last cocker puppy I bought was bred by a friend (her puppies had a variety of health tests and checks, as had the bitch and dog), and I'm not looking forward to trying to find a good breeder when I'm next looking.
I can certainly understand how more novice buyers think they've bought from a 'good' breeder because they have been successful in the field/showing/agility/etc, but end up with a puppy with dubious health and/or confirmation with no history of health testing in the family. Or they end up with a KC reg one who has had limited health tests and is inbred to the nth degree
Clodagh
Playing chess with pigeons
Do they? I didn’t think any was required?
NinjaPony
Well-Known Member
I find the state of cavalier health depressing, and excessive breeding of a young dog which hasn’t had heart/SM tests (unless I’ve got that wrong?) feels like a big step back. I would love to have a cavalier, they tick all my boxes: right size, right temperament, suitable for my lifestyle. I just don’t think I could buy one, knowing that the likelihood of heart problems or neurological problems are so high, it feels like setting myself up for heartbreak. I’d love to know if any improvements have been made?
I’m also starting to think that the Brachy breeds need to be removed from the ring as they are, until breeders can show clear evidence of physical improvements to the dogs. Easier said than done I know.
I’m also starting to think that the Brachy breeds need to be removed from the ring as they are, until breeders can show clear evidence of physical improvements to the dogs. Easier said than done I know.
blackcob
🖖
The KC almost never require testing - the only case I can think of is in Cardigan corgis, where dogs must be tested or hereditary clear for PRA as a condition of registration. It's recommendation only, unless you're breeding within the Assured Breeder Scheme.
French bulldogs got themselves removed from the cat 3 list a few years back for (apparently) making such improvements...!
French bulldogs got themselves removed from the cat 3 list a few years back for (apparently) making such improvements...!
Clodagh
Playing chess with pigeons
I watched a bit of the tv coverage and did think the brachy bit was well done. I have a secret love of French bulldogs and thought the one they were looking at (Pearl?) was lovely.
Mind you the fact she could breathe with her mouth shut was something noteworthy apparently
Mind you the fact she could breathe with her mouth shut was something noteworthy apparently
Last edited:
Escapade
Well-Known Member
If I watched the telly coverage I'd probably know the answer to this 
But do they do any features like breed profiles? It would be good I think to have a bit more education about the breeds and how form follows function; I've seen far more outrage over the condition of the Ibizan hound than anything else 
But do they do any features like breed profiles? It would be good I think to have a bit more education about the breeds and how form follows function; I've seen far more outrage over the condition of the Ibizan hound than anything else 
CorvusCorax
'Do you come here often?'
They don't, the KC doesn't have many lines in the sand, just 'recommendations'.
Whereas in my breed, in the main breed registry/parent club, if the parents haven't been tested/fail the tests, the dogs are too young or too old, etc, the puppies are not registered. Anything which fails tests has a breeding ban stamped on the papers and they cannot be bred from, be breed surveyed or take part in shows. No one **wants** non registered dogs, there is no market for them.
MurphysMinder
Well-Known Member
You have to test if you are an Assured Breeder, but there is no recommended maximum score, so in theory an AB can breed from a dog with a hip scores in the 90s!
P3LH
Well-Known Member
And you’ve got to factor in if you have individuals with a bumpy journey.
I had a bitch that started off as ‘hmm potential’ then ‘hmm yes, worth taking a litter’ then ‘hmm perhaps not, I can see her virtues but also faults’ then post spey and nearing four is looking the best she ever has and I am filled with regret every time I see her move - as those faults I saw before have changed in this last year, whether that’s maturity or speying who knows, but she’s cracking. It’s a shame.
I had a rough collie who was nothing special from a breed POV until his sixth year. He had great confirmation throughout but that was literally it. Then he was everything but never managed to produce.
Equally I have a young Pembroke dog who had it all until about 14 months when he suddenly seemed to lack everything he once had when he lost his puppiness. He’s the type of dog from a breed POV that simply won’t hold those positives he had as an adolescent/longer term will be very bitchy for a dog.
You simply never know. Certainly not that young.
Even if thinking only/exclusively about work and drive, I had a terrier bitch who didn’t show promise for much other than the odd rat until 2 - then was the best little working companion ever. A really useful all rounder who’d work with ferrets, bush, retrieve fur and feather to gun - anything really. Had a penchant for mink and weasel - yet the most placid and well rounded dog in the house.
Yet I had another terrier bitch who was incredibly game and driven from mere months, but was too hot under the collar and would have fought with her own shadow so no real use if you weren’t doing earth work, which wasn’t my thing. She was the type lots would have liked but would have burnt out or died on the job by three if you’re were being optimistic, as she was too much. She went back to the farrier who bred her as tried to kill one of my other bitches and there was no fixing it. She was bred on and some of her children went to earth working homes and become the aforementioned self fulfilling prophecy.
druid
Well-Known Member
No minimum, my bitch ran her first trial at 13 months, COM in an Open stake at 14months, 3rd graded Excellent in an Open stake at 15 months. Not much of a punt if the judges face judge....
No difference in his puppy prices for Ringo sired ones at 7 months vs FTCh. Would be the same for most ESS litters.
Some triallers lose interest in the dog once it’s won the silverware. So unless they are making a fortune at stud it saves retirement costs I suppose.
So few spaniels are tested. It should be obligatory for registered litters. But it’s just shouting into the ether.
Mine are tested but they're a rare minority. I usually retire dogs from trials by 4/5yo, it's a hard game keeping them honest season after season and they deserve their chance on shoots in the line instead.
blackcob
🖖
I'm really surprised there's no minimum. Today I put the date in the diary that my next competing dog, assuming all goes to plan, will be 'legal' - 18 months.
CorvusCorax
'Do you come here often?'
The youngest you can trial a dog in our sport is 15 months.
There's a chatacter test that starts at 9 months but nothing high impact.
There's a chatacter test that starts at 9 months but nothing high impact.
druid
Well-Known Member
Double checked the UK KC J regs, no minimum age. In IKC rules minimum age is 9 months to field trial.
SilverLinings
Well-Known Member
No, they aren't unfortunately, I was referring to the assured breeder scheme, and the fact that they are starting to encourage testing in some breeds (not cockers AFAIK) to weed out more serious hereditary conditions; sorry for the lazy typing, 'required' wasn't the right word, more like some general encouraging with certain breeds. The KC are still barely more useful than a chocolate teapot though considering the influence they could exert for the health of breeds if they chose to.
I think the down side of the Assured Breeder scheme and the 'advising' that certain breeds are tested for certain things is that general hobby dog owners think that buying a KC reg. puppy means that they have had all available/advised tests for the breed. Someone at work told me they didn't need to have their bitch tested for anything before breeding as she is KC reg so 'will have been tested for everything before I bought her'. The woman didn't even know what the hereditary risks for the breed were, or what tests were available and appropriate.
SilverLinings
Well-Known Member
It also really annoys me that despite what has been known for some time now about genetics and the risks of inbreeding, and the seriously shrinking gene pools of many breeds, the KC still just lists checking for inbreeding as a 'recommendation' rather than a 'requirement'.
P3LH
Well-Known Member
Funny you should say this. I’ve been really shocked lately when looking at litters in a few breeds listed on the kc website, clicking on their pedigrees and seeing just how eye wateringly high their inbreeding COI is. And not all of these are numerically small breeds.
splashgirl45
Lurcher lover
Reading all this makes me glad I’ve got crossbreeds , I know it doesn’t follow that they are less likely to suffer from hereditary problems or whether I have been lucky so far , but it’s quite shocking that the KC is accepting non tested dogs. I thought that if litter parents were KC registered that meant they were tested, and I’m sure lots of people think the same
CorvusCorax
'Do you come here often?'
I'm glad I subscribe to (sadly, another country's) system where good health and temperament in purebred dogs is prioritised and incentivised and there are penalties for those who do not adhere.
I believe that proper registration should and could be done better by breed clubs, including proof of identity, DNA collection and pedigrees showing health tests through the generations, which stay with the dog for life rather than a new one every time the dog is transferred. It's a nonsense to expect a sprawling all-breed gentleman's club/business to be able to take into account and try and regulate how the very individual health issues of so many different breeds are dealt with. And I say that for all kennel clubs. For instance, the FCI has an all-breed health testing scheme for hips and elbows, but the results are not held in a central registry/you can't look them up anywhere/you have to trust what you are told by the breeder.
I believe that proper registration should and could be done better by breed clubs, including proof of identity, DNA collection and pedigrees showing health tests through the generations, which stay with the dog for life rather than a new one every time the dog is transferred. It's a nonsense to expect a sprawling all-breed gentleman's club/business to be able to take into account and try and regulate how the very individual health issues of so many different breeds are dealt with. And I say that for all kennel clubs. For instance, the FCI has an all-breed health testing scheme for hips and elbows, but the results are not held in a central registry/you can't look them up anywhere/you have to trust what you are told by the breeder.