UK Kennel Club & Health Testing

M

Moobli

...
Joined
13 June 2013
Messages
6,142
Visit site
Isn't it about time that the UK Kennel Club followed the Nordic countries example about the registration of pedigree puppies and insisted that only puppies from health tested parents (and whose scores were below the breed averages) are entitled to be registered?

Then a KC registration really would mean what Joe Public think it means, an indication of health and good breeding.
 
WorkingGSD said:
Isn't it about time that the UK Kennel Club followed the Nordic countries example about the registration of pedigree puppies and insisted that only puppies from health tested parents (and whose scores were below the breed averages) are entitled to be registered?

Then a KC registration really would mean what Joe Public think it means, an indication of health and good breeding.
Click to expand...

But that would affect their income from registrations! Years ago when the ABS was first introduced, I asked someone on the stand at Crufts why there were no restrictions on results of health tests, i.e. as long as a dog was hip scored it could be bred from even if the score was high. The lady replied that they didn't want to put people off the scheme and would hope prospective purchasers would consider what scores were Absolute bull, they just want the fees, which is why they also register non standard colours in many breeds.
 
WorkingGSD said:
Isn't it about time that the UK Kennel Club followed the Nordic countries example about the registration of pedigree puppies and insisted that only puppies from health tested parents (and whose scores were below the breed averages) are entitled to be registered?

Then a KC registration really would mean what Joe Public think it means, an indication of health and good breeding.
Click to expand...

seems to be more than that we could copy from them too-character tests, working tests for working breeds etc.
 
It's a bit like the horse passport scheme, a nice idea in theory but impossible to police. I know assured breeders who've never been checked for example.
I would suggest prospective buyers see mum with pups and dad if poss and do your homework. Hips, elbows and COI are all available on pedigree database.
 
In a lot of working breeds the relevant information on health and working tests is listed on working-dog.eu, tied to microchip numbers and for GSDs there is also an international database at Win-SiS in which are all tied to DNA tests and held in Germany.
The KC is not a registry in the real sense of the word as as it doesn't hold DNA.
 
I agree that the Assured Breeders Scheme is a missed opportunity. It is less than useless as it is and could have done so much good.

If the Kennel Club were to forget revenue for a moment hahahahaha and focus on the health and well-being of dogs then if they were to only register litters from health tested parents (with the requisite results) then it would police itself. The ISDS have managed it for years with eye testing of registered border collies.
 
I do think being KC registered is something that is used to make buyers think they are being responsible, but often that is not the case. My mum in law got a newfoundland years ago from a registered breeder. within months it was clear it had a host of problems- many known issues with the breed. she said even when she met the puppy she was not 100%, but her heart took over. she only lived for a few years before she was PTS. also the breeder refused to ever return her calls (was meant to provide back up- even return of puppy was initially offered before they bought her) they were apparently KC registered.....

but also agree that is is hard to police and not enough money in it! people wont want to pay the extra that breeders would need to charge to cover costs. or breeders also wont want to stop breeding from profitable dogs that are not healthy.
 
pippixox said:
but also agree that is is hard to police and not enough money in it! people wont want to pay the extra that breeders would need to charge to cover costs. or breeders also wont want to stop breeding from profitable dogs that are not healthy.
Click to expand...

But as I said above, it has worked for the International Sheep Dog Society for years and works in many of the Euro countries already. If only litters from health tested parents were eligible for KC registration then it would mean people would buy a KC reg puppy KNOWING the parents were health tested - and then it could go one step further and encompass working results, temperament tests etc. It might even curb the despicable puppy farm trade.

In my opinion, breeders should be routinely testing their breeding stock anyway, so there will be no added cost to them. As to breeders who don't routinely health test their breeding stock - I would want to know why they don't, and would steer clear.
 
pippixox said:
I do think being KC registered is something that is used to make buyers think they are being responsible, but often that is not the case. My mum in law got a newfoundland years ago from a registered breeder. within months it was clear it had a host of problems- many known issues with the breed. she said even when she met the puppy she was not 100%, but her heart took over. she only lived for a few years before she was PTS. also the breeder refused to ever return her calls (was meant to provide back up- even return of puppy was initially offered before they bought her) they were apparently KC registered.....

but also agree that is is hard to police and not enough money in it! people wont want to pay the extra that breeders would need to charge to cover costs. or breeders also wont want to stop breeding from profitable dogs that are not healthy.
Click to expand...

In an ideal world, people would only breed from exceptional specimens with the specific view of improving the breed. Sadly, as you say, it's all about the money.
 
At risk of repeating myself (apologies to all the poor people I've bored the pants off with this over the years) it is the breed communities themselves who have spearheaded health testing and called for it to be made mandatory.

My own mother was hip scoring her dogs in the early 70s so these things are nothing new.

Out of interest, when you compare BVA scoring with, say, the German equivalent, in my own breed a total of 14 or over (with even scores on each side) in the hips would put a dog out of breeding, showing and trialling (at a high level ) in the German scheme. The dog just wouldn't be allowed to play and neither would it's pups if it was bred from.

I've turned down stud requests for my own dog on females without health tests and/or working qualifications and I've also had offers from the continent rescinded when it's discovered he doesn't yet have a German breed survey, although he has all the requirements to undertake one (it's the last thing I really want to do with him).
No one would want to buy pups from a dog without one - it is a different mindset and the breed club has managed to incentivise good breeding.
 
Some breed communities are better than others, sadly. Zero credit goes to the breed club committee member who, on being told that a dog they bred had a serious hereditary condition, went on to breed from its littermate anyway (without further screening) because it was already a champion in the show ring. This is in a breed with no mandatory testing required for the ABS scheme and needless to say they hadn't undertaken any of the recommended tests either. The owner of the pet dog thought they were doing the right thing in informing its breeder but were made to feel like they were airing dirty laundry.

It's that kind of douchebaggery being permitted under the KC schemes that makes the whole thing a farce. Point accepted that some breed clubs are doing an excellent job though, I can't fault either of the breeds I've been involved in, one by choice and one by association. :p
 
There's a cavalier on the KC circuit who has sired over 50 litters and has been diagnosed with syringomyelia. Unbelievable.

Trouble is, as mentioned, how does one properly police health tests and what is there to stop breeders registering puppies under the name of a bitch who isn't actually the dam, or equally, a dog who isn't the sire?

We're on a hiding to nothing anyway, because the gen pub will always follow trends and want the latest trendy breed and won't want to spend time researching health tests/lines. They want their puppy NOW, not in a year or more.

I so wish we'd go the Norwegian way :( I was saddened to watch a bulldog on TV having soft palate surgery and his nostrils widened this week. The noise he made prior to the operations was terrifying.
 
The only thing with mandatory health testing tied to registration would be the risk of creating genetic bottlenecks. Many gene pools are already small and diminishing year on year.

A veterinary friend of mine posted this recently and I have permission to share it. It makes a lot of sense to me.

To test or not to test…
(Got a bit long, for summary scroll down to the end ��)
It really is a question which divides the sheepdog world. One side says it’s irresponsible not to test for known genetic diseases, the other says it’s all modern rubbish.
I have a slightly different approach to both sides. If you are into genetics, you know there are a certain number of genes in a breed. Those depend on the number of the unrelated founder dogs. Fortunately, genes are mixed with every new mating, and since a dog has about 20.000 genes, even though a lot of those are homozygous and define „dog“ and „Border Collie“, that still allows for a huge number of combinations. As a rule of thumb a heterogenous breed usually is a healthy breed, the downside is, breeding for special traits is unreliable. Long term selection for favourite traits, champion lines or looks, makes the results better foreseeable, but it also shrinks the number of available gene combinations. And that is, where the problems start. Quite a few deleterious mutations and resulting genetic diseases are in fact very old. Due to their recessive nature, they were extremely rare. With a higher relationship coefficient in a breed the number of available heterogenous gene combination sinks, and the risk of deleterious gene pairs meeting rises.
So, what to do, now? If there is an available gene test, it obviously makes sense to test to prevent carrier x carrier matings and to prevent ill dogs. Unfortunately, we are already at a point, where there is not just one, but quite a few tests for inheritable diseases are around. This is getting complicated… And expensive. Plus, there also are the yet untestable diseases like epilepsy or hip dysplasia, which are defined by about 10 genes and pose no less risk than the monogenetic „testable“ diseases.
And to top it, our whole breed is about working ability, so temperament and finding a suitable partner work wise to your bitch/dog are the first selection criteria.
What needs to be done is giving selection criteria a ranking order, the so-called prioritizing of criteria. Which one is the most important, which the second, third, etc.? This will differ with different dogs and different breeders. A brilliant dog from a line with epilepsy would need a suitable partner work wise from probably epilepsy-free lines. A carrier for a certain disease would need a partner who is free of this disease. That is the preventive way, which I personally use. I have must-have and no-go criteria and then I go down the list. It is impossible to tick all boxes, though. I have all my dogs hip scored and gene tested, and I try to juggle things accordingly. I am lucky as they seem to be free from the testable diseases, but my working ability criteria for breeding are high… But, I’m a vet and with that comes a certain responsibility. I cannot plead ignorance.
So, would I insist that everyone tests? No, I wouldn’t. Would I think it’s a good thing to know how diseases are spreading and which lines carry what? Yes, absolutely. But if, for instance, a hill farmer cannot be bothered with all that stuff, but he breeds for stamina, toughness and longevity, and keeps those genes, this is surely beneficiary for the breed! And who can say whether that man’s dogs might not carry traits we might need in 20 years?
To bring it all together, I am all for informing breeders and buyers as best as possible but try to stay away from locking someone out. And that more or less puts an end to compulsory testing.
The market will solve a lot of things. A more health oriented buyer of a pup will look for the least risk and go for tested parents. The buyer who thinks diseases are overrated will look for different no.1 priorities. Except for breeding with affected dogs, which really nobody should do, both ways will help to keep the breed heterogenous. The whole problem and the whole fighting arises, because people tend to think their way is the only correct one and try to impose their value system onto others.
And that is, why I am allergic to people on a mission. Even with the best interest they end up reducing the gene pool, get everyone in a fight, alienate people and basically slow down the process of information. My main goal would be to inform everyone as best as possible, then leave the decision up to them. Accept that different people have different priorities. That might not be the best solution for every single dog and a bitter pill for the health fraction, but it surely is the best solution for the breed as such. To imagine a culture of live and let live, to share health infos freely and respect that your neighbour has a right to his own decisions would be my dream.
The more I know about inheritable diseases and population genetics, the more humble I get. The silver bullet would be positive selection for performance, health and longevity, and not breed with dogs failing these criteria. Unfortunately, most owners of Border Collies either cannot or don’t use this selection criterium. This is why we need to rely on selection against negative traits. Still, we need to realize that it is a crutch, and we must not alienate the few people who still stick to the old-fashioned selection, which actually created the breed.

(Credit to Dr Viola Hebeler)
 
CorvusCorax said:
I don't see why other countries can do it but we can't. Maybe my outlook is way too Teutonic lol.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. But I'm the crazy person who thinks that it's wrong to breed from/put to stud any bitch or dog that's aged under three years, so my support probably isn't at all comforting :p

(If anyone was wondering, I believe that the above age restriction would mean that issues such as canine epilepsy would very likely be flagged before the affected animal could pass on its genes. I also remain convinced that the only thing that will end puppy farming is making it highly illegal both to charge or pay more for a pup than it costs the breeder to raise it from the point of birth to the time of purchase. No financial incentive for people to breed then. As I said, crazy.)
 
I would lean that way myself TBH. Seen it so many times, popular young dogs being used at stud and a few years down the road....problems. And they may have reached their maximum numbers of permitted covers each year. Too late.
 
WSD regarding your initial point about bottlenecks rather than breed with a known problem to try and avoid and unknown one in low number breeds to me it would make more sense for some issues to breed out and backcross back again. But people won't like that ;) (though I think that the AKC now allow registration of the pointer outcrossed dalmations) maybe some gene therapy instead :p even though dogs have been what they have been for a very short period of time really. I think that's what gets to me, it hasn't taken long to make dogs what they are, it shouldn't take long to remove a lot of their inherited problems, particularly with the available testing.
 
Last edited:
The lady who stuck a dog into the Dalmatian lines-did she use a pointer? Wonder if there's an update on that? Are the progeny now allowed to be KC registered? It seems to make so much sense to out cross when there's a massive issue. Brachycephalics, anyone?
 
not sure this is the most up to date, not sure if any over here to be UK KC registered for that to come up. seems to be as they are now the same % as the rest of the dally population AKC has deemed it ok
http://www.luadalmatians.com/

My main issue with it that it was only done once meaning they all track back to that one mating, it would seem better to me to have been done more than once but maybe only if you knew it was going to work rather than experimenting.

actually it seems the UK accepted them first :)
http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/lua-dalmatians-still-clubs-resist.html
 
I have to admit, I purposefully veered away from the whole KC registered minefield. I currently have 4 Springer Spaniels, Mum, Dad, Pup and a rescue. Dad I purchased from a working farm, he came from working parents - both of which had fabulous temperaments and would go all day for you. Mum was from a friend at the opposite end of the country, she couldn't be registered because she was the second litter in a year, but again she came from working parents with lovely temperaments. This was more important to me than having to choose health checked KC registered parents, temperament and durability. They both conform to breed standards, I would never want to 'show' them because I don't like what the KC has done to it all, an increasing number of apparently well-bred dogs are successfully winning when they don't appear to be fit for the purpose they were originally bred?
 
Healthy dogs that can work and have good temperaments are not mutually exclusive. Anyone can do health tests, dogs don't have to be KC registered.

Personally speaking I don't do any high impact stuff with my dogs until their x-rays are back after a year old. Yes dogs can work with no hips or elbows but I wouldn't want to make them/do it blind. When they're six and seven is when they start to have problems and it's too late to wind the clock back.
 
I have found that there are people who will frown upon obtaining a dog that is not KC registered, have people lost their intuition to spot a good stamp of a dog that they have to rely on certificates, it is less of a dog because it hasn't got one? I might add, I do see the value in a good dog that is desirable breeding stock - if you have it for the purpose it was intended (performance not show ring).

I am not against health checks, it is useful to know the state of things before they are put under strain, I would say you need to recognise a dogs physical limitations, but alot of dogs lead very sedentary lives with very minimal physical stress!

The kennel club promotes wonderful things, but because you pay more for a KC registered dog, there are going to be more breeders deceiving buyers, falsifying records? Also to be registered you don't need a health check? This allows the breed to continue with undesirable traits? But then, a 'pedigree' that is not registered could be equally poor, you go buy experience and trust in the breeder?

Someone please explain if I am not on the right track! I dont disapprove of monitoring breeding or health checks as they are essential, and I know the KC are doing more to counteract the breeds that have gone too far one way, but alot of it was caused by the KC in the first place?

You can probably guess I get angry at Crufts, especially this years gun dog best in show!!
 
No reason for working stock to not be registered and health tested. One of my clients has just had his beloved, farm bred, working springer go blind at eight years of age. One of the conditions that health testing was available for generations ago.
You may not care about paperwork but health testing records can save a lot of heartbreak.
 
Eye testing is also pretty cheap as health tests go, there is no good reason for not doing it. PRA is a good example of a condition that isn't diagnosed until later life when a dog has probably already done its working and breeding, it's too late by the time symptoms are apparent.
 
cinnamontoast said:
There's a cavalier on the KC circuit who has sired over 50 litters and has been diagnosed with syringomyelia. Unbelievable.

Trouble is, as mentioned, how does one properly police health tests and what is there to stop breeders registering puppies under the name of a bitch who isn't actually the dam, or equally, a dog who isn't the sire?

We're on a hiding to nothing anyway, because the gen pub will always follow trends and want the latest trendy breed and won't want to spend time researching health tests/lines. They want their puppy NOW, not in a year or more.

I so wish we'd go the Norwegian way :( I was saddened to watch a bulldog on TV having soft palate surgery and his nostrils widened this week. The noise he made prior to the operations was terrifying.
Click to expand...

Really? Which cavalier?
 
cinnamontoast said:
……..

…., how does one properly police health tests and what is there to stop breeders registering puppies under the name of a bitch who isn't actually the dam, or equally, a dog who isn't the sire?

……...
Click to expand...

There would need to be a reliance upon breeders to be truthful. The modern working cocker, with the possible exception of one well known breeder, has been out-crossed to other breeds, in other words, the dog has evolved and continues to evolve.

cinnamontoast said:
…….. It seems to make so much sense to out cross when there's a massive issue. Brachycephalics, anyone?
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense and were the Breed Societies to face up to the fact that the breeds of their choice have now largely stagnated, so we would see breeds continuing to evolve and develop. The Scottish Deerhound anyone? They're now a pathetic animal and as a breed are regressing. Those breeds which are numerically small continue on a downhill path with the same approach in place which has led to this sorry state of affairs.

Consider those who breed and produce working GSDs, the dogs are on a forward path in my opinion. Those who breed solely for the show bench, though in numbers currently secure, are heading in the very same direction. "It doesn't work, we know it doesn't work, but we just keep going because we must maintain breed standards"! It's lunacy, breed standards can be maintained by careful selection.

Alec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top