# How important are Hip Scores



## Hughsey (May 17, 2010)

I'm so sorry for all the posts guys, my first day and I've bombarded you with questions!

We have paid a deposit on a 5 1/2 week old lab puppy who we are bringing home in a couple of weeks times.

He is KC registered and the owner has papers for him (they don't mean much to me though), we have also seen his lovely parents. 

We weren't bothered about a dog being KC registered, we just decided that we wanted a lab. The problem is, the pups haven't been hip scored. I recently joined a similar forum and was told that I must not purchase a lab puppy that hadn't been hip scored. 

We didn't pay a fortune for him and are not getting a puppy to breed from or show but is it silly not to get him checked out before we commit?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

It's always best to go for pups that are fully health tested, but every puppy needs a home, wherever they've come from.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

It is very wise to get hips scored, especially labs as they are prone to hip problems.

xx


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> The problem is, the pups haven't been hip scored. I recently joined a similar forum and was told that I must not purchase a lab puppy that hadn't been hip scored.


The puppy won't be hip scored, it is the parents (dam and sire) that need to be hip scored. They should also, as a minimum, have and annual eye test. Other tests that are preferable are elbow scores and pra dna test.

If hips and eyes are not done then I would walk away. While hip scoring does not guarantee problems, I can say that 90% of the cases (and usually the painful and costly cases) are puppies from parents that haven't been scored.

Did the breeder give you any reason why they haven't been scored?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Sorry should have added - Swarthy has a very good link which gives info on hip scoring, hip problems in labradors and other tests the parents should have had here.

Welcome to Labrador Health



> We didn't pay a fortune for him and are not getting a puppy to breed from or show but is it silly not to get him checked out before we commit?


I'm not sure if you are saying the puppy hasn't been hip scored (which he won't because hip scoring cannot be done until the dog is 1 year old) or the dam and the sire of the puppy haven't been done - which they should have been. And as far as not being necessary if you're not breeding or showing, I completely disagree. I'm sure you want a sound, healthy pet to be part of your family, not one that causes you much heartache and cost.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> The puppy won't be hip scored, it is the parents (dam and sire) that need to be hip scored. They should also, as a minimum, have and annual eye test. Other tests that are preferable are elbow scores and pra dna test.
> 
> If hips and eyes are not done then I would walk away. While hip scoring does not guarantee problems, I can say that 90% of the cases (and usually the painful and costly cases) are puppies from parents that haven't been scored.
> 
> Did the breeder give you any reason why they haven't been scored?


Agree with this, even more so with a breed like Labs that can suffer dreadfully from hips and eye problems


----------



## Hughsey (May 17, 2010)

I am calling the breeder tonight to talk all this through. They will be wormed and flea'd but will not have had their first lot of jabs so I'm assuming will not be seeing the vet. I'm assuming this was why we're not paying top breeder price. They are farm bred. I didn't realise that it's the parents that are hip scored, what a plonker!  

We've only ever had rescue dogs before and have never owned a KC registered dog so haven't been through this before but I am definately lacking some common sense I think! 

Thanks for the link, I'll have a read now and pick out some key questions to ask.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

Make sure the breeder has paperwork and correct paperwork! You can never ask too many questions!!! xxx


----------



## Hughsey (May 17, 2010)

> I'm not sure if you are saying the puppy hasn't been hip scored (which he won't because hip scoring cannot be done until the dog is 1 year old) or the dam and the sire of the puppy haven't been done - which they should have been. And as far as not being necessary if you're not breeding or showing, I completely disagree. I'm sure you want a sound, healthy pet to be part of your family, not one that causes you much heartache and cost.


Most definately, I actually feel quite silly for not knowing all this to start with. I thought we were fairly clued up on dogs. I'm ringing the breeder now to check.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

Hughsey said:


> Most definately, I actually feel quite silly for not knowing all this to start with. I thought we were fairly clued up on dogs. I'm ringing the breeder now to check.


This is what I have always said on this forum.
If you don't know the questions to ask, then you can't possible be blamed for not doing thing properly.
Well done you for getting on top of this before you actually buy.
Hopefully, when you do ask, all tests will have been done


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

If the parents aren't tested I guess you are committed to buy as you have given a deposit?? x


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

keeleyjane19 said:


> If the parents aren't tested I guess you are committed to buy as you have given a deposit?? x


No commitment there at all, but may lose the deposit


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Good for you and I hope you get the answers you require, but don't be afraid to walk away if not.

Just in case, I would also say that the hip scoring is necessary (it involves taking xrays) because it is not possible to tell the state of hips without them. Do not accept the often used excuse that the dogs have never had problems and are sound so they didn't think it necessary, or the one where they are not show dogs so it doesn't matter. Both are wrong - it is perfectly possible to have a sound dog with poor hips.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

When I was looking for a dog I heard things like 'oh well mum has been vet checked so I didn't feel the need for x rays' or 'mum has never had any problems so I didn't see any point' etc. Most reputable breeders have their dogs hip scored, elbow scored and eye tested. My dog is about the cheapest I've come across for having health tested parents. He is a golden retriever and cost £450 (so did the bitches in the litter, some charge more depending on the sex).

Good on you for posting lots of things on here, it can't hurt :thumbup: Just be aware people will often say their dogs have had no problems so why do they need to do the tests, and their dogs may be completely sound, but the tests just give for a bit more peace of mind as the chance of the pups having problems will be less if you know the parents didn't


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

rona said:


> No commitment there at all, but may lose the deposit


Ok, sorry, I've never put a deposit on a dog before and just wondered if you are committed to buy!

Hope it wasn't a huge deposit!! xx


----------



## leoti (Dec 9, 2007)

I know its already been said but your puppy wont be hip scored , as he is to young , but as long as both parents are and they meet the BMS then you should be ok , as a new puppy owner ask to see the certificates from the BVA , i showed all my puppy buyers are health certificates and i even had copies from the sires owners as well


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Hughsey said:


> I am calling the breeder tonight to talk all this through. They will be wormed and flea'd but will not have had their first lot of jabs so I'm assuming will not be seeing the vet. I'm assuming this was why we're not paying top breeder price. They are farm bred. I didn't realise that it's the parents that are hip scored, what a plonker!
> 
> We've only ever had rescue dogs before and have never owned a KC registered dog so haven't been through this before but I am definately lacking some common sense I think!
> 
> Thanks for the link, I'll have a read now and pick out some key questions to ask.


Its not the lack of common sense at all when we got our first 2 springers the 2nd one being our eldest now we didnt know about health testing of parents at all, it knowledge i have gained since been on here, so dont worry there are lots of people who dont know. Good luck with your lab


----------



## Hughsey (May 17, 2010)

I'm really not too bothered about the deposit, it's the little fella that we've fallen in love with! We've always taken a dog because it was due to be put to sleep or was dumped somewhere so it's been fairly quick and no checks so this is something new to us altogether. 

Sorry for being so ignorant to it all, we just loved the idea of actually being able to chose a dog for the first time since being doggy owners.

I will update when I hear back from the owner.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

Hughsey said:


> I'm really not too bothered about the deposit, it's the little fella that we've fallen in love with! We've always taken a dog because it was due to be put to sleep or was dumped somewhere so it's been fairly quick and no checks so this is something new to us altogether.
> 
> Sorry for being so ignorant to it all, we just loved the idea of actually being able to chose a dog for the first time since being doggy owners.
> 
> I will update when I hear back from the owner.


If you ask for the dams and sires pedigree names, you will be able to check if they have had the appropriate checks on the KC website


----------



## Hughsey (May 17, 2010)

rona said:


> If you ask for the dams and sires pedigree names, you will be able to check if they have had the appropriate checks on the KC website


I can't get hold of the breeders just yet but we are going again this week, I'll ask for the papers to back up the information we're given.

Thanks again everyone, fingers crossed!


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2010)

Okies, all the best!! xxxx


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

You should be shown the actual certificates which will look like the ones at the bottom of this page - they show the actual certificates you should be shown and both dam and sire should have them:

for eyes

Information on Eye-testing certificates for Labradors

and for hips

Information on Hip Scoring for Labradors from Labrador Health

Honestly, I suspect it may not be good news - health tests are not cheap and any breeder that does them usually volunteers the information before even being asked. I hope it works out, but if not, there are plenty of well bred labradors from health tested parents around even if there are many that are not.


----------



## poppydog1 (Mar 26, 2010)

This is a difficult situation as you have seen the pup and have fallen in love, obviously there will be health tested pups for sale that will be equally as nice, health testing is no guarantee for a 100% well pup the pup you have seen may go on to live a long and happy life with no problems, you could maybe ask the breeder about the health of other pups from same mother etc its a difficult call and i dont know what i would do i own a ESS she is not health tested and i would have another non health tested ESS, i have her insured and hope that we never have to use it for any life long conditions.Keep us posted im sure you will make the right decisin good luck xxx


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> i own a ESS she is not health tested and i would have another non health tested ESS


I am saddened to hear that you are happy to support poor breeding practices.

So many people say education is the key. Not realising is one thing, but knowing and ignoring the facts just perpetuates poor breeding.

Insurance doesn't cover the heartache only the cost (and not all of that anyway). I hope your dog is well, and it's quite possible that the parents may well have had good health test results, but to breed without doing the tests is negligent. Of course there are no 100% guarantees (apart from DNA testing) this is life we're talking about, but the statistics show that there is a much higher incidence by breeding from dogs with health problems (whatever they are).


----------



## Hughsey (May 17, 2010)

Morning everyone. Thanks so much for all the great advice, it's really appreciated.

To say we are gutted today is an understatement. Neither parents have been hip scored. We've been discussing this all night and feel like complete idiots for not sorting out the sensible stuff before falling in love with the little furr ball. :crying:

I think deep down we knew that the checks wouldn't be in place as they were advertised as farm bred dogs at a fraction of the cost of other breeders. I know this is still wrong, just finding it a bit hard today.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Hughsey said:


> Morning everyone. Thanks so much for all the great advice, it's really appreciated.
> 
> To say we are gutted today is an understatement. Neither parents have been hip scored. We've been discussing this all night and feel like complete idiots for not sorting out the sensible stuff before falling in love with the little furr ball. :crying:
> 
> I think deep down we knew that the checks wouldn't be in place as they were advertised as farm bred dogs at a fraction of the cost of other breeders. I know this is still wrong, just finding it a bit hard today.


oh no.  it's totally up to you what decision you make. You've seen the pups and the parents, you know how they've been brought up. IMO, all pups need a home, whether they are health tested or not. It's your decision whether you get the pup or not.


----------



## brackensmom (Jun 15, 2009)

hi, sorry to hear about your pup, it is very hard when you have your heart set and have fallen love, have you now decided not to get the pup from this breeder, or are still considering options.


----------



## Hughsey (May 17, 2010)

It's a really hard decision. We've taken on board all the fantastic advice we've been given and it all points to looking elsewhere for a pup with sound officially checked parents. We decided last night that we would tell the breeder we'd decided to not to take him. At 2 o'clock this morning my husband and I decide to think again and wonder if it would be possible to still take him on.  We can get the insurance, I rang Direct Line last night and they are happy to start the insurance today so we are covered from day one of him coming home. We have also seen both parents who are the most gorgeous happy bouncy dogs and also pictures of the last 2 litters of pups they had with updates from the new families. 

So, we're left still in limbo with our hearts desperately trying to rule our heads. I know insurance is all well and good but even the best policies run out at some point and how happy will ours and the pups life be if we're constantly at the vets and dishing out meds?

But then theres a good chance he'll grow up to be a fine and healthy dog and even if we take on a dog with parents with amazing hip scores, theres no guarantee that that one won't have poor hips/eyes.

Jeez, I've never made my mind up so many times in 24 hours! :confused1:


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Hughsey said:


> It's a really hard decision. We've taken on board all the fantastic advice we've been given and it all points to looking elsewhere for a pup with sound officially checked parents. We decided last night that we would tell the breeder we'd decided to not to take him. At 2 o'clock this morning my husband and I decide to think again and wonder if it would be possible to still take him on.  We can get the insurance, I rang Direct Line last night and they are happy to start the insurance today so we are covered from day one of him coming home. We have also seen both parents and pictures of the last 2 litters of pups they had with updates from the new families.
> 
> So, we're left still in limbo with our hearts desperately trying to rule our heads. I know insurance is all well and good but even the best policies run out at some point and how happy will ours and the pups life be if we're constantly at the vets and dishing out meds?
> 
> ...


 it's very hard to make such an important decision. As you say, insurance is all good and well for sorting out the cost of any treatment needed, but its the heartache and the quality of life the pup/dog will have. But getting pups from good hip scored parents WILL NOT ensure that your pup doesn't get hip dysplasia. Some of the best hip scored dogs can produce pups with severe hip dysplasia. It's not genetic, like DNA tests, a clear mated to a clear WILL NOT produce any affected pups. But hips are different, it's all a jackpot and a guessing game.


----------



## Hughsey (May 17, 2010)

Thanks, I think we need to sit down and discuss it tonight and make a decision either way. 

Because we've always had rescue dogs this has never come into the equation for us, we take what we have and as most of them have had some sort of problems, we almost expect it!! I keep thinking that what if no one will take him because of the lack of hip scores and what if he ends up in an awful home or in rescue?


----------



## Jess2308 (May 12, 2009)

Hughsey said:


> It's a really hard decision. We've taken on board all the fantastic advice we've been given and it all points to looking elsewhere for a pup with sound officially checked parents. We decided last night that we would tell the breeder we'd decided to not to take him. At 2 o'clock this morning my husband and I decide to think again and wonder if it would be possible to still take him on.  We can get the insurance, I rang Direct Line last night and they are happy to start the insurance today so we are covered from day one of him coming home. We have also seen both parents who are the most gorgeous happy bouncy dogs and also pictures of the last 2 litters of pups they had with updates from the new families.
> 
> So, we're left still in limbo with our hearts desperately trying to rule our heads. I know insurance is all well and good but even the best policies run out at some point and how happy will ours and the pups life be if we're constantly at the vets and dishing out meds?
> 
> ...


Its very unlikely that a pup with health tested parents (below breed average scores) that has been carefully raised and not allowed to put unnecessary stress on the joints will have HD. Same with eye problems. If neither parent is tested for PRA then you are running the risk of the pup going blind in adulthood, it is something you can guarantee the pups wont get with just one clear parent and all breeders should be hip, eye, elbow and PRA testing now. There is no excuse not to.

It is entirely up to you if you decide to go for the pup, but I would strongly advise you to walk away. I know of someone that got their pup from the same sort of breeders as these, farm bred dog, the parents were lovely and looked healthy, pups all looked fine and they were cheap  By 8 months old the pup was in severe pain, couldnt walk and needed a double hip replacement due to his HD. It is not a risk I would ever take myself.

We have a lovely pup that we ran on as a potential show pup but decided to keep her sister. She's from health tested lines AND fully vaccinated


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

As you say it could be heartbreaking if pup gets problems later in life, but at the end of the day the litter was advertised as farm bred, they will still need homes and they may be fine. If they were asking ridiculous prices I would probably say differently, but if they really aren't charging silly prices then at least they seem like they have not set out to deceive people and have not danced around why they haven't health tested; they have admitted it. Its a matter of whether you think you can cope with the worry and upset if pup does become poorly. I don't think any one of us can say what the odds of that are except that this litter are probably more likely to have issues than a litter from health tested parents, but that's about all we can say.

All I will say is that I would look into insurance policies carefully, make sure they don't specify health tests on parents needed to be done on the terms and conditions (very doubtful I would think) and go for a LIFETIME policy. I have a lifetime one on my retriever purely because if his hips do go they can need treatment for the rest of their lives which can be longer than one year. Regular policies often offer X amount of money in vets fees per year. Lifetime ones mean that even if your dog gets poorly with the same problem in three years time the insurance will cover it up to a certain amount per condition, I think ours is £7,000, whereas it wont be covered on a regular annual policy. It would be classed as a pre existing condition from when the policy was renewed. I am with Argos Platinum and they charge me just under £12 a month for an almost two year old golden retriever who cost £450 and we live in Lincolnshire.

Others may not agree, but I would also be wary of what you mention to insurance companies. At the end of the day you have no reason to believe your pup will actually be ill or have problems. There is one company in particular who I know have used a query as a declaration and refused to pay up; but it wasn't with dogs it was another animal. I don't agree with deceiving companies AT ALL and I don't think it would matter that the parents are not health tested, I still think all those related conditions will be covered, but if you mention you are overly concerned they could get the impression you think that pup already has issues when in fact he/she seems perfectly healthy.

I really don't advocate deceiving companies just make sure if you query anything its very much a 'do you insure dogs who have parents who are not health tested' as opposed to 'I'm getting a dog but the parents weren't tested and I am worried he might have problems at some point in life', if you know what I mean?


----------



## poppydog1 (Mar 26, 2010)

I agree with Seven Pets:thumbup:


----------



## kaisa624 (Mar 5, 2010)

To be honest, most breeders will give you around a 4-7 day window to take the pup to a vet to get a thorough check up. Our breeder took the pups to the vets at 6 weeks old, and then we took her to the vets the day after we got her at 7 weeks old and they gave her the all clear and were very happy with her.

That way if the vets do find something, you can return the pup. However if you do decide to keep the pup, you need to bear in mind that there may be some complications further down the line, but if you are insuring him, then that'll help


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

I am astonished at some of the responses on this thread.

Rocco - many thanks for putting the links to the Lab health website - for anyone who wants to know about dogs from unhealth-tested parents, go and look at Charlie's story and the many other heartbreaking ones on the site - at least four of those dogs written about are now dead - all taken from us far too young through poor breeding 

Charlie, the Bionic pup

Owners stories of pups from BYB

Hip scoring DOESN'T give a guarantee, however, what it does do is minimise the risk - a bit like jumping out of a plane with a back up parachute.



kaisa624 said:


> To be honest, most breeders will give you around a 4-7 day window to take the pup to a vet to get a thorough check up.


The sort of breeder who doesn't health test, is also far less likely to draw up a contract and offer terms like this.

Usually as well, pups from health tested parents come with a stream of advise on how to raise them properly in terms of diet and exercise - if someone doesn't hipscore - it's unlikely they will also give this sort of advice - and if a pup has dodgy hips - it is very unlikely to show up in the first 3 to 5 days after you take it home - unless you want to subject the poor pup to the risks of a GA during that period.

===========================

I heard a story yesterday of someone who went to look at a litter, dad and both sets of grand-parents had been hipscored but mum hadn't - they assumed the breeder was naive.

I have a bitch here with way too high a hipscore to breed from - it doesn't cause her any problems at the moment thankfully, and if you looked at her you would never know.

It would have been easy for me not to submit the plates, mate her to a hipscored dog and feign ignorance - I really don't understand why prospective puppy buyers view such litters through rose tinted glasses (or maybe I am just cynical).

===========================

It is easy to say these dogs deserve homes, and yes, I understand it isn't their fault they have been born - however, people MUST understand if these pups are sold - then the breeder will produce MORE  It's a viscious circle and the ONLY people who can stop it are YOU - the puppy buyers.

Jess - also mentioned PRA - this can cause total blindness sometimes at a very young age.

If you buy a litter from unhealth-tested parents, you have a higher risk of HD and eye problems - which can result in a lot of pain and heartache for dog and owner, and sometimes death.

I suspect the way insurance premiums are going, it will only be a matter of time before insurance companies start refusing to insure dogs from unhealth tested parents - as a THR can cost around £15K  Not to mention the heartache to all concerned - worse if you have young children.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Tinsley said:


> All I will say is that I would look into insurance policies carefully, make sure they don't specify health tests on parents needed to be done on the terms and conditions (very doubtful I would think) and go for a LIFETIME policy.


I don't know of ANY who specify parental health checks - simply because they are no indication of future illness. I had a puppy from 2 champion parents - both fully tested for everything under the sun. The puppy had a heart defect and died after about 13 weeks. Every other pup in the litter was fine - and some have gone on to be champions themselves.



> Others may not agree, but I would also be wary of what you mention to insurance companies. At the end of the day you have no reason to believe your pup will actually be ill or have problems. .......
> 
> I really don't advocate deceiving companies just make sure if you query anything its very much a 'do you insure dogs who have parents who are not health tested' as opposed to 'I'm getting a dog but the parents weren't tested and I am worried he might have problems at some point in life', if you know what I mean?


You don't have to mention anything at all - unless it's a situation that will definitely affect insurance cover. For example, if your pup already has a limp then you need to say so. Otherwise - say nothing. There's no need to ask anything. The contract between you and the insurer is in the policy. Read it - before you arrange cover. That's all you need to do.

BTW - I couldn't agree more about lifetime cover. :thumbup:


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> I don't know of ANY who specify parental health checks - simply because they are no indication of future illness. I had a puppy from 2 champion parents - both fully tested for everything under the sun. The puppy had a heart defect and died after about 13 weeks. Every other pup in the litter was fine - and some have gone on to be champions themselves.


This is it I only looked into the terms and conditions closely of the companies I was contemplating using but for all I know some may say something in regard to health checks having been done, I don't know but this is why I think its worth checking terms and conditions as you never know til you look 



AlbertRoss said:


> You don't have to mention anything at all - unless it's a situation that will definitely affect insurance cover. For example, if your pup already has a limp then you need to say so. Otherwise - say nothing. There's no need to ask anything. The contract between you and the insurer is in the policy. Read it - before you arrange cover. That's all you need to do.
> 
> BTW - I couldn't agree more about lifetime cover. :thumbup:


My friend had dreadful problems with her horse because she had these little bouts of illness but they couldn't put it down to anything specific as she just seemed a bit under the weather and needed no treatment but the vet had been out to see her for it. She happened to mention to the insurance company when they asked about the mare that she did go a bit under the weather sometimes and originally she thought it was colic but they couldn't find enough symptoms to suggest this as it seemed to go on for too long so it was ruled out.

Said mare ended up having a bad bout of colic 6 months later and needing major colic surgery. The insurance company refused to pay out claiming the little bouts of illness were colic and had been disclosed to the company when the policy was started so they wouldn't cover it. A solicitor didn't think she had much of a leg to stand on because they couldn't find the horse's veterinary records to trace what had and hadn't been diagnosed.

This is why I'm just so careful, as this mare genuinely hadn't been diagnosed with colic but they took that as having been disclosed and it was literally thousands of pounds for surgery and the mare died in the end anyway


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Tinsley said:


> My friend had dreadful problems with her horse because she had these little bouts of illness but they couldn't put it down to anything specific as she just seemed a bit under the weather and needed no treatment but the vet had been out to see her for it. She happened to mention to the insurance company when they asked about the mare that she did go a bit under the weather sometimes and originally she thought it was colic but they couldn't find enough symptoms to suggest this as it seemed to go on for too long so it was ruled out.
> 
> Said mare ended up having a bad bout of colic 6 months later and needing major colic surgery. The insurance company refused to pay out claiming the little bouts of illness were colic and had been disclosed to the company when the policy was started so they wouldn't cover it. A solicitor didn't think she had much of a leg to stand on because they couldn't find the horse's veterinary records to trace what had and hadn't been diagnosed.
> 
> This is why I'm just so careful, as this mare genuinely hadn't been diagnosed with colic but they took that as having been disclosed and it was literally thousands of pounds for surgery and the mare died in the end anyway


Which is precisely why you don't ask or say anything. If you volunteer something, even on the phone (which will be recorded), then they can use it in future. If you have something to declare then you make sure it has a vet's report as to the exact illness - or they won't pay out.

Insurers are in business to make a profit, which they'll do any way they can. That's one good reason BTW for going to a 'pet' insurer rather than a branded, catch all insurer.

The rule is simple - read the policy before applying and answer all questions on the application honestly. Don't get into any other conversation about your pet's health at all. Indeed, as there's almost always a discount, it's best to apply on line.


----------



## Lyceum (Sep 25, 2009)

What did you decide to do in the end?

I don't know a single solitary thing about breeding. But as just a regular dog owner I obviously see the importance in health tests. But for me, I tend to let my heart win in these situations. Irresponsible or not.

You've fallen for the puppy, at the end of the day the poor mite needs a home, be it with you or someone else. And will no doubt find one.

Obviously health tests will give an indicator as to whether they'll be prone to certain diseases but any dog can suffer problems in later life, god forbid they could suffer an accident and end up with problems as a result of that. You just never know. 

So I'm not advising you to do the same but I know if it were me in your situation I'd be much more heart broken to think of the pup I'd fallen for going to someone else. And I'd be perfectly prepared to deal with any issues that arose as a result of me taking the dog.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Lyceum said:


> You've fallen for the puppy, at the end of the day the poor mite needs a home, be it with you or someone else. And will no doubt find one.
> 
> Obviously health tests will give an indicator as to whether they'll be prone to certain diseases but any dog can suffer problems in later life, god forbid they could suffer an accident and end up with problems as a result of that. You just never know.


It's that very attitude that keeps encouraging people to breed without health testing  - if a breeder had to find homes for just one litter through breed rescue they would think twice about doing it again

And yes, just like humans, dogs can get sick in later life - but you SURELY want to minimise the risk of them developing hip dysplasia at 6 months and needing around £15K worth of surgery - as happened to Charlie

Labrador Health brings you the story of Charlie, the Bionic Pup

Of similarly, any of these other dogs, at least four of whom are dead, some before they hit 12 months - all through irresponsible breeding

Labrador Health: Your stories


----------



## Lyceum (Sep 25, 2009)

swarthy said:


> It's that very attitude that keeps encouraging people to breed without health testing  - if a breeder had to find homes for just one litter through breed rescue they would think twice about doing it again
> 
> And yes, just like humans, dogs can get sick in later life - but you SURELY want to minimise the risk of them developing hip dysplasia at 6 months and needing around £15K worth of surgery - as happened to Charlie
> 
> ...


No, I know full well it's an irresponsible attitude, as I stated in my post, I also said I wasn't advising the OP to do that.

You want to minimise the risk of your dog getting any illness at all, and I did say that, I know the breeder should have had the parents tested. I wasn't saying they shouldn't have.

The fact is the puppies are here, the OP wants one. The breeder will have zero problem finding homes for them if the op doesn't take one because for every one person aware of it, I could introduce you to 100 people who have no idea that dogs could or should be health tested before breeding. They just want a cute little bouncy dog they can bring home and play fetch with, they don't think of what could happen 6 months down the line.

I know approximately 13 people who own dogs, and only one of them has any idea about their pups parentage, never mind if they were tested or not.

The puppy buyers need to be educated as well as the breeders needing to be responsible.

But it doesn't change the fact the puppies are here and the op has fallen for one.

Let me put it a different way, I'm one of those idiots who would let her heart rule her head in a case like this. It's not right, I know that, but I know I couldn't walk away.


----------



## Montys_Mum (Jun 4, 2010)

Vet check is always good to ask for. Ours came with a vet check certificate saying he was sound and had been checked. He was flea'd and wormed too. He had KC papers.
He wasn't vaccinated because in the past the breeder had issues with giving first injections and then people collecting puppies and taking them home (that could be the other side of the country) and vet used different vaccinations so they had to have all injections again. So it was easier for breeder not to inject first, he reduced charge for puppies due to this.
Also make sure you book vet check with your own vet within 24 to 48 hrs of collecting him, they can also give him a good check over. It's good for piece of mind, and we certainly felt better knowing Monty as A-ok! Monty has been getting a good check over once a month when we go in for weight check to collect Stronghold. And he now loves visiting the vets, they fuss over him sooo much! So it's good for socialisation too.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Vet check is always good to ask for. Ours came with a vet check certificate saying he was sound and had been checked. He was flea'd and wormed too.


While a vet check is good, this can in no way compare to the parents having health tests done.

A puppy vet check will just be looking for any outward signs of illness. The inherited problems will not show up in this sort of check, and may not reveal themselves for months or even years. Even severe HD is unlikely to show before 6 months of age, so the vet check, and return within 7 days type of agreements aren't worth a lot and tend to be used by puppy farmers and commercial breeders as a selling tool rather than anything else.


----------



## Montys_Mum (Jun 4, 2010)

Hughsey said:


> Thanks, I think we need to sit down and discuss it tonight and make a decision either way.
> 
> Because we've always had rescue dogs this has never come into the equation for us, we take what we have and as most of them have had some sort of problems, we almost expect it!! I keep thinking that what if no one will take him because of the lack of hip scores and what if he ends up in an awful home or in rescue?


I know we worried about getting a pedigree, where we handed over a deposit, then had to wait about 5 weeks before bringing him home. What if it was a lie and puppy is gone when we go to collect.....what if he is ill....what if....well you get the idea.

But we went and visited a few times over those weeks and got to take photos and see how well he was growing.

Puppies were kept in a secure area of the house (not outside in sheds or anything), it was so fun seeing them all! And they got used to household noises, children, other animals etc

Anyway, I digress. Basically I am saying that worry is natural. If you have seem them in a good environment, and can get breeder to get a Vet health check before you collect the puppy (our breeder did this as a matter of course for all puppies), and you get him checked and insured, you will be doing the right thing.

Our cats are all from rescue, and I suppose in a way that made it easier. But we had previously homed a young dog through rescue and unfortunately it didn't work out for us. We weren't able to help her with the issues she had. Mainly socialisation was a problem, and she guarded everything. We tried training, and having visitors over. But it made it difficult for us to take her anywhere, she snapped at some people that visited etc. We tried training classes, but that was hard as she had to be trained on her own. We sadly had to make the decision to return her, in the hope that she'd find owners with more experience to help her, we hadn't had a dog before and just weren't equipped to help her. It isn't easy to do such a thing, and we hated it. But we did what we thought was best for her, she needed owners with the time and space to look after her. It was heart breaking, and we still miss her, it took close to two years before we decided to get a puppy - and lots of discussion and research went into this decision too.

Happily it has worked out for us. Monty is a great little chap and has fitted into our family really well. We have made sure to keep him well socialised with people, dogs and other animals. We try to give him a new experience each week and he is thriving on it all.

Do what you feel is right, make sure you do your research on the right dog breed for you, get your house puppy proofed etc as well!

I hope some of this helps you!


----------



## Montys_Mum (Jun 4, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> While a vet check is good, this can in no way compare to the parents having health tests done.
> 
> A puppy vet check will just be looking for any outward signs of illness. The inherited problems will not show up in this sort of check, and may not reveal themselves for months or even years. Even severe HD is unlikely to show before 6 months of age, so the vet check, and return within 7 days type of agreements aren't worth a lot and tend to be used by puppy farmers and commercial breeders as a selling tool rather than anything else.


This is why you take them on regular health checks. You can only do what you can do to ensure the best for your puppy. Meeting parents, getting vet checks, vaccinations, insurance etc.

Also, as previously mentioned, having parents health check certificates etc cannot guarantee a healthy puppy.

Everyone takes a certain risk with any pet, bought from any place, be it breeder or rescue...


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Montys_Mum said:


> This is why you take them on regular health checks. You can only do what you can do to ensure the best for your puppy. Meeting parents, getting vet checks, vaccinations, insurance etc.
> 
> Also, as previously mentioned, having parents health check certificates etc cannot guarantee a healthy puppy.
> 
> Everyone takes a certain risk with any pet, bought from any place, be it breeder or rescue...




That is basically advocating that it is fine to breed and buy puppies that aren't from health tested parents 

If you were pushed out of a plane at 20K feet and were asked beforehand whether you would like a back up parachute or not, would you really say no?

Health tests are the doggie equivalent - you might still die with two parachutes, but the likelihood is far less - likewise, why would someone when faced with a choice say, yes I would want the greater risk of my puppy suffering years of agony, discomfort and restriction (not to mention the heartache to family members) and possibly even having a premature death when I can significantly reduce such risk?

Likewise, there are an increasing number of conditions now that dogs can be DNA tested for - isn't it easier and fairer all round to know that your puppy definitely won't go blind at two years of age because it is PRA affected 

============================

For as long as people continue to buy pups from irresponsible breeders, they will keep on producing them.

If people did their research BEFORE going to see a litter, they wouldn't face that heart-wrenching decision to take a pup because they have fallen in love with it - or worse still, feel sorry for it.

============================

Getting a rescue dog is TOTALLY different - a large number of rescue dogs are also above the age when conditions such as HD and ED will manifest themselves.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> You can only do what you can do to ensure the best for your puppy. Meeting parents, getting vet checks, vaccinations, insurance etc.


Yes, and that should include ensuring that the parents were health tested (with good results) before breeding.



> If you have seem them in a good environment, and can get breeder to get a Vet health check before you collect the puppy (our breeder did this as a matter of course for all puppies), and you get him checked and insured, you will be doing the right thing.


A vet check is meaningless as far as inherited conditions are concerned. And while I agree that a vet check and insurance is right, this in itself is not enough.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

swarthy said:


> That is basically advocating that it is fine to breed and buy puppies that aren't from health tested parents


There are 2 separate things in there.

If you take reasonable precautions, i.e. see the parents, have a vet check the puppy, etc. then there's absolutely NO reason why the puppy shouldn't be healthy.

If you intend to breed then YOU should have your puppy checked when it is of an age to manifest any problems e.g. hips, eyes, etc. This is also a matter of breed. Some breeds are more prone to certain conditions than others which may, or may not, affect their offspring.

As a matter of pure genetics it's pretty much a fallacy that hips scores from parents will determine the hips of a puppy. It's probably more important to look at the hip scores of the grand parents - and even then there are simply no guarantees. There's also the possibility, when both parental lines include the same dogs (which is quite common), that there are hidden defects ascribable to one of those dogs which just happen to manifest themselves in one particular litter.

And there's the problem. You can take all the precautions in the world and have something go wrong. As I previously said, I had a puppy from 2 champion parents - both fully tested for everything under the sun. On paper I had the best possible puppy. The puppy had a heart defect and died after about 13 weeks. (And the puppy was health checked by 3 vets and specifically given a 'no heart problems' report by one of them).

I've also known a breeder who refused to have her dog hip scored because she thought that the risk of subjecting a dog to a general anaesthetic to get the test was greater than the chances of it producing offspring with inherited defects. Yet I know that many of those offspring who've gone on to breed have had perfect hip scores.

I'm not advocating that breeders shouldn't hip score - just pointing out that it's only an indicator and not a guarantee.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> There are 2 separate things in there.
> 
> If you take reasonable precautions, i.e. see the parents, have a vet check the puppy, etc. then there's absolutely NO reason why the puppy shouldn't be healthy.
> 
> ...


I am on the band wagon that hips are more genetic than environmental, more so now I've had my boy scored.

If anyone ever intends to breed they should make sure the pup they want to breed from has tested parents. Maybe hips etc are more inherited from grandparents but that means said pups parents need to be tested to find out. If my dog came from a bitch with bad scores but he himself had good scores I would be very dubious about using him at all.

I know there are examples of healthy parents breeding and having a very unhealthy pup, so I will do an example to the contrary to even it out 

Hip scores of my dogs recent relatives:

Sire 5:8
Grand Sire 8:8
Sire's Dam 5:6

Dam 6:6
Grand Sire 5:6
Dam's Dam 5:4

So the average for hips in the 1st and 2nd gen of my dog's pedigree are 72, which is an average score of 12 for a full set of hips. My boy was scored just last month and came out with 6:6. All except the grand sire had what I would call decent hips.

Seeing as hip scoring has not been in common practice for a particularly long time, I think it is safer to lean on the genetic side more than the environmental. Sure if a dog gets hit by a car its different, but regular puppy environment type things don't seem to have a dramatic impact. My dog was a complete nutter when he was young, no matter how much mental stimulation I provided or what I did, he spent a lot of his time stood on his two back legs which I was told was a complete no no and would be bad for his hips by lots of people. Stairs I was wary of because of the coming down so he didn't use those too often. If environmental effects played a serious part I'm not kidding, I would expect my dog to have a totalling score of a lot more than 12. I believe his hips were decently formed in the womb as a starting point, not because of the environment he was kept in.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> There are 2 separate things in there.
> 
> If you take reasonable precautions, i.e. see the parents, have a vet check the puppy, etc. then there's absolutely NO reason why the puppy shouldn't be healthy.
> 
> ...


I've heard some excuses for not hip scoring, but that has to top the bill!

It is generally accepted that hip scoring is the best indicator to help any responsible breeder make the appropriate breeding decision, imo not hip scoring, when it is advisable to do so within your breed, is just a cost cutting exercise, or you think you may have something to hide. I don't think anyone is suggesting that low scoring parent to low scoring parent equals low scoring pup. What people are saying is that responsible breeders hip score, irresponsible breeders don't, if you buy a pup from someone who can't be bothered to health test their breeding stock appropriately, you are supporting an irresponsible breeder, who will breed another litter without bothering to test, and that is the issue.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I would love to know the percentage of dogs that are health tested before being bred from. I would imagine it is a very small number. I would also like to know how many dogs affected with genetic conditions come from health tested parents.

There are far far more litters advertised on internet sites and free ads than there are anywhere else and I doubt if very many at all are tested. I am a vet nurse and have worked with dogs most of my life but it would never cross my mind to worry about it.

And what about all the people on here that recommend going to rescues, there is no guarantee of any good health status at all with a rescue dog - so why get one.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Oh thank you so much - I've seen the light!

No longer do I have to bother with expensive health tests.... no longer put my dogs through anesthetics.... no longer do I have to bother with the long drive to an opthalmic vet for eye tests.... and as for dna tests....bahhh
think of all the lovely money I'll save ! I'll just get my vet to give them a quick once over (or at least tell puppy buyers that's what I've done) after all, puppy buyers are being told they don't need to get a pup from health tested parents... so I won't have to worry about it! 

Sometimes I despair at some of the advice given out 

Aren't we all dog lovers here? shouldn't we all be trying to do what's best for dogs everywhere?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I would love to know the percentage of dogs that are health tested before being bred from. I would imagine it is a very small number. I would also like to know how many dogs affected with genetic conditions come from health tested parents.
> 
> There are far far more litters advertised on internet sites and free ads than there are anywhere else and I doubt if very many at all are tested. I am a vet nurse and have worked with dogs most of my life but it would never cross my mind to worry about it.
> 
> And what about all the people on here that recommend going to rescues, there is no guarantee of any good health status at all with a rescue dog - so why get one.


Just to answer your last point, rather than support someone who knowingly breeds from untested parents, why not go to rescue? You can either support someone who chooses to flout the mantle of responsible breeding, or you can help by taking on a pup, or a dog from rescue, both are from un-health tested parentage, one person is making a quick buck for themselves, the other is an organisation that is helping make the best of a bad situation. Or that's my take on it.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Blitz said:


> I would love to know the percentage of dogs that are health tested before being bred from. I would imagine it is a very small number. I would also like to know how many dogs affected with genetic conditions come from health tested parents.
> 
> There are far far more litters advertised on internet sites and free ads than there are anywhere else and I doubt if very many at all are tested. I am a vet nurse and have worked with dogs most of my life but it would never cross my mind to worry about it.
> 
> And what about all the people on here that recommend going to rescues, there is no guarantee of any good health status at all with a rescue dog - so why get one.


So that makes it all OK then.

That's a bit like saying it's OK for pregnant mothers to drink, smoke and take drugs because a lot of babies born to those that do will be ok - but the agony some of those babies go through is beyond comprehension. Not doing anything like this doing pregnancy doesn't guarantee that things won't go wrong, but it significantly reduces the risks.

-=====================

You think it's ok to knowingly allow offspring to go blind when it can be prevented with a SIMPLE blood test?

FYI - a puppy owner, short of causing a serious accident - cannot cause Hip Dysplasia unless the puppy is prediposed to it. If both parents are dysplastic, the risks increase significantly of the offspring being genetically predisposed to HD.

The fact you openly say this as a vet nurse disgusts me -

Talk to all the people who have lost pups within the first few weeks of life because they've felt sorry for the pup - of which there are many - sufficiently so to enable a number of voluntary organisations to be openly compiling details of them - and my god, when the TV cameras have been out there and been threatened by all sorts of wild things - but it's OK to buy pups from people like this  .

Talk to all those whose dogs have developed HD before they are 12 months old and need to spend 6 months on crate rest before undergoing major surgery costing in the region of £10 to 15K, and quite possibly endure more surgery later on and never have a fully normal life.

Tell that to all those whose pups have been so severely affected by HD and ED that they've been put to sleep before they are 12 months old because there are no other options left.

===================

It astonishes me beyond belief that people can be so blase about lining the pockets of these people.

A breeder who knows in their own mind that they have done EVERYTHING in their power to breed healthy pups can sleep at night, and that doesn't just include health testing, raising the litter to the best of their ability using the best that money can buy and giving constructive useful advice on raising the pup.

While the breeders who do no health tests are laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of people like you, getting fictiously registered pups, dodgy pedigrees, no health tests, probably no worming, not weaned properly, dam not cared for properly when raising her litter

Unfair to say all that? If they can't put their hand in the pocket to do the health tests - what on earth makes you think they won't cut corners everywhere and anywhere they can to ensure they make money out it?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Swarthy, you put it so more bluntly than I could ever have imagined doing so 

PS Sarcasm button seems to be missing!!!


----------



## Montys_Mum (Jun 4, 2010)

Hang on here a minute and breathe!

Wow, I thought this place was a nice site to visit and gain knowledge and share experience, not be so personal and attacking!

I am not an experienced puppy owner or breeder, not everyone knows about every test under the sun that needs to be done!

Myself and my hubby did a lot of research (probably more than a lot of puppy buyers out there), especially in picking the breed (Basset hound) and then researching that breed.

We did all we could to ensure a good puppy, from checking parents, ensuring vet checks, flea'ing, worming, seeing the litter, visiting the puppy several times before collecting, taking to vet 48hrs after getting puppy, insuring puppy, puppy sees vet every month, attending puppy classes, checking the pup's parentage (pedigree lines, with CHs in the bloodline) etc.

We didn't know about HIP scores or anything like that. We did the best we could by our puppy. We didn't go to rescue because of a previous bad experience homing a dog from a rescue centre.

We were able to check the breeders home, make sure the puppies were kept inside. We researched them online to make sure there were no bad reports from them etc

So please don't judge those of us that do everything we can to ensure a good healthy pup, just because we didn't know about certain tests. And I pointed out that it didn't seem 100% necessary for parent health tests because of other information I had gleaned from this site.

Our pup is healthy and happy with no issues so far (and we hope it will continue that way).

It seems to me that you could run every test under the sun and not be 100% sure.

And to say it's a bit like a mother smoking/drinking etc....well I think that was a pretty awful thing to say to be honest.

I just hope that perhaps there is more compassion and kindness from other areas of this site, which to begin with for a newbie seemed a lovely place to visit.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Broadly speaking I do not think the majority of puppy buyers are at fault in the slightest. Monty's mum sums up how many puppy buyers are - they research the "right" breed, research into that breed and do the well known checks like indoor rearing, seeing mum with litter etc. The majority of puppy buyers genuinely have no idea about hereditary disorders, what tests exist, etc.

For folks like these education really is key - Montys mum - if someone had warned you that bassetts are prone to HD and that your beautiful pup could be crippled by 12 months, but that a test existed that would help prevent this disease - would you have looked for a breeder that tested? I imagine you certainly would.

Of course, not all puppy buyers are created equal. There are still those that want the cheapest pup, or the closest, or the rarest / cutest and do no research whatsoever. Education seems to have little effect on these people - they want the pup and they don't care about the consequences.

My personal belief is that the breeders are the ones with the responsibility. Agreed, not all health tests are a guarantee (hip scoring being the obvious example) but that is NO excuse for not bothering.

In my opinion all breeding dogs should be tested for every single problem that exists in that breed where such a test exist. None of this required vs recommended nonsense - test the lot.

Being too tight or lazy to test, or breeding from dogs with bad results is quite frankly inexcusable. Same with the buyers - if you know your breed suffers from a problem for which a test exists, buying a pup from untested parents is inexcusable.

I'm also all in favour of testing non-breeding dogs, as the health of the parents is meaningless if they still throw unhealthy pups.
For example, say the pup you were looking to purchase was the third litter of a particular bitch - would you not feel better if you saw evidence that not just the dam, but offspring from previous litters were also clear / low scoring? I would.

I really do not understand why any person who claims to be a dog lover would resist health testing. If you don't test, you shouldn't breed. If as a buyer you know a test exists you should insist on that test being carried out.

As for comparing it to rescue - I can hardly dignify that with a response. Taking on a second hand dog that is already in the system, in a way that will not encourage further breeding (good or bad), but will in fact reduce the overpopulation and save a life is a little different to buying a badly bred pup from someone who cares more about their profits than their dogs.


----------



## Montys_Mum (Jun 4, 2010)

I agree, if we had known about those tests and found a basset needed them (we were aware of Hip issues in GSDs), we would have asked about it. We learnt about the need to clean ears and eyes and neck skin regularly (which we do) and also to keep an eye on his diet so he doesn't get overweight (and the vet says his weight is absolutely right everytime he is checked). We also stick to the correct exercise plans (5mins per month of life) to do our best to ensure his legs aren't strained, so he doesn't use stairs either as an example (something else we learnt Bassets should avoid). I thought we'd done all the right things.

Ref rescue, I didn't mean rescue was bad at all! All our 6 cats are rescue. We just had a problem with a rescued dog, and went through a difficult 6 months (which wasn't good for us or the dog). Apologies if my comment was misunderstood.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Montys_Mum said:


> Hang on here a minute and breathe!
> 
> Wow, I thought this place was a nice site to visit and gain knowledge and share experience, not be so personal and attacking!
> 
> ...


Good for you! :thumbup:

The problem is not with buyers like yourself but with breeders and with the Kennel Club.

In the first place - hip scoring isn't really necessary across all breeds. In those breeds where it is, it has largely become necessary because breeders have bred to a 'standard' (or, as evidence suggests, to a perceived standard).

The classic case is the German Shepherd. There is a Kennel Club 'standard' for this dog. Unfortunately, a large section of the German Shepherd world have been moving away from that standard to something that they believe is close to the original German Shepherd dog. In doing so they've developed dogs that are characterised by having "frog's legs". (If you saw the BBC documentary on dog health you'll have seen examples). Because the frog's leg thing essentially straightens out the leg and the back, the hip joint doesn't fit over the top of the leg - it tends to fit beside it. As a result a dog with an exaggerated form of this joint will have problems.

Hip scoring parents is designed to remove this in future generations. The problem is that it's self-defeating. The GSD breeders that like the 'German' look will go on breeding to maintain that look - which is blatantly obviously not a good thing to do. The Kennel Club are trying (pretty ineffectually) to tackle this - and the result is that it's likely that a lot of German Shepherd breeders will spin off into some sort of separate organisation. The difficulty is that the judges of dogs at shows are 99% breeders themselves. So they judge to their own view of what the 'standard' is.

There is only one way to stop this. And it would also remove the opinions of breeders riding roughshod over dog health. It's simply this - the Kennel Club should set certain health standards for each breed (and, yes, they can be different). Once set, the puppies from any litter could only become registered with the KC (i.e. become 'pedigree' dogs) if both parents were certified as meeting those health standards. It would also remove the ridiculous situation of breeders being allowed to put endorsements on puppies. It becomes simple - if both parents meet health standards then registration of puppies will be OK.

Of course, it will never happen. Why? Because the vast majority of breeders think they know better than the health professionals. And, breeders tend to have their own fixed ideas about what they think is the breed standard. To that end many will even try to control breeding of the puppy _after_ it's been sold - not for health reasons - but because they want to control the 'look' of the resultant puppies.

I know that in the GSD world there are 2 camps - and each has its own judges. I know that most breeders will only show under judges that they know, in advance, will favour their 'type' of dog. I suspect that this is true for many other breeds.

Add to that the fact that the Kennel Club is a hidebound bureaucracy with no real interest in doing anything radical - because they are frightened that if they do all those know-it-all breeders will desert them and set up alternative registration organisations. And that's where the KC money comes from.

Unfortunately, until such time as this issue is properly addressed there will continue to be polarised views on it. And the sad thing is that the vast majority of people are genuinely trying to do things to improve dog health.


----------



## Montys_Mum (Jun 4, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> Good for you! :thumbup:
> 
> The problem is not with buyers like yourself but with breeders and with the Kennel Club.


Thank you 



AlbertRoss said:


> The classic case is the German Shepherd. There is a Kennel Club 'standard' for this dog. Unfortunately, a large section of the German Shepherd world have been moving away from that standard to something that they believe is close to the original German Shepherd dog. In doing so they've developed dogs that are characterised by having "frog's legs".


We were aware of the GSD issue and didn't really understand it was an issue for a lot more dogs.



AlbertRoss said:


> There is only one way to stop this. And it would also remove the opinions of breeders riding roughshod over dog health. It's simply this - the Kennel Club should set certain health standards for each breed (and, yes, they can be different). Once set, the puppies from any litter could only become registered with the KC (i.e. become 'pedigree' dogs) if both parents were certified as meeting those health standards. It would also remove the ridiculous situation of breeders being allowed to put endorsements on puppies. It becomes simple - if both parents meet health standards then registration of puppies will be OK.


Seems like a great idea to me! We did rely a lot on the fact the pup was KC registered as are his bloodline relatives etc and some of this relatives have CHs, so perhaps we made an assumption that this meant (to some extent) that he'd be okay. Hence we were happy with the tests and checks we'd done.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Montysmum no one is knocking puppy buyers that don't know but the advice given by Albertross and others that health tests aren't necessay and that a vet check isn't. How are new people looking for a puppy supposed to learn if given bad advice that health testing is unnecessary and a vet check is sufficient. None of these potential problems can be check during a vet check. They are inherited conditions and there may be no outward symptoms in the dogs themselves, which is why it is important that both parents have been tested.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> Good for you! :thumbup:
> 
> The problem is not with buyers like yourself but with breeders and with the Kennel Club.
> 
> In the first place - hip scoring isn't really necessary across all breeds. In those breeds where it is, it has largely become necessary because breeders have bred to a 'standard' (or, as evidence suggests, to a perceived standard)..


What a complete load of rubbish - I've never heard such bunkum in my life - hipscoring was brought in because there was evidence of problems with a number of breeds way back in the 1970s.

The addition problems now associated with things such as high protein puppy foods make it even more important that puppy buyers know what they are doing, as environmental factors such as rough play, too much protein and fast growth can all contribute to problems in dogs genetically predisposed to joint problems.

These joint problems didn't suddenly appear, they have been around for a VERY long time, and some breeders are working their butt off and spending a fortune to ensure that they breed responsibly.

And for the record, the BIGGEST issues with genetic conditions is from Puppy farmers and back yard breeders by a million miles, the evidence is all there if you want to look for it

These people couldn't give a damn about the breed standard, breeding only to meet the current trends in the market.

=======================

In current times, if you want a pedigree pup, there is NO excuse for not checking with the internet at your fingertips and the massive drive by both the KC and breed clubs to get the message across.

If anyone thinks it's acceptable to buy a puppy from a flea ridden hell hole because they feel sorry for it and then complain when it dies a few days later or needs thousands spent on vets fees - then there is really no hope, because these breeders will KEEP doing what they are doing.

The responsible breeders are doing everything they can and for the record, there are an INCREASING number of conditions now which can be deliberately and easily bred out of a line in one generation - and research into DNA testing for hip dysplasia is well under way.

==============================

The chances are in most areas you will pay more or less the same for a pup whether it is from health or unhealth tested parents - the responsible breeder in some breeds has invested thousands in that litter before they are even born, whereas the other breeders really are laughing all the way to the bank at the puppy buyers expense.

=========================

How is comparing it to a woman smoking and drinking in pregnancy not acceptable?

The human has control, the human decides whether or not to undertake the health tests, and if they don't, the risks to the offspring are considerably higher.

How anyone can think it acceptable to take this at face value when there is a world of knowledge out there that can be found easily defies belief.

To advocate that it is acceptable to breed without health tests in this day and age is simply not acceptable  and it is ONLY puppy buyers who can do something about it.


----------



## Sophiex (Jul 27, 2008)

swarthy said:


> While the breeders who do no health tests are laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of people like you, getting fictiously registered pups, dodgy pedigrees, no health tests, probably no worming, not weaned properly, dam not cared for properly when raising her litter


That's really unfair and a huge over-generalisation. My dog came from unhealth tested parents but I was not fully informed at the time and didn't quite understand. He was clean, wormed, flead and very well cared for and loved. She even knitted him a blanket, like she does for all her pups before they leave but an evil puppy farmer to some of you here........

With my newly learnt knowledge, I would only get a health tested puppy if I got another one but I certainly wouldn't change my dog for the world. I don't care what anyone thinks of me that's for sure! When I saw him, I loved him and there was no going back.


----------



## Montys_Mum (Jun 4, 2010)

Sophiex said:


> That's really unfair and a huge over-generalisation. My dog came from unhealth tested parents but I was not fully informed at the time and didn't quite understand. He was clean, wormed, flead and very well cared for and loved. She even knitted him a blanket, like she does for all her pups before they leave but an evil puppy farmer to some of you here........
> 
> With my newly learnt knowledge, I would only get a health tested puppy if I got another one but I certainly wouldn't change my dog for the world. I don't care what anyone thinks of me that's for sure! When I saw him, I loved him and there was no going back.


Well said


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> That's really unfair and a huge over-generalisation. My dog came from unhealth tested parents but I was not fully informed at the time and didn't quite understand. He was clean, wormed, flead and very well cared for and loved. She even knitted him a blanket, like she does for all her pups before they leave but an evil puppy farmer to some of you here........


Nobody has said your breeder is an evil puppy farmer, but love and care (and even knitted blankets) does not make a good, responsible breeder either.
And it's great to hear that, now you have learnt more, you would go to a breeder that health tests next time. However, I'm sure you can appreciate from the replies on this thread alone, that there are those who, in spite of knowing, don't care. We are so often told that it is only through education that we change things, but when people don't want to know or don't care, it becomes a lost cause.



> What a complete load of rubbish - I've never heard such bunkum in my life - hipscoring was brought in because there was evidence of problems with a number of breeds way back in the 1970s.


Completely agree.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I dont know why puppy farmers are being brought into it. Of course they dont health test but neither do they rear the puppies well. Surely we should be comparing well reared, well looked after litters from health tested and non tested parents not filthy badly reared sickly litters where health tested parents would make no difference to the mortality rate.


----------



## Hughsey (May 17, 2010)

Okay, I'm crawling out from beneath my rock! Wow, what a thread!

Firstly thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread and provided the best advice I could have asked for. I certainly know how important Hip Scores are now and will most definately look for them in the future. The problem is that we had honestly fallen in love with the little guy before this thread began, irresponsible of us I know but my heart won and he came home with us last weekend. Had I been more ruled by my head then this post would have happened a few weeks earlier and we would have looked for a breeder who had hip scored the parents. But, it didn't and theres no one to blame for that but me and the OH really. I just hope I don't come back to this thread in a years time and look back on it with hindsight.

We have his KC papers and he has some amazing FTC grandparents in there, he has been to the vets and had his first round of shots. He is a typical happy, healthy pup and I am praying with everything I have that he stays that way. It is a little bit of a dampener knowing what I know now and having the constant worry at the back of my mind that something could go horribly wrong at any time. Wouldn't it be great if there was some legislation that imposed research for certain breeds before buying a puppy?!

I have to say that I have no quarms with his breeder, they were an amazing family who now after, 3 litters, they are having the dam and sire speyed and neutered. We are in constant touch with them and have promised to visit so that they can see him growing up. I think the son fell in love with our boy and is keen to see how he matures.

Well, back to mopping and removing household furniture from needle teeth.

Thanks again everyone, I honestly didn't mean to start a heated debate but I am grateful for everything I have learnt.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Sophiex said:


> That's really unfair and a huge over-generalisation. My dog came from unhealth tested parents but I was not fully informed at the time and didn't quite understand. He was clean, wormed, flead and very well cared for and loved. She even knitted him a blanket, like she does for all her pups before they leave but an evil puppy farmer to some of you here........
> 
> With my newly learnt knowledge, I would only get a health tested puppy if I got another one but I certainly wouldn't change my dog for the world. I don't care what anyone thinks of me that's for sure! When I saw him, I loved him and there was no going back.


Sophie - firstly, while I do think people should do their research - I also recognise that sometimes 'things happen' because people don't know any better.

However, your second paragraph defines the difference between you and some of the people who have posted on this thread.

You now know about the need health tests and say you would buy accordingly.

This is a MASSIVE difference from those that know all about the health tests and still advocate it is OK to buy pups from unhealth tested parents.

=================

Again, some people seem to think that some of us (probably me) are being nasty when we talk about the need for buying from health tested parents - it is designed to massively reduce the risk of health problems to your pup, and heartache and possibly huge costs to yourself - that's not nasty - that's caring.

If puppy buyers did consider these issues before they dived in - it would put PF out of business, and it would drive those that are possibly genuinely nice but a touch naive to think about how they would do things differently if they want to continue breeding.

At the end of the day - it's all about trying to do the best for the welfare of future animals - that's not nasty - that's caring and concern.

Some breeds are fortunate enough to not require any health tests - others including my own require a large investment - it may help us sleep at night when we have a litter - but think about it realistically, it would be much easier (and cheaper) not to do the tests  but there's a reason we continue to do so - because we care - and we care about the people who buy these pups and the future of their dogs.

I've gone past anger - it really does sadden me that some people simply fail to understand this  ultimately, it's the dogs and their owners that will suffer


----------



## slakey (May 9, 2009)

If you are worried about the pups hips/elbows etc.

You can get the vets to score the hips and elbows when he is a bit older, I think it's 1-2 years old?

Did they have the parents eyes tested?

If not you may want to look into that as well, now from what I've been told it isn't a cheap thing to do.

But if your going to be having him castrated that may be the best time to get it all done at the same time, so I would start saving for it


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

swarthy said:


> What a complete load of rubbish - I've never heard such bunkum in my life - hipscoring was brought in because there was evidence of problems with a number of breeds way back in the 1970s.


If you climbed down off your high horse (or perhaps your hobby horse) and actually researched the subject you will find that there are many breeds that don't require hip scoring. Labradors (which is obviously your area of supposed expertise) do. So do GSDs - which is my area of dog expertise.

But the FACTS are that it isn't necessary for all breeds. So, stop generalising.

And the evidence that the Kennel Club is looking at shows that the health of dogs where they want to introduce more stringent tests is because breeders (that's registered breeders who ought to know better) tend to breed to a 'fashionable' look. In breeding to those looks it's the breeders, not the puppy farms. that are generating the health problems.

I'm not defending puppy farms - I think they should be closed and their owners kept for several years in the human equivalents of the hell holes that they are - but to keep blaming them for all the evils of bad dog health is absurd.

Time and again I've listened to breeders at dog shows mouthing off their opinions of how moves to increase the health of their breed will 'ruin the look' or 'change the breed'.



rocco33 said:


> Montysmum no one is knocking puppy buyers that don't know but the advice given by Albertross and others that health tests aren't necessay and that a vet check isn't.


Huh? At no point have I said anything of the sort. What I have said is that a) hip scoring, although indicative, does not _guarantee_ that a puppy will have good hips and b) vet health checks on puppies can miss things.

Both of those statements are 100% accurate.

Let me be quite clear -

1) IF you can get hip scores for the parents (in a breed where it is desirable) then you should do so. However, if one parent has borderline scores and the other has good scores - by the logic applied by most breeders the average potential hip score for the whole litter will be acceptable to good. This does not mean that any individual puppy will mature into a dog with a good hip score. Even if both parents score 100% there's always a possibility that one or more puppies in a litter will have bad hips. All you are doing is trying to minimise the risk of it occurring.

2) Both breeder and buyer should have a health check done on the puppy. The results of the breeder's check should be given to the new owner and should be compared with the results from the buyer's vet. But, once again, there are no guarantees.

In short - none of these things will ensure you get a healthy puppy. It is much more likely that you will do so if you buy from a reputable breeder. The problem is that the majority of people buying a dog don't have a clue who is a good breeder and who isn't. Who do they ask? I know, in the GSD world, that I could ask one set of breeders who would all tell me not to touch anyone in another set. And vice versa.

The idea that you should blame a buyer for not knowing is appalling. I think _swarthy_ and _rocco33_ should hang their heads in shame.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Hughsey said:


> Okay, I'm crawling out from beneath my rock! Wow, what a thread!
> 
> Firstly thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread and provided the best advice I could have asked for. I certainly know how important Hip Scores are now and will most definately look for them in the future. The problem is that we had honestly fallen in love with the little guy before this thread began, irresponsible of us I know but my heart won and he came home with us last weekend. Had I been more ruled by my head then this post would have happened a few weeks earlier and we would have looked for a breeder who had hip scored the parents. But, it didn't and theres no one to blame for that but me and the OH really. I just hope I don't come back to this thread in a years time and look back on it with hindsight.
> 
> ...


First congratulations on our new puppy. I like you didnt know about health tests when we got our first 2 pups all i knew was make sure you see both parents if possible, if not then the mum and that they were reared in a clean. home environment we did but they wernt health tested. Dont spoil the time you have with your pup worrying about what might be wrong or go wrong, our first died young but was nothing to do with not being from health tested parents his ilness was not typical to the breed and have his parents been h tested the ilness would not have been tested for anyway, his brother from the same parents is now a fit,healthy 10 yr old in august he defies his years by years has had only 1 ilness in his life and that was something any intact male of any breed could get, so as ime not denying h.testing is important but doesnt nessesarily mean you are going to have any problems with your lovely pup, so just enjoy.


----------



## poppydog1 (Mar 26, 2010)

Hi again, kept wondering if you got the pup,hope he is settling in well, enjoy him.:thumbup:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> If you climbed down off your high horse (or perhaps your hobby horse) and actually researched the subject you will find that there are many breeds that don't require hip scoring. Labradors (which is obviously your area of supposed expertise) do. So do GSDs - which is my area of dog expertise.
> 
> But the FACTS are that it isn't necessary for all breeds. So, stop generalising.
> 
> ...


I thought this thread was about buying a Labrador puppy, hence the title of the thread, and hence the response that yes it is important? Or am I missing something?? A vet health check is not good enough, and shouldn't be considered a replacement for health scoring the parents.

This is the sort of *advice* that I think was being referred to, and I've taken out names because I'm not picking on people, just wording, I've emboldened a couple of things as well, so my emphasis:



> ...... it's totally up to you what decision you make. You've seen the pups and the parents, you know how they've been brought up. *IMO, all pups need a home, whether they are health tested or not. *





> ........ it's very hard to make such an important decision. As you say, insurance is all good and well for sorting out the cost of any treatment needed, but its the heartache and the quality of life the pup/dog will have. *But getting pups from good hip scored parents WILL NOT ensure that your pup doesn't get hip dysplasia.* Some of the best hip scored dogs can produce pups with severe hip dysplasia. It's not genetic, like DNA tests, a clear mated to a clear WILL NOT produce any affected pups. But hips are different, *it's all a jackpot and a guessing game*.





> I don't know a single solitary thing about breeding. But as just a regular dog owner I obviously see the importance in health tests. But for me, I tend to let my heart win in these situations. Irresponsible or not.
> 
> You've fallen for the puppy, *at the end of the day the poor mite needs a home*, be it with you or someone else. And will no doubt find one.





> *The fact is the puppies are here, the OP wants one.* The breeder will have zero problem finding homes for them if the op doesn't take one because for every one person aware of it, I could introduce you to 100 people who have no idea that dogs could or should be health tested before breeding. They just want a cute little bouncy dog they can bring home and play fetch with, they don't think of what could happen 6 months down the line.
> 
> I know approximately 13 people who own dogs, and only one of them has any idea about their pups parentage, never mind if they were tested or not.
> 
> ...





> There are 2 separate things in there.
> 
> If you take reasonable precautions, i.e. see the parents, have a vet check the puppy, etc. then there's absolutely NO reason why the puppy shouldn't be healthy.
> 
> ...


After re-reading some of the advice given on this thread, can we really say as a forum we are against irresponsible breeding, because I don't think we can, looking at the comments above, they swing towards, 'ah well, the pups here, the breeder will have no problems finding them a home and it's only hip scoring anyway, it's not a genetic test' - why not just paste a sticky with puppy farm addresses at the top who do actually health test, because that would be a better option 

The general advice given that yes it's something that's preferrable doesn't wash, if it is recognised as a problem within a breed and recommended then it *should be done*. If you are *into* your breed and don't know what the recommended health tests are, or even worse, do, but don't bother to use them, or just use a tested stud dog instead, then that type of breeder shouldn't be supported, which is what I thought was being advised by swarthy and rocco33, along with a few others.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, the puppy buyer has already been snagged in this instance, because they have been to see the pups. I hope that their pup lives a long, healthy and happy life although I wish they'd had the courage of their convictions and had gone to someone who health tests. And I really hope that the question that they've raised will help others looking to buy a pup to do their research before they view the litter, because this thread proves just how difficult it is to walk away. Unfortunately, what will also happen, is that the breeder has learnt that yet again, they can get away with cutting corners by not health testing their breeding stock 

People who are knowledgeable need to vote with their feet and start to stand by any principles they have, rather than just advocating irresponsible breeding with the attitude that the pups are here and need a home. We are either health testing for a reason, ie to try and prevent problems within breeds from becoming exacerbated, or occurring in the first place, but with this sort of advice we really just shouldn't bother!

And breathe........


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If you are *into* your breed and don't know what the recommended health tests are, or even worse, do, but don't bother to use them, or just use a tested stud dog instead, then that type of breeder shouldn't be supported, which is what I thought was being advised by swarthy and rocco33, along with a few others.


The point is that - in this case - we have a buyer who knew nothing about whatever health tests are 'recommended' by those who virtually make a career out of breeding and showing dogs.

In her case - quite rightly - she did everything that was sensible and what I'd expect a 'non-expert' to do. She then came here for advice and was dumped on in the most vitriolic fashion, accused of supporting puppy farms and other stupidity.

The simple fact is that there are lots of people who get a pedigree dog, who aren't professional breeders and who decide, at some point, that they would like to have a litter. It may be that they want to keep a puppy themselves or for any one of a myriad of reasons. These aren't puppy farmers.

If they want to take their bitch to a stud dog then I'd expect the stud owner to tell them about hip-scoring or whatever other health tests are required and, if their bitch doesn't come up to scratch to refuse the mating. But there are breeders who won't do that because they would rather pocket the stud fee and have no on-going interest in what happens to the puppies. And, yes, that happens with breeders that ought to, and probably do, know better.

When the puppies are born in such circumstances the chances are that they are doted on by the owners, incredibly well socialised and looked after in every way. The owners then find buyers for at least some of them. A lot of buyers, I suspect the majority, simply decide that they want a particular type of dog, see an advert and go and see the puppies. Yes, they've probably been advised to make sure their puppy is healthy - but that#s probably all they've had in the way of advice.

I've just checked a collection of books - all current - about getting a new puppy and what you should do with it when you take it home. Not one mentions checking the parents for hip scores. Not one.

They all say you should see the puppy with its mother and hint at avoiding puppy farms. But none of them talk about parental health checks.

As I previously noted - until the Kennel Club enforce a rule that puppies can't be registered unless both parents have passed the breed appropriate health checks then this situation will continue. It's simple - and would have exactly the desired effect that breeders claim to be arguing for. But the KC would lose so much money if it implemented such a rule that they won't do it.

I'm pretty sure that everyone here wants to see healthy dogs. What I'm disappointed in is the assumption that every buyer is going to have the knowledge that the 'experts' have - particularly when such knowledge seems only to be held by those experts - and that all breeders, other than the 'pros', are puppy farmers.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> If you climbed down off your high horse (or perhaps your hobby horse) and actually researched the subject you will find that there are many breeds that don't require hip scoring. Labradors (which is obviously your area of supposed expertise) do. So do GSDs - which is my area of dog expertise.
> 
> But the FACTS are that it isn't necessary for all breeds. So, stop generalising.


I am NOT generalising, this thread is about LABRADORS - however, there are a very large number of breeds where Hipscoring is required and mandatory (or highly recommended for accredited breeders - including:



Goldies, 
Weimeraners
Standard poodles
Clumber Spaniels
Airedale Terriers
Akita
Alaskan Malamute
Anatolian Shepherd Dog
Australian Shepherd
Bearded Collie
Belgian Shepherd Dog
Bernese Mountain Dog
Border Collie
Briard
Brittany
Catalan Sheepdog
Rough Collie
Smooth Collie
Doberman
Dogue de Bordeaux
English Setter
Estrela Mountain Dog
GSD
Finnish Lapphund
German Shorthaired Pointer
German Wirehaired Pointer
Hungarian Wirehaired Vizsla
Hungarian Viszla
Great Dane
Gordon Setter
Hovawart
Irish Setter
Italian Spinone
Large Munsterlander
Leonberger
Maremma Sheepdog 
Mastiff 
Newfoundland
Norwegian Buhund 
Norwegian Elkhound 
Old English Sheepdog 
Otterhound
Polish Lowland Sheepdog
Pyrenean Mountain Dog
Chesapeake Bay Retriever
Curly Coated Retriever
Flat Coat retriever
Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever
Rhodesian Ridgeback
Rottweiler
Samoyed
Shetland Sheepdog
Siberian Husky
Field Spaniel
Irish Water Spaniel
Welsh Springer Spaniel
Spanish Water Dog
St Bernard
Swedish Vallhund 
Tibetan Mastiff
Tibetan Terrier

*Strong recommended for*


English Springer Spaniel 
Cocker Spaniel
Sussex Spaniel
Soft-Coated Wheaten Terrier
Pyrenean Sheepdog
Pyrenean Mastiff
Irish Red & White Setter
Giant Schnauzer
Dalmation
Chow Chow
Canaan Dog
Bullmastiff
Bracco Italiano
Boxer
Australian Cattle Dog

I would hardly call that list insignificant - and as said above, this thread was about labradors - however, as per the 'puppy buyers responsibilities' - if they decide on a breed, then they should be doing the research to check what tests are needed for that breed.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> I'm pretty sure that everyone here wants to see healthy dogs. What I'm disappointed in is the assumption that every buyer is going to have the knowledge that the 'experts' have - particularly when such knowledge seems only to be held by those experts - and that all breeders, other than the 'pros', are puppy farmers.


No-one is saying that they are all puppy farmers - the trouble is - so many people come on asking for advice, whether it be for buying a puppy, or for breeding a bitch - and so many read this advice and STILL ignore it 

I run, with a friend, the lab health website - started after her dog developed bi-lateral HD at just 6 months.

One of my girls injured her knee recently at the beach - and is undergoing intenstive physio for it - it has been pointed out to me she is a rare visitor in terms of the type of dog (in terms of the quality of her breeding) they normally get.

If such breeding can create two intensive therapy clinics within 40 miles or one another and be kept busy every day through poorly bred dogs

Doesn't this give an indication of the fact there is clearly a problem which needs to be dealt with.

=======================

What people don't understand is no-one is trying to be deliberately nasty - how does the puppy buyer distinguish between the genuinely naive breeder and the one who got the plates taken and opted not to submit because they were so appalling?

They cannot.

If these naive breeders got stuck with pups and had to call in rescue to help them - it would have one of two effects

a) they would not breed again
b) - they would take steps to becoming a responsible breeder

and the pups would still be found homes responsibly.

===================

I do agree with you about stud dog owners as it happens - I know there are a lot of studs out there untested themselves - hence - no further forward.

But stud dog owners of health tested dogs should ideally have a minimum criteria for visiting bitches which in my own breed would include Hips and a clear eye certificate.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

I don't advocate irresponsible breeding. Just because I said the poor pup is gonna need a home doesn't mean I am all for irresponsible breeding 

I was trying to make the OP feel better about their thoughts and the decision they were making. At the end of the day better someone who is informed of what potential problems may be get this type of pup as they can help display the importance of health tests with 'why aren't they tested?' and 'but doesn't it give them this or that benefit?' instead of someone who doesn't even do their research and just buys a dog no questions asked.

Its not like this breeder is charging to high heaven either. If they were charging £800 or something I would be like wooooooahhhhh hold on they are completely ripping you off. The breeders have at least been honest and not tried to dupe anyone.

This post will get ripped apart I expect but I don't advocate irresponsible breeding, I just think these breeders have been honest at least and are not charging to high heaven for the pups so they aren't as far in the wrong as others and it wouldn't hit my conscience so bad. In OP's position I may well do the same. If they feel they can offer a pup who stands a higher risk of health problems a good home then good for them and I wish them all the luck in the world. They will be more careful if they look for another pup in the future but I don't think they should have to lose a pup they have fallen in love with because we say its immediately advocating irresponsible breeding, either. Compared with going to rescue at least they know the pup's history and the parents which is one up, at least they seem reasonably healthy which with a rescue, you have no idea of its parent's health. This pup stands a better chance of being healthy than many of the labs in rescues and they know where the pup has come from.

People may still argue my post does advocate irresponsible breeding, *but I do not support irresponsible breeding.* For all we know these pups might not find homes or might end up in a rescue and not even make it into the likes of Dogs Trust or rehoming places, but a council run one where they get 7 days or something else small. My heart would say give the chance to the one I've already fallen in love with, whether that's right or wrong for the sake of the pup. I wouldn't seek out to buy a pup like this *ever*, but in reality this situation has happened and its not like the OP purposely went to someone who didn't health test, and I doubt they will get an unhealth tested pup from a breeder in the future, they have just fallen in love with this pup and are willing to do their best for him/her.

I'd love to think that pup might get put through rescue and the money wont go to the breeders, but in reality in the last short while I've heard some things in general which put doubt in my mind as to whether these pups would get homes elsewhere. Just because rescues are there doesn't mean people put can take them there; I mean if all the rescues say they are full what are the irresponsible breeders likely to do?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Tinsley said:


> For all we know these pups might not find homes or might end up in a rescue and not even make it into the likes of Dogs Trust or rehoming places, but a council run one where they get 7 days or something else small. My heart would say give the chance to the one I've already fallen in love with, whether that's right or wrong for the sake of the pup. I wouldn't seek out to buy a pup like this *ever*, but in reality this situation has happened and its not like the OP purposely went to someone who didn't health test, and I doubt they will get an unhealth tested pup from a breeder in the future, they have just fallen in love with this pup and are willing to do their best for him/her.
> 
> I'd love to think that pup might get put through rescue and the money wont go to the breeders, but in reality in the last short while I've heard some things in general which put doubt in my mind as to whether these pups would get homes elsewhere. Just because rescues are there doesn't mean people put can take them there; I mean if all the rescues say they are full what are the irresponsible breeders likely to do?


That is unlikely to happen with pups, because the breed rescue wouldn't necessarily take the pups, but help the breeders to find homes through rescue from people who have been vetted and approved on their waiting llists and may be waiting for a younger dog.

I do take on board your comments about what some irresponsible breeders might do - these I suspect won't fall into this category - but I am fully aware there are some that are, and they wouldn't even bother trying the rescue track.

===========================

Please don't shout me down when I say this

If we continue to buy from people who don't breed responsibly - how can we stop it?

I understand wholeheartedly how heart wrenching it can be for people who do visit and I also realise that common sense does fly out of the window when faced with a litter of pups - that's not a criticism of anyone - it's human nature, and it fully understand why people cannot walk away.

The point is, until breeders are pushed into having to health test, they are going to continue to breed without doing so - and a larger percentage of dogs are going to come a cropper through it, whether it be going blind through a preventable eye condition, or suffering HD or ED as a result of poor lines with no testing. This isn't going to come from legislation, and it's unlikely to come from the KC - although there are rumours abound of two tier registration schemes (and AR - I wholly agree with your comment about why it won't become a mandatory requirement)

Contrary to popular belief, I am not a hard nosed bitch - I am just passionate that people try to do the right thing - and (not you) - but some on this thread have said this is totally wrong to think this way and have advocated no absolute need for health tests.

Pray tell me how can it be wrong to hope or encourage people to do things the right way?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

The point is AlbertRoss, we had someone come on and ask for advice before they had bought a pup, were told yes, the hip scores are important for two reasons, it gives a good indication of the health of the parents hips, grandparents hips etc, and as you pointed out, it isn't a guarantee, but breeders wouldn't be using it if it were worthless information. Which leads me onto the second point, if it is a useful health test, then the only reason that people do not undertake it is either through ignorance, or to cut corners cost wise, neither of those are breeders that should be supported by buying pups from them. BUT the advice given on here was contradictory, some people think it's ok to buy a pup from a breed of dog where the parents have had *no* health tests, where I can think of four or five useful ones off the top of my head, and more in the pipeline! How can anyone condone buying a pup in these circumstances if they are against irresponsible breeding???



Tinsley said:


> I don't advocate irresponsible breeding. Just because I said the poor pup is gonna need a home doesn't mean I am all for irresponsible breeding


Ok, I really honestly didn't quote you (or anyone) to try and make you feel awful, but to try and point out the contradiction you (and others) are making by saying this, from my point of view. If you are condoning buying a pup from non-health tested parents, because the pup deserves a home, then you are, really, *supporting* the way that these people are breeding pups, you are advising that it's ok in this instance because the people have seen the pup, fallen head over heels with it, and every pup deserves a home. It is either acceptable to buy a pup from someone who is a responsible breeder, or it isn't acceptable, there isn't any reason on earth that I can think why it is acceptable in one instance where someone doesn't health test, as opposed to someone who does their utmost in health testing, as well as care and welfare.

It has been said lots of times, if every person who cut corners, or through ignorance about health testing, couldn't sell their pups because people voted with their feet, then the option for these breeders would be to rehome the pups via rescue. That isn't, unfortunately going to happen in the near future, or in the far future, if people carry on condoning buying pups from non-health tested parents, just because they are *here*. That's not saying you're a nasty person, you are obviously compassionate because you want every pup to have a nice home, but in the long term, do you think it does any good for people to carry on buying pups in this way, or do you think that it gives the message that it's ok to buy from breeders who don't health test?


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, I really honestly didn't quote you (or anyone) to try and make you feel awful, but to try and point out the contradiction you (and others) are making by saying this, from my point of view. If you are condoning buying a pup from non-health tested parents, because the pup deserves a home, then you are, really, *supporting* the way that these people are breeding pups, you are advising that it's ok in this instance because the people have seen the pup, fallen head over heels with it, and every pup deserves a home. It is either acceptable to buy a pup from someone who is a responsible breeder, or it isn't acceptable, there isn't any reason on earth that I can think why it is acceptable in one instance where someone doesn't health test, as opposed to someone who does their utmost in health testing, as well as care and welfare.
> 
> It has been said lots of times, if every person who cut corners, or through ignorance about health testing, couldn't sell their pups because people voted with their feet, then the option for these breeders would be to rehome the pups via rescue. That isn't, unfortunately going to happen in the near future, or in the far future, if people carry on condoning buying pups from non-health tested parents, just because they are *here*. That's not saying you're a nasty person, you are obviously compassionate because you want every pup to have a nice home, but in the long term, do you think it does any good for people to carry on buying pups in this way, or do you think that it gives the message that it's ok to buy from breeders who don't health test?


I don't recall saying it was acceptable exactly, but I don't see what I have said as being supporting irresponsible breeding. The fact is if I had been to see a litter like this and also heard the things that I have in the last week or so I would have a worse conscience walking away from this pup than I would taking it home. Sometimes there is something more important than doing right by our morals once in a while and I am of the opinion that if I have to go against my morals to do what I feel is right at times, I will do so  Morally there are certain people in this world who have caused so much harm I would never speak to them again, but in the same breath if they really needed help I don't think I could turn my back on them, either.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Tinsley said:


> I don't recall saying it was acceptable exactly, but I don't see what I have said as being supporting irresponsible breeding. The fact is if I had been to see a litter like this and also heard the things that I have in the last week or so I would have a worse conscience walking away from this pup than I would taking it home. Sometimes there is something more important than doing right by our morals once in a while and I am of the opinion that if I have to go against my morals to do what I feel is right at times, I will do so  Morally there are certain people in this world who have caused so much harm I would never speak to them again, but in the same breath if they really needed help I don't think I could turn my back on them, either.


I understand what you are saying - I really really do - BUT - your morals for that single pup which will probably be re-iterated for half a dozen other pups - mean that many many more pups will be produced in exactly the same manner - playing on people's heart strings to buy them rather than because they are responsibly bred.

Where does it end? The only people who can take a stance and stop it (rightly or wrongly) are puppy buyers


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

swarthy said:


> I understand what you are saying - I really really do - BUT - your morals for that single pup which will probably be re-iterated for half a dozen other pups - mean that many many more pups will be produced in exactly the same manner - playing on people's heart strings to buy them rather than because they are responsibly bred.
> 
> Where does it end? The only people who can take a stance and stop it (rightly or wrongly) are puppy buyers


I know what you mean, but on a personal level I think my conscience would be more guilty if I left the pup to an unknown fate. Usually the likes of health tested pups get snapped up by us lot who research carefully for a breeder etc and many people get an unhealth tested one because they didn't know otherwise, or for the price, or as a snap decision. I think those types of pups have a more uncertain fate and I don't think I could walk away from that pup comfortably. Instead I would know I know better for next time and will never make that mistake again. I'd also like to think by knowing and learning all that I have that I could advise others not to go to such breeders and thus lessen the business these 'breeders' get in that way. But having met a pup, fallen in love and then to read horror stories and find out about the health tests, I don't think I could walk away :nonod:

I don't think it helps that I found out a couple things not so long ago about people who bred pups and then couldn't home them. One of them even advertised them as free to a good home and still no one wanted them. Those pups aren't alive now and that is definitely clouding my judgement slightly right now.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Tinsley said:


> Those pups aren't alive now and that is definitely clouding my judgement slightly right now.


Understandably so - and I am not naive enough to believe it doesn't happen  so - contrary to what you or others may think - I DO honestly understand.

The difference is (god rest their little souls) - that particular person I would like to think will never breed again - or would do things very differently the next time.

Where the pups have been bought, it consigns the next litter of 8, and the next litter etc etc to the same fate - until someone takes a stance.

TBH - if I knew a breeder would put a pup down if it wasn't sold - I most certainly wouldn't line their pockets - I would try and find a way to get rescue involved.

I do know people in a number of instances have given a token payment for a dog and worked with rescues to find them their forever homes, while the breeder his hopefully licking their wounds from being well out of pocket.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Understandably so - and I am not naive enough to believe it doesn't happen  so - contrary to what you or others may think - I DO honestly understand.
> 
> The difference is (god rest their little souls) - that particular person I would like to think will never breed again - or would do things very differently the next time.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't like lining their pockets at all, its just when I weigh up the guilt I think the guilt of giving them a small amount of money (like in the OP a fraction of the price health tested ones go for) would be less than if I walked away and didn't know what happened. Or worse still maybe I would find out what happened 

The ones I have mentioned weren't put down by the owner but you could argue they were as good as. They 'didn't have the space/time' and it seemed that nobody else did. Again you can argue by consigning the next litter of pups I may be condemning them to death or an unknown fate but I would hope I could try and drum into them what they are causing.

This is why when I was looking for my boy I was so shocked how some breeders have the audacity to charge £650 for a retriever from unhealth tested parents. I have no idea how they can do that, if its an accident its more understandable that they exist but not for £650. Mine was £450 from health tested parents and grandparents had hip/eye certs too.

But as you can see, what I should do and what my heart would say if I was in that position probably vary greatly  I think its easier to walk away so to speak if you haven't got as far in as the OP did. In a perfect world we could be astounded the parents aren't health tested and the breeder would suddenly realise how important it was and get right on to doing so in future if they insist on breeding.

I really really really wish the KC wouldn't register dogs if the parents didn't have the recommended health tests. I think that would go some way because even on here people have the impression a KC reg dog is a safer by than a non KC reg dog don't they?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

But, every time that someone buys a pup from a situation like this, it IS supporting irresponsible breeding, they are giving money for a pup to someone who either through ignorance, or cost reasons, has decided not to health test breeding stock. 

So if you let your heart rule your head in this type of instance, then people who breed like this, will never be stopped, because there will always be someone out there who will buy a pup, which to me, is extremely sad. I would like to see irresponsible breeding completely eradicated, but it never will be as long as people are willing, despite education/research, to either buy, or advise others to buy a pup in an instance such as this. 

IF you are for responsible breeding, you cannot afford to let an individual instance sway you, you HAVE to look at the whole picture. Every single pup born into this world is adorable and deserves a loving home, unfortunately, not every single breeder does things the right way. Puppy buyers have a choice, and that choice to me, should never involve paying money to someone who breeds through ignorance or even worse.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But, every time that someone buys a pup from a situation like this, it IS supporting irresponsible breeding, they are giving money for a pup to someone who either through ignorance, or cost reasons, has decided not to health test breeding stock.
> 
> So if you let your heart rule your head in this type of instance, then people who breed like this, will never be stopped, because there will always be someone out there who will buy a pup, which to me, is extremely sad. * I would like to see irresponsible breeding completely eradicated, but it never will be as long as people are willing, despite education/research, to either buy, or advise others to buy a pup in an instance such as this. *
> 
> IF you are for responsible breeding, you cannot afford to let an individual instance sway you, you HAVE to look at the whole picture. Every single pup born into this world is adorable and deserves a loving home, unfortunately, not every single breeder does things the right way. Puppy buyers have a choice, and that choice to me, should never involve paying money to someone who breeds through ignorance or even worse.


But the OP's situation isn't the whole picture it was a one off for them. As a whole picture its not something I would do and I'd love to sit here and say I wont ever do it but I can't. Its like if someone knocked on my door right now and said hey I've got a 2 month old dog the parents weren't health tested but it needs a home and I am going to drown it otherwise, give me £50 and its yours', I'd try and give him less than £50 but I wouldn't want him to walk off with that pup and would give him £50 if I had to. I don't even have the time or space for another dog but if I was put in that position I doubt I could walk away, its just not something I could do.

Of course people should always go for a pup from health tested parents, but situations like the OP's muddy the waters slightly and the answer isn't as clear cut as we would like it to be.

I do not support irresponsible breeding.

And the bit in bold, the OP had fallen in love with this puppy before their research lead them to knowing health tests should be present for the parents. That muddies the waters again.

As for advising, I've not advised anyone do anything and if you have seen my previous posts you will know that I'm the type of person that if someone sees an ad for a pup and its not/parents are not health tested, I will steer them away. But IMO this situation is not clean cut enough to be able to do that.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Tinsley

I think situations like this should really set a precedent. The OP went to see the litter and clearly, in the back of their mind somewhere, from some source, they knew about hipscoring.

The message MUST be - if the litter doesn't have the necessary recommended health tests - then don't go visit. 

Contrary to what some people think - I DO understand, but don't condone how people feel - because as long as this keeps happening, there will be no end to it.

The trouble is - there seems to be two extremes when it comes to puppy buying - there are those that insist that all DNA tests should be clear (when for recessive genes if breeding responsibly, this is not the case) and that all hips should be well below the breed average - when in fact the message is a lot more complex than that (which I guess doesn't help) - as it's about looking at the whole dog with the available information to hand.

===============

I agree the most logical route would be for the KC to make health testing mandatory - but I also have a gut feeling this would simply lead people to produce more unregistered and unhealth tested litters - which simply exacerbates the current situation rather than help it 

Depressing thoughts for a Friday afternoon


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Tinsley
> 
> I think situations like this should really set a precendet. The OP went to see the litter and clearly, in the back of their mind somewhere, from some source, they knew about hipscoring.
> 
> ...


Think we are going in circles a little now but I agree in that no health tests should mean that people don't visit the litter, here it was a matter of they had already been visited which is where I am split. I'd find it easier to walk away from if like my boy's litter I didn't really click with one in particular, but if there was one pup I had seen and just loved it would pull at my heart strings more and make the decision more difficult.

Definitely with you on the 'if there are no health tests don't visit' front though. If people avoid visiting litters like this in the first place they are much less likely to feel as the OP did and how I may, in wanting to take a pup still when its clearly not the most sensible thing to do


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> The point is that - in this case - we have a buyer who knew nothing about whatever health tests are 'recommended' by those who virtually make a career out of breeding and showing dogs.
> 
> In her case - quite rightly - she did everything that was sensible and what I'd expect a 'non-expert' to do. She then came here for advice and was dumped on in the most vitriolic fashion, accused of supporting puppy farms and other stupidity.
> 
> ...


this is the most sensible reply yet, well said.

If you wanted a lab pup how many litters would you find from unhealth tested parents and how many from health tested. I would imagine you would be hard pressed to find a well reared litter from health tested parents. 
Look in the free ads, preloved etc, there are hundred of litters advertised, and I doubt if any are health tested. 
It may or may not be wrong but is a fact of life and while there are prospective owners for these pups they will carry on being bred. The breeders that are testing and rearing the odd litter in the house (so fulfilling all criteria) will be very few and far between so there would not be enough pups to go round all the people wanting a new dog.

I cant get my head round rescue being an option. If you want a dog with a known health record, that isnt likely to throw up avoidable vets bills then why get something totally unknown!


----------



## Hughsey (May 17, 2010)

swarthy said:


> Tinsley
> 
> I think situations like this should really set a precedent. The OP went to see the litter and clearly, in the back of their mind somewhere, from some source, they knew about hipscoring.
> 
> The message MUST be - if the litter doesn't have the necessary recommended health tests - then don't go visit.


I have to add that although I have been naive with our Samson, I honestly had no idea about hip scoring until I came to this site.

Our deposit was put down, we got all excited and I decided to join a forum where I could gain advice and share our experience. It was only on browsing the site that information on hip scoring came up, I panicked that this was something we should have checked and posted this thread.

I have said and stick to it, that had I known the importance BEFORE we had met him, then we would without a doubt have waited and found a breeder who did have hip scored dams and sires. But, for us it was too late, we were smitten.

The positive with our breeder is that I have not enforced their desire to breed more and sell them as both their dogs are to be neutered/speyed and they will be having no more litters.:thumbup:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Tinsley said:


> But the OP's situation isn't the whole picture it was a one off for them. As a whole picture its not something I would do and I'd love to sit here and say I wont ever do it but I can't. Its like if someone knocked on my door right now and said hey I've got a 2 month old dog the parents weren't health tested but it needs a home and I am going to drown it otherwise, give me £50 and its yours', I'd try and give him less than £50 but I wouldn't want him to walk off with that pup and would give him £50 if I had to. I don't even have the time or space for another dog but if I was put in that position I doubt I could walk away, its just not something I could do.
> 
> Of course people should always go for a pup from health tested parents, but situations like the OP's muddy the waters slightly and the answer isn't as clear cut as we would like it to be.
> 
> ...


No, you don't go round with a sandwich board promoting people who don't breed responsibly, BUT every time you let one situation like this sway you into advising that it's ok to buy it because every pup needs a home, I personally view that as supporting irresponsible breeding, even if in an indirect way. That's not a personal judgement against you (or anyone else), just that my boundaries are different to yours when it comes to where to draw the line, and as you have already said, you are one of those people who would let your heart rule your head.

I think the comments that you and others gave about every pup needing a home is advice, you are advising that it is ok to get this pup because it needs a home, or at least that is how I read those sort of comments? You don't need to say 'My advice is......', your opinion counts as advice.

Again this is another thing we differ on, to me there is no muddy situation here, if you know the breeder has failed to carry out health testing, despite having seen the litter, you shouldn't support them by buying a pup. There is no muddy water for me, it is clear cut, but that's down to you and I having different experiences and characters.

I don't think you can use a drown or pay scenario for this situation, I don't think it has been mentioned anywhere that this would have happened? And personally, I wouldn't be held to ransom if put in that situation, again, different characters.

To me, every individual situation adds up to one whole picture, this one situation could have ended very differently, with the OP choosing to buy from health tested parents from a responsible breeder. But as it happens, I think Swarthy is right in that they really already knew before they asked the question that they 99% didn't want to have to change their minds. Having people condone the purchase of the pup in any way, may have made their mind up even, and yet another irresponsible breeder gets a buyer back they might have lost, had they got the advice to only buy from a responsible breeder from everyone, and not to buy from unhealth tested parents.

You're right, I think it is going round in circles a bit now, but I hope at least this thread gets a few people thinking about buying a pup, and the research they might need to do before phoning anyone up to talk to them about a pup. And what happens the next time someone posts asking about a pup from a litter, that hasn't had *x* test done, is that another individual situation?



Blitz said:


> this is the most sensible reply yet, well said.
> 
> If you wanted a lab pup how many litters would you find from unhealth tested parents and how many from health tested. I would imagine you would be hard pressed to find a well reared litter from health tested parents.
> Look in the free ads, preloved etc, there are hundred of litters advertised, and I doubt if any are health tested.
> ...


As someone who actively spends a lot of time helping people who want a Labrador pup from responsible breeders, this is the sort of response that baffles me, are you condoning just buying out of the free ads because you might need to do a bit of research and wait a while before you get a pup from a responsible breeder


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Hughsey said:


> I have to add that although I have been naive with our Samson, I honestly had no idea about hip scoring until I came to this site.
> 
> Our deposit was put down, we got all excited and I decided to join a forum where I could gain advice and share our experience. It was only on browsing the site that information on hip scoring came up, I panicked that this was something we should have checked and posted this thread.
> 
> ...


Now see - responses like this ARE positive - thank you. I don't know if the breeders gave you any advice on exercise and how to manage it for the first 12 months, and also the need to avoid the use of stairs etc and if this is unavoidable, how to teach them to use them properly.

The reason for this is, if a puppy happens to be pre-disposed to HD, in a lot of instances it can be prevented by the actions taken by the new owner in the first 12 months of the pups life. Sadly, a lot of owners only discover this when they hit a problem. If you have a pup from parents who are hipscored, then the risks of a problem are much lower - the frustrating part is - both parents of your pups may well have superb hips - the issue comes in the not knowing because they haven't tested 

----------------------------



Blitz said:


> If you wanted a lab pup how many litters would you find from unhealth tested parents and how many from health tested. I would imagine you would be hard pressed to find a well reared litter from health tested parents.
> Look in the free ads, preloved etc, there are hundred of litters advertised, and I doubt if any are health tested.
> It may or may not be wrong but is a fact of life and while there are prospective owners for these pups they will carry on being bred. The breeders that are testing and rearing the odd litter in the house (so fulfilling all criteria) will be very few and far between so there would not be enough pups to go round all the people wanting a new dog.


The words 'wall' and 'head' spring to mind - there are MANY litters around from responsible breeders (show, working and pet breeders) - sadly, there is a portion of people who simply won't pay the price for a health tested pup, when in some areas they can get a pup from questionable breeding for half the price - it's only when they hit a problem that their attitude suddenly changes.

Part of the problem is people don't want to wait for a puppy, they want one and they want it NOW.

.The large majority of responsible breeders will actively help prospective owners to search for new pups if they can't help themselves - I've pointed many people in the direction of responsible breeders - so, I'm sorry, with a bit of careful thought and planning, it can be done.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

swarthy said:


> I am NOT generalising, this thread is about LABRADORS - however, there are a very large number of breeds where Hipscoring is required and mandatory (or highly recommended for accredited breeders - including:
> <list snipped for reasons of space>
> 
> I would hardly call that list insignificant - and as said above, this thread was about labradors - however, as per the 'puppy buyers responsibilities' - if they decide on a breed, then they should be doing the research to check what tests are needed for that breed.


And the point I was making is that not ALL breeds need this. The Kennel Club recognises over 180 breeds. Your list has 77 (if I counted correctly). On that basis, the majority of breeds don't need hip scores. Indeed it is generally accepted that hip scores are only valuable in larger dogs. Whereas the OP was talking about her lab puppy the title of this thread is somewhat more inclusive. Indeed at least one other 'newbie' contributor wasn't trying to find out about labs but a totally diffeent breed.

The BVA's published figures only give mean scores for 116 breeds where they have tested more than 10 dogs. That means that less than 10 dogs for each breed _in *all* other breeds_ have been tested. That's a pretty dire result for a programme that's been running since 1984.



swarthy said:


> I understand what you are saying - I really really do - BUT - your morals for that single pup which will probably be re-iterated for half a dozen other pups - mean that many many more pups will be produced in exactly the same manner - playing on people's heart strings to buy them rather than because they are responsibly bred.
> 
> Where does it end? The only people who can take a stance and stop it (rightly or wrongly) are puppy buyers


In the first place - who decides what a 'responsible' breeder is? And in the second place you are 100% wrong. The only way to stop 'pedigree' puppies being sold from sub-standard parentage is to refuse to register them. Most buyers do not have a clue about hip scoring, eye testing, DNA, etc. Even if they did - eye testing is supposed to be done annually because most genetic eye problems don't show up until later in life (that's the BVA's stance - not mine). So that parent may be fine now - but next year may exhibit a problem.

Let's go back to the question of a 'responsible' breeder. There's a great guide to responsible breeders on the 'labradorforum' (Google "Guide To Finding A Responsible Labrador Breeder"). It's highly detailed - but anyone selling a puppy could answer the questions posed there in their own way and yet not be a 'responsible' breeder at all.

Perhaps responsible breeders should be members of the KC's "Accredited Breeder" scheme? A scheme that has already been shown to be completely faulty with people applying for and being granted accredited status without even owning a dog?

How about a breeder who is a renowned breed judge, who has a track record stretching back to the 1950's and whose dogs feature in the pedigrees of about half the champions in his breed? Responsible? Yes, he's the same breeder who has put down perfectly healthy pups because they had a 'colour defect'. He's the breeder who keeps puppies in a stable block (not a kennel) and doesn't socialise them - at all. Is that responsible?



Hughsey said:


> I have to add that although I have been naive with our Samson, I honestly had no idea about hip scoring until I came to this site.


I think that's the point. If you don't know about hip scoring and you aren't told then finding out later doesn't help. Nor do loads of negative comments after you've bought your puppy.

The only way of providing protection of puppies for buyers of pedigree dogs is via Kennel Club control. Anything else is simply wishful thinking.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I've just checked a collection of books - all current - about getting a new puppy and what you should do with it when you take it home. Not one mentions checking the parents for hip scores. Not one.


Sadly, that doesn't surprise me and I find if very frustrating, however, the one organisation that _does_ advise it is the very organisation that you constantly decry.... The Kennel Club....

Taken from their page on finding a puppy:



> You should ask the breeder for information on the following:
> Copies of any additional health certificates for the sire and dam.
> Just like humans, some breeds of dogs can be affected by inherited conditions. The Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association offer three canine health schemes, which aim to detect and monitor certain inherited conditions. It is important that you are aware of these conditions and know the right questions to ask of breeders before buying a puppy. There are also some DNA tests now available for certain breeds. Visit our Health and DNA pages for more information.





> The only way of providing protection of puppies for buyers of pedigree dogs is via Kennel Club control. Anything else is simply wishful thinking.


This will offer no protection for buyers of pedigree dogs, simply stop those breeders who don't want to bother with health testing from registering their pups, or they will register with one of the 'other' registrations like DLRC - and still the public will be none the wiser.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> And the point I was making is that not ALL breeds need this. The Kennel Club recognises over 180 breeds. Your list has 77 (if I counted correctly). On that basis, the majority of breeds don't need hip scores. Indeed it is generally accepted that hip scores are only valuable in larger dogs. Whereas the OP was talking about her lab puppy the title of this thread is somewhat more inclusive. Indeed at least one other 'newbie' contributor wasn't trying to find out about labs but a totally diffeent breed.


 This thread was entitled -= "How important are hipscores" and continues "I've been to view a labrador puppy.........."

On that basis, I didn't think that the health tests required by Bichons, Papillons and toy poodles would have any great significance.

The BVA's published figures only give mean scores for 116 breeds where they have tested more than 10 dogs. That means that less than 10 dogs for each breed _in *all* other breeds_ have been tested. That's a pretty dire result for a programme that's been running since 1984.



AlbertRoss said:


> *In the first place - who decides what a 'responsible' breeder is?*


Um - if you read ANY of my posts I very clearly say that because a breeder does all the health tests doesn't make them a good breeder - someone else who chooses to cherry pick.



AlbertRoss said:


> And in the second place you are 100% wrong. The only way to stop 'pedigree' puppies being sold from sub-standard parentage is to refuse to register them.


No it isn't, then you will just have 'breeders' selling unregistered pedigree pups - a KC registration costs £12 - so makes little actual difference to the costs to the breeder.



AlbertRoss said:


> Most buyers do not have a clue about hip scoring, eye testing, DNA, etc. Even if they did - eye testing is supposed to be done annually because most genetic eye problems don't show up until later in life (that's the BVA's stance - not mine). So that parent may be fine now - but next year may exhibit a problem.


For the record - of the eye conditions in labradors, the one condition that can cause total blindness is PRA - which can be DNA tested for to ensure breeders NEVER produce affected puppies.

These DNA tests are mirrored across many breeds for a range of conditions, and the variety of tests are increasing all the time.



AlbertRoss said:


> Perhaps responsible breeders should be members of the KC's "Accredited Breeder" scheme? A scheme that has already been shown to be completely faulty with people applying for and being granted accredited status without even owning a dog?


This has now changed, and breeders cannot become a member until they have produced at least three litters.



AlbertRoss said:


> I think that's the point. If you don't know about hip scoring and you aren't told then finding out later doesn't help. Nor do loads of negative comments after you've bought your puppy.


The OP hadn't bought the puppy at that point, and if they didn't want to know - they shouldn't have asked - it's a bit like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted

On a more encouraging note, the OP DOES take on board the message about health testing for the future - which you, with your supposed knowledge are still bleating on about all the flaws with it - there's no hope really.



AlbertRoss said:


> The only way of providing protection of puppies for buyers of pedigree dogs is via Kennel Club control. Anything else is simply wishful thinking.


And HOW exactly do you suggest they do that? Because people who currently go under the radar won't change what they are doing, they will just register the pups with 'another society.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> I think that's the point. If you don't know about hip scoring and you aren't told then finding out later doesn't help. Nor do loads of negative comments after you've bought your puppy.


Just wanted to pick up on this, the OP asked before they actually bought the pup, they had paid a deposit, but did have the chance to walk away. And the comments have not been negative, just the opposite, they have pointed out what should be *positive* in buying a pup.

From what's been posted since, the breeder won't be repeating the mating, which is another positive! I sincerely hope this thread serves as an education to anyone looking to buy a pup from any breed where health testing is recommended for anything that is shown to be a problem within that breed!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

swarthy said:


> The words 'wall' and 'head' spring to mind - there are MANY litters around from responsible breeders (show, working and pet breeders) - sadly, there is a portion of people who simply won't pay the price for a health tested pup, when in some areas they can get a pup from questionable breeding for half the price - it's only when they hit a problem that their attitude suddenly changes.
> 
> Part of the problem is people don't want to wait for a puppy, they want one and they want it NOW.
> 
> .The large majority of responsible breeders will actively help prospective owners to search for new pups if they can't help themselves - I've pointed many people in the direction of responsible breeders - so, I'm sorry, with a bit of careful thought and planning, it can be done.


I am sorry but I find the start of your reply fairly offensive.

I was stating facts, not even saying what was right or wrong. Fact is that most litters are not from tested parents. Assuming that virtually every lab puppy gets sold and only a small amount are tested then one can assume very easily that there would not be enough to go round all the prospective owners if only breeders that were prepared to test were to breed. I am quite sure that if you go on a waiting list you can join the MINORITY of pet owners that do both know, understand and want a pup from health tested parents but if everyone did there would be a marked shortage.
The FACT is that most parents are not health tested and most pet owners dont care. Whether right or wrong is not the point is it.

In an ideal world every dog and bitch would be health tested and every pet owner would want them to be but we live in THIS world - and tbh there are not huge problems caused by genetic problems or I think most vets would strongly advise owners on the subject as would the books on buying pups that someone mentioned earlier. Obviously if you have been one of the unlucky ones you will feel strongly about it - but isnt that true of any bad experience.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Assuming that virtually every lab puppy gets sold and only a small amount are tested


Around half of the 45,000+ puppies registered with the KC are from health tested parents - not enough, admittedly, but over 20,000 a year is hardly only a small amount. Granted that there won't be many in the freeads and online sites like preloved, but then I would never recommend anyone looks for a pup on those sights anyway.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I am sorry but I find the start of your reply fairly offensive.
> 
> I was stating facts, not even saying what was right or wrong. Fact is that most litters are not from tested parents. Assuming that virtually every lab puppy gets sold and only a small amount are tested then one can assume very easily that there would not be enough to go round all the prospective owners if only breeders that were prepared to test were to breed. I am quite sure that if you go on a waiting list you can join the MINORITY of pet owners that do both know, understand and want a pup from health tested parents but if everyone did there would be a marked shortage.
> The FACT is that most parents are not health tested and most pet owners dont care. Whether right or wrong is not the point is it.
> ...


Have to agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, i think its all about awareness, education and personal experiences, there will always be people who will buy a pup from none ht parents purely down to not knowing just as the op and myself and many more, and i can understand how strongly people think about not ht especially if they have experienced a dog with health problems due to parents not been ht. Not wanting to go off topic but there will always be owners that do the wrong thing by their dog through ignorance and not due to not caring i remember my inlaws going to give our first dog a square of chocolate and was horrified when i tols them how dangerous it was they had fed their yorkie 2 squares every night of his life and he died at 17. I get particularly irate when there are talks on neutering or should i say not neutering as my experience with an intact dog and prostate because i saw harvey suffer so much, but there will always be people that will feed chocolate to dogs due to "not" knowing and keep an intact dog due to "not", and buy a non health tested puppy down to "not" knowing, the fact is we will never change the world.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Blitz said:


> In an ideal world every dog and bitch would be health tested and every pet owner would want them to be but we live in THIS world - and tbh there are not huge problems caused by genetic problems or I think most vets would strongly advise owners on the subject as would the books on buying pups that someone mentioned earlier. Obviously if you have been one of the unlucky ones you will feel strongly about it - but isnt that true of any bad experience.


Um - that is the point, the majority of vets have scant if any knowledge of breeding and the required health tests - FACT - and a very sad a frustrating fact that is raising questions at the highest levels of power in this country - with a big question mark over how to change this 

There are 250 odd pedigree breeds - as with a GP, they can't be a specialist in every condition and breed - but they should have that information to hand.

Because people do it, and puppy buyers don't care doesn't make it right.

For the record, I am not sure where you got the idea from that I had had a bad experience - I never said I did, and as well as a pet owner, I am a breeder with all health tested breeding stock who abides by the results of those tests, and breed solely when I want a new pup to bring on for showing and now working.

==============

It is actually MORE important for pet owners to have pups from health tested parents - over 60K dogs have been hipscored in my own breed - and if you wish to trawl the BRS, a large percentage of those dogs are from established breeders who health test - so they are out there, it's just that people won't wait 

You only have to talk to the orthopaedic specialists and physios to establish that virtually every 'customer' they see is from a BYB or PF and unhealth tested parents - that's FACT - and could be an avoidable fact 



haeveymolly said:


> the fact is we will never change the world.


Correction - it's not the world -it's human nature which believes 'it will never happen to me' - and then when it does, the breeder is all at fault - with often no thought for what part they may have played in getting that pup.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I am sorry but I find the start of your reply fairly offensive.
> 
> I was stating facts, not even saying what was right or wrong. Fact is that most litters are not from tested parents. Assuming that virtually every lab puppy gets sold and only a small amount are tested then one can assume very easily that there would not be enough to go round all the prospective owners if only breeders that were prepared to test were to breed. I am quite sure that if you go on a waiting list you can join the MINORITY of pet owners that do both know, understand and want a pup from health tested parents but if everyone did there would be a marked shortage.
> The FACT is that most parents are not health tested and most pet owners dont care. Whether right or wrong is not the point is it.
> ...


Well to be honest, I typed a response, looked at your post, and decided I couldn't quite decide whether you were advising for or against buying pups from the free ads from unhealth tested parents, the wording in your post just seemed a bit ambiguous.

Whatever the facts are, surely *we* as a forum, shouldn't ever condone buying a pup from this sort of situation. Rescue is a better option, because you are not paying someone who hasn't bothered to health test, you are donating to the rescue organisation that has picked up the pieces.

Everyone who has voiced their opinion to say walk away, I think, has also put that it is about educating, and making people aware of the need to support responsible breeders.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I have just trawled through a lot of pages of ads on preloved and found one stud dog that was tested and 4 litters that were out of well over a hundred and that was not all the ads by a long way. And this is the sort of place most people will buy from. On the assumption that most of these pups do find homes - and in fact I know that most small breeds at least will easily sell - and assuming that everyone that buys one actually wants a puppy then there is no way the 'responsible' breeders can possibly keep up with demand.

By the way I was breeding in a very small way when PRA and CEA testing came in and yes, I did get my bitch tested.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Sadly, that doesn't surprise me and I find if very frustrating, however, the one organisation that _does_ advise it is the very organisation that you constantly decry.... The Kennel Club....


And, if you read what they say, their whole rationale is to make money from it. Lip service to health testing is what the KC is all about. They've had years to impose health testing - and done nothing. It was only when that BBC programme shamed and outed them that they even made a pretence of doing something.

Even now the only breed that they are engaging with in a confrontational way (despite other breeds telling them that they won't comply) is the German Shepherd. The GSDs can fight back because there is a well respected international option.



> This will offer no protection for buyers of pedigree dogs, simply stop those breeders who don't want to bother with health testing from registering their pups, or they will register with one of the 'other' registrations like DLRC - and still the public will be none the wiser.


On the contrary - if people want a 'pedigree' dog they look for KC registration. The breeders know that they won't be able to show, collect CCs etc unless they do so under KC rules - which will mean that they'll be forced to stay with the system. The alternative organisations simply won't have the muscle to offer an alternative.



swarthy said:


> This thread was entitled -= "How important are hipscores" and continues "I've been to view a labrador puppy.........."
> On that basis, I didn't think that the health tests required by Bichons, Papillons and toy poodles would have any great significance.


Yes, the title of the thread was about hipscores. Duh!



> Um - if you read ANY of my posts I very clearly say that because a breeder does all the health tests doesn't make them a good breeder - someone else who chooses to cherry pick.


Perhaps you'd like to explain what does make a good breeder - that the buyer can independently verify? Not the list of all the things we know a good breeder should be/do - but some way of checking out that they actually do them.



> No it isn't, then you will just have 'breeders' selling unregistered pedigree pups - a KC registration costs £12 - so makes little actual difference to the costs to the breeder.


What planet are you on? A dog isn't 'pedigree' unless it has KC registration. It may have pedigree breeding - but unless it's KC registered it's not pedigree. That also means it doesn't have anything like the 'cash' value of a registered dog.



> For the record - of the eye conditions in labradors, the one condition that can cause total blindness is PRA - which can be DNA tested for to ensure breeders NEVER produce affected puppies.
> 
> These DNA tests are mirrored across many breeds for a range of conditions, and the variety of tests are increasing all the time.


I'm sure you are correct about labradors. But the KC/BVA clearly state that eye testing in most breeds should be done annually - not a one-off. THe KC publish a list of health checks for each breed that they 'recommend'. See below.



> The OP hadn't bought the puppy at that point, and if they didn't want to know - they shouldn't have asked - it's a bit like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted


Who are you to decide that they shouldn't have asked? The OP was clearly concerned, having heard about hip scoring after seeing and deciding on the puppy. He/she came here to find out - and was advised to walk away but decided not to. That lead to a ridiculous set of posts which basically accused them of supporting puppy farming, etc.



> On a more encouraging note, the OP DOES take on board the message about health testing for the future - which you, with your supposed knowledge are still bleating on about all the flaws with it - there's no hope really.


There are flaws in it. It's that simple. You don't want to acknowledge it because you've decided it's a magic wand that outranks all other considerations.

But the reality of hip scoring is this:

The BVA has tested a number of dogs and for each dog assesses a hip score. On the basis *of the dogs they've tested* they set an average score. They recommend that breeding should only occur between dogs which have a better than average score.

Any statistician will look at that and tell you that it's a nonsense. Why?

Firstly, until a large number of dogs from each breed have been tested the 'average' isn't representative. Test 50 dogs and get an average? There's a huge possible margin of error. (NB - in the case of Labradors there is a large sample. In fact it's the largest, as it alone counts for more than 25% of all breeds tested - but there's still a margin of error). A simple average is wildly misleading without knowing what that margin of error is.

Secondly, there's no data to correlate the hip scores of dogs from hip tested parents. In fact the results will be skewed because the 'professional' breeders will have their dogs tested whereas the majority of owners, who have no interest in breeding, won't. So, it's highly likely that the average hip score shown for each breed isn't representative of the breed as a whole.

Thirdly, if what is claimed about hip scoring is correct and breeding only takes place between dogs that have a better than average score and produces offspring that reflect that then the average will keep dropping, and dropping, and dropping... As it does so, so will the gene pool of available parents - until there are only 2 left. Sounds silly doesn't it. But that would be the result.

Let's be quite clear about this. The hip scoring programme has been running since 1984. The BVA has about 250,000 hip scores on record and they only score KC registered dogs. A simple cross-reference of their data with that of the KC would show how effective (or ineffective) this scheme is. But they haven't done it. Why is that? Could it be that it might show the whole thing to be a waste of time?

Just to make my position clear on this. I believe that hip-scoring (and appropriate breed health checks) should be made on dog parents and on puppies. Having owned a dog which had hip dysplasia from tested parents and which had to have daily pain killers I would be delighted to see this problem wiped out.

But, the reality is that until it becomes mandatory for parents to be tested in order for puppies to be registered it simply will never happen. Further, until the BVA show that it's genuinely having an effect it just looks like another money making KC scheme that has all the credentials of health improvement but absolutely zero scientific proof that it's doing anything.

You may not like this. You may think that there is evidence to prove otherwise. But there isn't.

The KC explicitly states "There will be no formal checks on breeder compliance with recommendations..." in its list of recommended health checks under the Accredited Breeder scheme. Why? It would be really easy to implement. It would force accredited breeders to abide by the 'rules' of health checks. And the whole purpose of the KC scheme is to enable a buyer to find a breeder that they should be able to buy from in the certain knowledge that everything possible has been done to ensure that pup's health.

And the biggest problem of all is that there is apparently no data available to show that offspring from non-registered dogs, which have never been hip scored, have any more hip problems than their registered cousins. So it's quite possible that a puppy from non registered parents may have a much better hip score than that from registered tested parents.

So, yes, it's flawed. Horrendously so. But it has been 'sold' as a way of correcting health problems because it seems common sense that breeding from 2 'good' parents will produce 'good' puppies. Sadly, the real world of genetics isn't like that. I only wish it were.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

I am not going to get into a discussion about the KC, because the way I see it, they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. We don't have an alternative, and some of the 'other' ideas that we bandied about after THAT programme really don't bear thinking about, and if anyone thinks they do - they have little understanding of the impact it would have.



AlbertRoss said:


> On the contrary - if people want a 'pedigree' dog they look for KC registration. The breeders know that they won't be able to show, collect CCs etc unless they do so under KC rules - which will mean that they'll be forced to stay with the system. The alternative organisations simply won't have the muscle to offer an alternative.


On the contrary - I know for a FACT, living in the heart of puppy farming land and being around the breed forums for more than a short while that people DO buy dogs that are unregistered and then DO want to know why they can't show it, and only ask what terms such as DLRC are AFTER they own the PEDIGREE dog they've been sold. The large majority of new people setting foot in a showring wouldn't know what a CC or a Junior Warrant of a Show Certificate of Merit means, even less what they have to do to get them.



AlbertRoss said:


> What planet are you on? A dog isn't 'pedigree' unless it has KC registration. It may have pedigree breeding - but unless it's KC registered it's not pedigree. That also means it doesn't have anything like the 'cash' value of a registered dog.


There is no need to be offensive, I am on the same planet as you - I KNOW that the only way a pedigree dog can be verified is through KC registration, sadly, a lot of so called breeders and puppy buyers do not - also fact.

I also know for a fact that many BYB offer their puppies with a £100 if you don't have them KC registered - and a lot of pet owners accept this at face value - but I also know for a fact that many many puppies are being sold with very little price differential between KC registered and health tested and unregistered with no health tests.



AlbertRoss said:


> Yes, the title of the thread was about hipscores. Duh!


and SPECIFICALLY about LABRADORS



AlbertRoss said:


> Perhaps you'd like to explain what does make a good breeder - that the buyer can independently verify? Not the list of all the things we know a good breeder should be/do - but some way of checking out that they actually do them.


Things like health tests are very easy to verify if someone has researched what they should know before they go to view a litter.

A lot of the other factors about what makes a good breeder should stem from prospective owners taking an objective view - unfortunately, when faced with puppies, the large majority of people simply cannot be objective - and that has been demonstrated many times on this thread alone (and that's not a criticism - it's human nature)



AlbertRoss said:


> I'm sure you are correct about labradors. But the KC/BVA clearly state that eye testing in most breeds should be done annually - not a one-off. The KC publish a list of health checks for each breed that they 'recommend'. See below.


I don't need to look at any list below - I'm an AB and my dogs are eye tested annually in line with the schemes requirements. My point was that for the worst conditions such as PRA in Labs and many other breeds which can cause total blindness - for those that don't eye test, unless they fall into the 5% of the condition for HC that can cause blindness, they may be blissfully unaware that there is a problem.

Hence why PRA testing to ensure breeders are not producing affected dogs is so important.

Likewise, there are many DNA tests out there for eye and other conditions including CNM in Labs.



AlbertRoss said:


> Who are you to decide that they shouldn't have asked? The OP was clearly concerned, having heard about hip scoring after seeing and deciding on the puppy. He/she came here to find out - and was advised to walk away but decided not to. That lead to a ridiculous set of posts which basically accused them of supporting puppy farming, etc.


It's not a ridiculous set of posts, and I am far from the only one who posted - the point is - as long as people keep buying from BYB and PF, it's never going to stop 

Personally, I would like to see mandatory testing of all dogs, those bred from and those produced, unfortunately, I know this is unlikely ever to happen.

The additional point is, if the breeder has not health tested because their dog has always been 'OK' - it's also less likely they will give useful advice on diet and exercise to further reduce the risks.



AlbertRoss said:


> There are flaws in it. It's that simple. You don't want to acknowledge it because you've decided it's a magic wand that outranks all other considerations.


I have never actually said there are no flaws in it, and I've also repeatedly said that health testing alone does not make a good breeder - this comes back to the intrinsic human nature to be incapable of looking at certain situations objectively.

But the reality of hip scoring is this:



AlbertRoss said:


> The BVA has tested a number of dogs and for each dog assesses a hip score. On the basis *of the dogs they've tested* they set an average score. They recommend that breeding should only occur between dogs which have a better than average score.
> 
> Any statistician will look at that and tell you that it's a nonsense. Why?


For the record, I've been studying over 50K hipscores in one breed for the last 2 years and I know exactly what the probabilities are of what can be produced to within an inch of it's life. This research correlates with a comprehensive study undertaken in America of a further 30K dogs of the same breed.

I am currently looking for a supervisor to enable me to take this to Doctorate level - so please don't 'explain' things as if I am an imbecile.

I am well aware that any dog is far more than a set of hips or elbows, or if it has a carrier status. Just like I wouldn't breed from a cantakerous dog with perfect health results.

I am aware that some breed averages have all but plateau'd - and that to only breed below that average will actually prevent the average falling further.

I am happy to dig out all the probabilities for you, but the statistical significance of data contains less margin for error and has more significance the greater the amount of data available - which in labradors is now over *60,000 dogs hipscored *. If you took every living labrador in the UK and hipscored it you would find that the breed average would shift very little, if at all.

The mean score for Labs has been 8 consistently in around 23 out of 26 years.

There is considerable statistical and research evidence to re-enforce that the higher both parents scores are, the greater risk of dysplacia rising, dependent on the grade of the parents dysplasia to around 2 pups in every litter of 8.

I am fully aware that HD is not wholly a genetic condition, however, short of doing something pretty dramatic, there is little you can do to cause environmental dysplasia if the dog isn't predisposed to it.

Conversely, by buying and raising the pup responsibly, you can limit the risks to a dog, even when they are predisposed, through sensible exercise and diet.

If it's there, you are highly unlikely to escape it completely, but the key to raising the pup can mean the difference between a moderately dysplastic dog who will exhibit no external signs of dysplasia until they get to an age where humans and dogs alike might suffer, and the dog who will end up requiring a THR or worse 

There is also ongoing research which is re-enforcing the hypothesis arrived at from analysing the hipscoring data.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Accidentally posted twice!!!


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

swarthy said:


> I am not going to get into a discussion about the KC, because the way I see it, they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. We don't have an alternative, and some of the 'other' ideas that we bandied about after THAT programme really don't bear thinking about, and if anyone thinks they do - they have little understanding of the impact it would have.


And that paragraph implies that you are one of those breeders who didn't like the way that 'professional' breeders were shown to consistently and wilfully breed to a 'standard' which adversely affected dog health.

Saying 'we don't have an alternative' equates to "we really don't care enough to try and get an alternative". That attitude is precisely why the KC doesn't need to do anything.



> On the contrary - I know for a FACT, living in the heart of puppy farming land and being around the breed forums for more than a short while that people DO buy dogs that are unregistered and then DO want to know why they can't show it, and only ask what terms such as DLRC are AFTER they own the PEDIGREE dog they've been sold. The large majority of new people setting foot in a showring wouldn't know what a CC or a Junior Warrant of a Show Certificate of Merit means, even less what they have to do to get them.


Are you for real? The vast majority of people showing dogs in this country are the same old, same old set of breeders. There's very little new blood. Check the pages of Dog World - the same names at nearly every show. "The large majority of new people" is probably about one person at each show, if that. And most of them are friends with the breeders they bought their dogs from.

And, pray, where is 'the heart of puppy farming land'?



> I am on the same planet as you - I KNOW that the only way a pedigree dog can be verified is through KC registration, sadly, a lot of so called breeders and puppy buyers do not - also fact.


So you misspoke when you said "you will just have 'breeders' selling unregistered pedigree pups"? Either it's registered and therefore pedigree - or it isn't registered and therefore not pedigree.



> The additional point is, if the breeder has not health tested because their dog has always been 'OK' - it's also less likely they will give useful advice on diet and exercise to further reduce the risks.


That's another generalisation that you have no evidence for. It may be true - but it equally well may not be.



> For the record, I've been studying over 50K hipscores in one breed for the last 2 years and I know exactly what the probabilities are of what can be produced to within an inch of it's life. This research correlates with a comprehensive study undertaken in America of a further 30K dogs of the same breed.
> 
> I am currently looking for a supervisor to enable me to take this to Doctorate level - so please don't 'explain' things as if I am an imbecile.


So you will be well aware of published, peer-reviewed, research which shows that the month of birth has an effect on hip scoring? You will also be well aware of the specific study on Labradors which shows that heritability is much higher from sires than dams? The study which said: "Offspring hip score could be reduced substantially by using *only* parents with *zero* hip score."? Those are all from scientific journals publishing papers from people already qualified at doctorate level.

I've already got my PhD - and one of my 2 supervisors was the head of a University statistics department. I'll stand by my previous statement about the flaws.



> I am aware that some breed averages have all but plateau'd - and that to only breed below that average will actually prevent the average falling further.


Huh? Please explain this. It's complete nonsense. If the average of a set of data is, say, 10 and you only use data which scores less than 10 then the average drops further. Here's a set of data 7,7,13,13 - average 10. Only use data less than 10 - new data 7,7 - new average 7. You are going to have to really work at getting a PhD supervisor if that's your level of statistical understanding.



> I am happy to dig out all the probabilities for you, but the statistical significance of data contains less margin for error and has more significance the greater the amount of data available - which in labradors is now over *60,000 dogs hipscored *.


And, if you go back and read my previous post, I was quite specific about saying that more than a quarter of all data was from labradors. I was also quite specific about the fact that a lot of the other data has very small samples - and is therefore questionable. What I haven't seen is any data showing absolute correlation between hip scores of grand-parents, parents and child.



> If you took every living labrador in the UK and hipscored it you would find that the breed average would shift very little, if at all.


Sorry, but that's a totally ridiculous assumption. On the one hand you are saying that 'registered' dogs are representative of all dogs - which is patently not true. If it were true all your arguments about 'puppy farms' and amateur breeders go right out of the window.



> The mean score for Labs has been 8 consistently in around 23 out of 26 years.


The BVA published figure is 15. Not 8. The same score of 15 is reported in the USA. Where do you get your data from? It is seriously flawed.



> There is considerable statistical and research evidence to re-enforce that the higher both parents scores are, the greater risk of dysplacia rising, dependent on the grade of the parents dysplasia to around 2 pups in every litter of 8.


There is actual research which shows that *20% of ALL labrador puppies will show higher scores than that of their parent* - irrespective of what the parental scores are, to the level that hip dysplasia becomes likely.



> I am fully aware that HD is not wholly a genetic condition, however, short of doing something pretty dramatic, there is little you can do to cause environmental dysplasia if the dog isn't predisposed to it.
> 
> Conversely, by buying and raising the pup responsibly, you can limit the risks to a dog, even when they are predisposed, through sensible exercise and diet.
> 
> If it's there, you are highly unlikely to escape it completely, but the key to raising the pup can mean the difference between a moderately dysplastic dog who will exhibit no external signs of dysplasia until they get to an age where humans and dogs alike might suffer, and the dog who will end up requiring a THR or worse


At last something we can agree on :thumbup:



> There is also ongoing research which is re-enforcing the hypothesis arrived at from analysing the hipscoring data.


I've looked at a number of papers published from 1973 to 2009. There is, as a matter of fact, a body of evidence which suggests that there may be little or no correlation between genetic conditions being passed on - and that's not just hips.

I would love this to be true. Just as much as I'd love the idea of the KC making certain that, if it is true, that only progeny from parents with an average or better than average combined score would be registered. Because until such time as they do that it's all smoke and mirrors.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

I wrote an essay in response to your attempt and then realised it wasn't worth the effort as your comments to me in some places are arrogant, offensive, personal and belittling.

But here's some food for thought - Breeders DO advertise unregistered 'pedigree' dogs and people buy them - is that not a cause for the need for people to do research? It was no slip of the tongue me saying that certain types of breeders sell 'pedigree' dogs with no papers and people buy them - that's the level of lack of knowledge some puppy buyers have - and one of the reasons why it is essential they do some research.

In Labs, there is a SINGLE instance of two zero parents producing zero offspring since records began, this was fairly recently, and I know the owner. 

The breed average for two parents, if it could be considered statistically significant is around 14.06 - for one parent scoring zero it is 10.75 - yet for two parents scoring 8 it is 10.88.

I would have thought that wih your PhD to my Masters, you would known the difference between "unlikely to" and "won't" and also that you would have recognised that the "mean" of 8 was a typo that was meant to be "mode" - but then, that would have revoked you of another opportunity to belittle me.

As for the showring, you've clearly got far too much time on your hands if you can spend it all around every showring reading every schedule and know every face - and then follow that up by knowing the names of every exhibitor in every breed in the dog papers - notwithstanding the fact that they only list 1st to 3rd, never mind the additiona 5, 10, 20+ dogs in a class. A lot of newcomers start off showing their pet, and only then when they get an interest, do they seek to buy in from show kennels - so the lack of their appearance in the top places often (but not always) stands to reason

The risk of labradors being dysplastic rises significantly, only when there are two severely dysplastic parents.

===============================

If we squeeze the gene pool to only breeding from below average dogs - before even considering scoring for ED, and carrier status for conditions such as CNM and PRA, it doesn't take a genius to work out that even the numerically large breeds will quickly be in trouble, never mind the smaller ones. It's about looking at the WHOLE dog and balancing everything including health results - whilst not breeding from 'anything'.

================

As for the argument about the impact of a whole host of dogs being scored not making a significant difference to the average - it does not shoot down any argument about PF and amateur breeders - because within those groups, there would be the horrendous scores, excellent scores and everything in between.

To make a difference of 3 points to the average, you would need to add around 3,000 dogs only with the maximum score of 106, or to reduce it by 1.5, add around 3,000 dogs scoring only zero - I would have thought that would be pretty obvious to a statistician.

The issue with unscored parents is you simply don't know - and therefore, the risk to puppy buyers is, by default, higher - and you have to look at ALL the reasons why the dog hasn't been scored, it might be they genuinely don't know - it could be their plates were horrendous so they didn't send them off.


There are lies, damn lies and statistics - which is why I chose to analyse the raw data with no manipulation other than the different manners in which I broke it down excluding nothing - and including when dogs are born, the age they are scored etc etc

The data isn't flawed - it's factual based on historic results of 52,400 dogs in a single breed.

In any research area, for every paper written arguing one point, you will find another arguing the opposite - I choose to look at the facts in black and white, and that's the actual scores of a very large number of dogs over a considerable time period.


----------

