# What's The Point Of The Kennel Club?



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

For anyone who missed it this morning.

BBC iPlayer - What's the Point of ...: Series 3: The Kennel Club


----------



## Plabebob (Nov 30, 2009)

I listened to that... quite interesting. 

I still don't really know where I stand on the kennel club... I can see that they play an important role, but they also have a monopoly AND make a profit.... vested interest anyone?!

I just wish they'd take a bit more responsibility for health issues sometimes. 

But on the other had it is clearly run by a lot of dog lovers who want the best for their animals.

I just keep casting my mind back that awful interview (can't remember exactly who it was with) where the guy was saying it's morally wrong for a brother & sister to have babies but fine to mate littermates. He seemed to have no comprehension of basic genetics!


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

The point of the Kennel club is to advance the interests of the Kennel Club at all costs.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> The point of the Kennel club is to advance the interests of the Kennel Club at all costs.


:frown2:

For anyone who wants to read the real point of the Kennel Club instead of perpetuating such childish nonsense, read this:

Kennel Club Initiatives That Are Helping To Improve Dog Health - The Kennel Club

Here is just one quote that disproves Johnderondon's remarks:

_ Kennel Club Charitable Trust and the Canine Genetics Centre - *In March 2009, the Kennel Club created a Canine Genetics Centre with the Animal Health Trust.* Over the next five years, the Centre aims to investigate 25 inherited diseases. It will develop, where possible, screening tests to determine affected and carrier dogs, that can be performed with simple mouth swabs. The Kennel Club has committed *£1.2 million* to the development of the centre.

The Kennel Club Charitable Trust has invested large sums of money into critical research projects. It has earmarked *£52,228,* to give to the Animal Health Trust for research into breeding strategies that will help to reduce inherited diseases in pedigree dogs and, in 2008, it allocated *£500,000 *for research projects that address potentially fatal dog diseases.

It has also invested *£35,500* into researching and developing a DNA test for multifocal retinal dysplasia in Golden Retrievers and £*250,000* into inherited eye disease._


----------



## Kinjilabs (Apr 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> :frown2:
> 
> For anyone who wants to read the real point of the Kennel Club instead of perpetuating such childish nonsense, read this:
> 
> ...


Yes but where did that money come from?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Kinjilabs said:


> Yes but where did that money come from?


Errr - the Kennel Club?  

Money it makes from registrations etc that is going to do good work for dogs rather than merely lining a bank account?


----------



## Kinjilabs (Apr 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Errr - the Kennel Club?
> 
> Money it makes from registrations etc that is going to do good work for dogs rather than merely lining a bank account?


Yes from registrations for dogs that arent all health tested etc, just look at the registrations for Labs! how many are health tested etc?, they dont care as long as they are registered and they get their money


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Johnderondon said:


> The point of the Kennel club is to advance the interests of the Kennel Club at all costs.





Kinjilabs said:


> Yes from registrations for dogs that arent all health tested etc, just look at the registrations for Labs! how many are health tested etc?, they dont care as long as they are registered and they get their money


Completely agree.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Kinjilabs said:


> Yes from registrations for dogs that arent all health tested etc, just look at the registrations for Labs! how many are health tested etc?, they dont care as long as they are registered and they get their money


So you think all puppies registered - most puppies are registered at about two or three weeks - should have health tests? Most health tests cannot be done that early. Are you suggesting then that puppies shouldn't be registered, but breeders should keep hold of litters until they are ablut 18 months old, when they can be fully health tested and hip scored, before they are registered and then sold? How is that going to benefit anyone? How is that going to improve the life of dogs? Puppy farmers would be rubbing their hands all the way to the bank if the only pups able to be sold were unregistered pups.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

I think there are two sides to this. Yes, it would be ideal if all breeding dogs were health tested. However, I'm not sure how this would leave the KC in terms of litigation against them. Also, if the progeny of unhealthtested dogs were eliminated from KC registration they would doubtless still be bred from outside of this. On the other side, the KC is a not-for-profit organisation and at the end of the day, money is put back into the health and welfare of dogs. So there is not an ideal solution. My preference would be to make the ABS more stringent and encourage more buyers to go to them. At least members of the ABS can be taken to task far more easily than non-members.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Why can't the KC introduce a simple tiered registry then? Register in the usual and 'proper' way with the KC and the pup - or rather by that time, adult - is transferred onto a breeding register when the KC have received proof of satisfactory health testing from the owner?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

gskinner123 said:


> Why can't the KC introduce a simple tiered registry then? Register in the usual and 'proper' way with the KC and the pup - or rather by that time, adult - is transferred onto a breeding register when the KC have received proof of satisfactory health testing from the owner?


The ABS is in effect a tiered registry.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

What would be the point in maintaining a lower tier registry?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Johnderondon said:


> What would be the point in maintaining a lower tier registry?


The only point is that eliminates the risk of litigation against them for refusing to register the dogs.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Only suggested it as 'spellweaver' mentioned that it would discourage breeders from registering at all if dogs could be only be registered at an age where they'd completed their health tests.

If GCCF, the cat equivalent to the KC, can manage it on their crummy computerised system (which I think is fired by someone shovelling coal in a back room) then I'm sure the KC could.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> The only point is that eliminates the risk of litigation against them for refusing to register the dogs.


How's that?

It's a private members club. They can set whatever rules they want (within the confines of our anti-discrimination laws). They have been repeatedly asked to back-up their claim that they cannot lawfully refuse registration but have never done so.

They point to the (p!ss-poor) ABS and say "Look! We have standards." but if they can refuse registrations on their ABS they can refuse registration elsewhere. And if they can't (and I don't believe it for a second) then shut it down and just run the ABS.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Possibly under competition law. Whether their claims are justified or not, there would be plenty of people and lawyers who would go after the KC in the event that they refuse to register their dogs.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

gskinner123 said:


> Only suggested it as 'spellweaver' mentioned that it would discourage breeders from registering at all if dogs could be only be registered at an age where they'd completed their health tests.
> 
> .


No, I didn't say it would discourage breeders from registering. I said that if (as Kinjilabs suggests) dogs should not be registered until they were 18 months (ie when all health tests and hip scores have been done) then deeecent breeders would wait until their dogs were 18 months and fully registered before selling them. Hence, the only people selling pups (ie unregistered dogs) would be puppy farmers.

I personally can't see the problem in dogs being registered with no health tests. I would much rather be able to look on a register and see who doesn't health test (so that I can avoid buying from them) than take pot luck with an unregistered dog.

I think what some people on here forget (or, I suspect, didn't even know in the first place) is that ALL a dog being registered with the Kennel Club means is that there is a record of the dog's parantage, plus all health tests done on all ancestors, readily available for anyone to view.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

If some people are so against the KC why dont they stop registering their pups with them and go to another registry?

They can show their dogs at Scruffts, problem solved! 

If you dont like the rules then dont play the game, rather than spitting your dummy out 

I disagree with cannabis being a Class B substance, but I wouldnt go near it because of the law, same difference to me


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

18 months old and fully registered before selling them? I don't know in what world you imagine that happening... not this one for sure


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Starlite said:


> If some people are so against the KC why dont they stop registering their pups with them and go to another registry?


I would do exactly that (and do) but if a dog in UK wants to work competitively in agility, obedience, HWTM, etc etc etc, the dog has to be registered on the activities register. I wouldn't touch our KC with a barge pole if they didn't have control over the dog sports.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

gskinner123 said:


> 18 months old and fully registered before selling them? I don't know in what world you imagine that happening... not this one for sure


*Exactly!* That was the point I was making in post #9 to Kinjilabs when she complained that the KC allowed dogs to be registered that weren't health tested. As I said, health tests in many cases cannot be completed until about 18 months, so the ridiculous scenario above is what would happen if the KC refusing to register dogs until all health tests have been done.

Do keep up!


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> *Exactly!* That was the point I was making in post #9 to Kinjilabs when she complained that the KC allowed dogs to be registered that weren't health tested. As I said, health tests in many cases cannot be completed until about 18 months, so the ridiculous scenario above is what would happen if the KC refusing to register dogs until all health tests have been done.
> 
> Do keep up!


TBF i think the post was wrongly worded and kinjilabs meant that offspring of unhealth tested dogs is allowed to be registered with the kc.

And considering that alot of puppyfarms and byb's do register their pups with the kennel club (for their own profit) then the KC puts their registrations money to do good work for dogs... Almost as if the bad breeding, often with suffering of dogs as a result, helps to finance all the good work the KC gets credit for.

I believe thats what kinjilabs meant or at least thats how i understood it but i might be wrong though


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

The Aussie guy who talks on the radio link has a lot of good points. I don't believe any one person is listened to AT ALL. I certainly wasn't, and I was only talking common sense. 

*ETA:*
I asked the KC to register my dogs as "unrecognised breed" or something similar, for the activity register. They flatly refused, saying they had to be registered as crossbreeds. After many letters back and forth (and me pointing out that Kelpies are often registered as Kelpies just because the person processing the form has heard of them) they told me they would not answer any more of my letters. English Shepherds are registered as crossbreeds, a complete untruth.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

are they recognised in America ? - AKC or UKC ? if so could you not use this as a lever with the KC ?

there is no way the Kc should be registering pups from unhealth tested parents or from those that are obviously puppy farming - the present two teir system is just confusing to puppy buyers - it should be simple- KC registration should mean responsble breeding ! - why should I pay more to join the ABS and 'prove' that I am a responsbile breeder ?

I believe that the FCI are waiting in the wings to give us an alternative to the KC monopoly - they are already in Ireland and with breeds such as GSD already breaking away from the present system and many others waiting in the wings I think the coming years should be interesting to say the least !


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

I am keeping up, honest  Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes or I didn't make my point clear enough. I posed the question 'why not have a tiered registry?'. Before getting into that question, I fully accept that in no way would this tighten up control on or eradicate BYB's, that's a separate issue. It's the KC we're talking about here; their perceived image by the pet buying public, by the media, and by a proportion of breeders.

The ABS, as it currently stands, is meaningless. Until the KC really get their teeth into the huge health problems of many breeds and make health tests mandatory for breeds where they are available then they won't be taken seriously or regain the credibility they so desperately need. It would mean radical change but many are of the opinion that this is required. With this in place, I cannot perceive how it would not be simple to place pups registered on a particular register and the adult dog only elevated to a 'breeding register' once satisfactory test results are lodged with the KC.

Granted, GCCF are no better than the KC in my eyes - their tiered registry is used for different reasons but the mechanics are exactly the same... if they can manage this with their small staff and an antiquated computer system then I cannot see how it's not achievable by the KC.

But then there has to be the will for radical change at all levels.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Bijou said:


> are they recognised in America ? - AKC or UKC ? if so could you not use this as a lever with the KC ?


Yes, they are registered with the UKC. I sent the UK KC 5 gen pedigrees but they weren't interested. It was a bit like "computer says no" because they didn't have an option for 'unrecognised breed' in the Activities Register. And there was no way they'd make the effort to change it. 



Bijou said:


> it should be simple- KC registration should mean responsble breeding !


True - but that would mean less registration money for the KC. It is a business.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Bijou said:


> are they recognised in America ? - AKC or UKC ? if so could you not use this as a lever with the KC ?
> 
> there is no way the Kc should be registering pups from unhealth tested parents or from those that are obviously puppy farming - the present two teir system is just confusing to puppy buyers - it should be simple- KC registration should mean responsble breeding ! - why should I pay more to join the ABS and 'prove' that I am a responsbile breeder ?
> 
> I believe that the FCI are waiting in the wings to give us an alternative to the KC monopoly - they are already in Ireland and with breeds such as GSD already breaking away from the present system and many others waiting in the wings I think the coming years should be interesting to say the least !


It's not confusing at all. It's only confusing to people who don't really know what they are talking about but think that it's ok to jump on the "let's slag off the Kennel Club" bandwagon because that's the latest fashion.

To put it very simply, the Kennel Club do not run a two tier system. Among *all* the things they do for dogs and dog owners are the following two completely separate things that people who really have no idea what they are talking about seem to lump together and mix up:

1. They run an accurate registry of pedigree dogs. Anyone who has bred pedigree dogs from two registered pedigree dogs can register the birth of their litter. Anyone in the world can use this registry when they are searching for a breeder/litter, to check lines, to check whether health testing has been done. That is *ALL* it is, a register, and hence it does not matter whether or not health tests have been done because _*all the information is there for everyone to see*_.

2. They run an Accredited Breeders scheme. To join this scheme, breeders must:

_Ensure that all breeding stock is Kennel Club registered.

Hand over the dog's registration certificate at time of sale if available, or forward it to the new owner as soon as possible. Explain any endorsements that might pertain and obtain written and signed confirmation from the new owner, at or before the date on which the dog is physically transferred, that the new owner is aware of the endorsement(s), regardless of whether or not the endorsed registration certificate is available._
_Follow Kennel Club policy regarding maximum age and number/frequency of litters 
Permanently identify breeding stock by DNA profile, microchip, or tattoo 
Make use of health screening schemes, relevant to their breed, on all breeding stock. These schemes include DNA testing, hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia and inherited eye conditions 
Socialise the puppies and provide written advice, in the Puppy Sales Wallet, on continuation of socialisation, exercise and future training 
Provide written advice, in the scheme Puppy Sales Wallet, on feeding and worming programmes 
Provide a written record, in the Puppy Sales Wallet, on the immunisation measures taken 
Provide reasonable post-sales telephone advice 
Inform buyers of the requirements and the recommendations that apply to Kennel Club Accredited Breeders as well as the existence of the complaints procedure 
Draw up a contract of sale (see below link) for each puppy and provide a copy in the Puppy Sales Wallet_

ref: Accredited Breeder Scheme Requirements and Recommendations - The Kennel Club

The fact that some people confuse the two completely separate things - ie the register and the ABS, is all part and parcel of them criticising the KC when they don't really know what they are talking about. Instead of finding out from the KC site exactly what the KC do, they read articles/watch programs by wannabe journalists who are more bothered about getting their name in lights than doing proper research. Instead of questioning what they read/watch, they swallow it hook, line and sinker and then post on pet forums furthering the nonsense they read. Other people read the posts and again swallow it whole without questioning it. You only have to look at a few of the posts on this thread to realise that some people are posting about the KC with no idea whatsoever of what they do. For example, there are people saying the KC is only in it for the money because that is what they have read elsewhere, despite the actual FACTS also being posted, and despite the fact that a quick look at the KC website would show the hundreds of things they do for dogs and owners.

Incidentally, just to correct one item in your post - only a few of the German Shepherd Clubs have broken away from the KC. The rest are still there and are still competing in champ shows. A wonderful german shepherd won best in show at WKC a couple of weeks ago, and then won best of breed at SKC the week after.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Just to clarify - I'm talking about all available health tests for specific breeds, not just those conducted under schemes and not just those required for accreditation. Point in case, for the CKCS - *required* scheme health test versus tests which are *recommended* only. Same can be said for numerous other breeds.

Why the distinction?


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

To me, the Kennel Club provides a way to check the pedigree of my dogs which is important when breeding, they also do Breed Record Supplements which are a real eye opener when you know what you're looking for. The recently made it a requirement in the ABS that Cocker Spaniels must be PRA and FN tested for the litter to be registered which is fantastic :001_smile:.


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

Posted the same thing twice.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Johnderondon said:


> The point of the Kennel club is to advance the interests of the Kennel Club at all costs.


Anyone who slates the KC should be VERY careful what they wish for - because the grass will NOT be greener on the other side - because all the alternatives are, to say the least, very unpalatable 

It might not be perfect, but it has made great inroads in the last couple of years - but even without those inroads, is still far better than the alternatives


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Anyone who slates the KC should be VERY careful what they wish for - because the grass will NOT be greener on the other side - because all the alternatives are, to say the least, very unpalatable
> 
> It might not be perfect, but it has made great inroads in the last couple of years - but even without those inroads, is still far better than the alternatives


I agree. And with all the worthy causes people can and should be fighting for within animal welfare, it is a waste of time and effort to slate an organisation that is actually doing good.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Anyone who slates the KC should be VERY careful what they wish for -


I'm always careful what I wish for but thank you for the warning. I suspect if you ask anti-puppyfarm campaigners, or anti-BSL activists, or compulsory microchip groups (to name just a few canine welfare initiatives) you would be told that the KC is more of a hinderance than a help.

Personally I don't think anyone should hesitate to denounce hypocrisy and welfare failings wherever they occur. No free pass from Johnderondon.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Bijou said:


> are they recognised in America ? - AKC or UKC ? if so could you not use this as a lever with the KC ?
> 
> there is no way the Kc should be registering pups from unhealth tested parents or from those that are obviously puppy farming - the present two teir system is just confusing to puppy buyers - it should be simple- KC registration should mean responsble breeding ! - why should I pay more to join the ABS and 'prove' that I am a responsbile breeder ?
> 
> I believe that the FCI are waiting in the wings to give us an alternative to the KC monopoly - they are already in Ireland and with breeds such as GSD already breaking away from the present system and many others waiting in the wings I think the coming years should be interesting to say the least !


Absolutely, completely, 1000% agree!!!!! :thumbup: Bloody well said!

NO breeder should be able to register puppies without proof of health testing of the parents! If this had been in place a while ago many breeds would not be in such decline in health respects....

They want people to believe that they are trying to protect breeds health/welfare/dogs in general when its complete B*llocks!! £££?!

If they REALLY wanted to protect DOGS (not money) than they would request this. And yes i do know they are only a registry but they DO have powers like this. Unfortunately its about money to them. As Caroline Kisko has said in an interview.........they would lose a big profit  

As for registering puppy farmed puppies..................well i am not commenting again (i have done before) as i would be banned for sure.........this is sickening on their behalf as well as the puppy farmers..........


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Johnderondon said:


> I'm always careful what I wish for but thank you for the warning. I suspect if you ask anti-puppyfarm campaigners, or anti-BSL activists, or compulsory microchip groups (to name just a few canine welfare initiatives) you would be told that the KC is more of a hinderance than a help.
> 
> Personally I don't think anyone should hesitate to denounce hypocrisy and welfare failings wherever they occur. No free pass from Johnderondon.


All I can say is the alternatives are sitting in the wings watching and waiting - and it will be every dog owners, every responsible breeders, showdogs and working dog owners worst nightmare.

As for microchipping - you cannot health test a dog in the UK now without it being chipped - so - yep - the KC are clearly very anti.

Some people seem incapable of grasping the fact that PF don't health test, and if they don't health test, they cannot become AB's for a large number of breeds.

I do admire the way everyone always blames the systems - and shouts loud about PF and BYB - when everyone seems completely oblivious to the fact that the power to stop these puppy farmers lays with the PUPPY BUYER - and yes - while it might be difficult to distinguish between a novice family breeder who doesn't health test and one who does if you haven't done your research - PF absolutely SCREAM disgusting, dirty pitiful animals.

People buy them - and quite often rehome them when they get sick or difficult.

Explain to why the general public should be exonerated of all responsibility in helping to stop irresponsible breeding - if people didn't buy the puppies - the PF wouldn't breed them - simple really.

The KC are not perfect - but then neither are many of the puppy buying public who want their pup NOW and don't want to pay much for it - or because they haven't done their research get conned into thinking they are buying something unique when often it is a cross breed, or even in some instances a mongrel.

As for your 'free pass' - please explain - I am NOT a hippocrite - I am the furthest thing away from one you will find - I breed and I breed responsibly when I want a puppy spending in the region of £2K before I get a litter. I support compulsory permanent ID by either Microchip or Tattoo - I support mandatory health testing - I personally would even go a step further and say I would like to see full DNA profiling - but Rome wasn't built in a day - and we WILL go backwards without the KC - the only possible exception being another canine organisation - and in the current climate - I somehow would be very surprised if that happened.

People who believe that the KC not registering pups from unhealth-tested parents will stop people breeding are living in some sort of parallel universe - because it ain't going to happen - it's a bit like keeping drugs illegal - if doesn't stop people buying and using them.

The government can bring in as many laws and licenses and fees as they want - it will be the responsible hobby breeders who will suffer and stop breeding - further helping to line the pockets of PF


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> As Caroline Kisko has said in an interview.........they would lose a big profit


Really? Which interview was that then? Will you provide references please? Or is it (yet again) just something you have heard someone say that is not really true?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

swarthy said:


> All I can say is the alternatives are sitting in the wings watching and waiting - and it will be every dog owners, every responsible breeders, showdogs and working dog owners worst nightmare.
> 
> As for microchipping - you cannot health test a dog in the UK now without it being chipped - so - yep - the KC are clearly very anti.
> 
> ...


Excellent post Swarthy. Sensible and well reasoned. I agree with all your points.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Really? Which interview was that then? Will you provide references please? Or is it (yet again) just something you have heard someone say that is not really true?


Yet again? 

Yes i can tell you. It was in Dogs Today magazine and they did a real (not a fake..''a source said'' talk) interview with her.

I could even find the issue if you could have the patience lol! I have got so so many issues (i keep them) so it will take me a while to sift through them :lol:


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

I also agree Swarthy in some ways.........

I.E:

The blame does lie with puppy buyers..........but only *SOME* of it.

For instance i know a few people over here that seem to believe that if the puppies are KC reg then they are ''good'' quality pups  Only because of the way the KC mediate themselves........

So perhaps the KC could issue statements to say that while a puppy may be registered they may not be a well bred one???


----------



## Kinjilabs (Apr 15, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> I also agree Swarthy in some ways.........
> 
> I.E:
> 
> ...


Exactly! well said:thumbup:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> Yet again?


You said it in post 18 on this thread http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/118430-kennel-club-money-old-rope-2.html and I asked you for a reference then, but you ignored me.



Acacia86 said:


> Yes i can tell you. It was in Dogs Today magazine and they did a real (not a fake..''a source said'' talk) interview with her.
> 
> I could even find the issue if you could have the patience lol! I have got so so many issues (i keep them) so it will take me a while to sift through them :lol:


Yes please - I'd like the exact quote and a reference to which magazine it was in so that I can check the archives myself.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> So perhaps the KC could issue statements to say that while a puppy may be registered they may not be a well bred one???


So basically you want the KC to spell everything out in big writing in words of one syllable for people who are incapable of reading and understanding all the information on their website?

If people are so thick that they are incapable of looking at a register to find out whether a litter they are looking at buying is from health tested parents or not, then should they really be buying a puppy anyway?


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> So basically you want the KC to spell everything out in big writing in words of one syllable for people who are incapable of reading and understanding all the information on their website?
> 
> If people are so thick that they are incapable of looking at a register to find out whether a litter they are looking at buying is from health tested parents or not, then should they really be buying a puppy anyway?


Its not about being thick 

Not everyone is as perfect as you....obviously 

This forum does have many members that are in the 'dog knowlegde' but the majority of people out there are not.......are they thick?? Not at all.

In ratio: Most of the dog owners (for companionable pets) in Britain are not as ''clued up'' as the dog ideal world would like to see...................so your saying they are ALL thick?!

While in an ideal world every single person/family would research so deeply that they would be aware of it all in reality its completely different.

So therefore its up to things like the KC to make this known for the sake of dogs and owners.

I will give you the exact issue then you can order it and read it for yourself. And i did not purposely ignore you. I am ever so sorry i missed your post and did not reply. Shame on me!


----------



## lilacbabe (Jun 4, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> For instance i know a few people over here that seem to believe that if the puppies are KC reg then they are ''good'' quality pups  Only because of the way the KC mediate themselves........
> 
> So perhaps the KC could issue statements to say that while a puppy may be registered they may not be a well bred one???





> NO breeder should be able to register puppies without proof of health testing of the parents! If this had been in place a while ago many breeds would not be in such decline in health respects....
> 
> They want people to believe that they are trying to protect breeds health/welfare/dogs in general when its complete B*llocks!! £££?!
> 
> If they REALLY wanted to protect DOGS (not money) than they would request this. And yes i do know they are only a registry but they DO have powers like this. Unfortunately its about money to them. As Caroline Kisko has said in an interview.........they would lose a big profit


QUOTE]

I totally agree:thumbup: Parents not health checked for all the tests that particular breed needs puppies cannot be registered .

But then what will happen about all the breeders who are still going to breed even if they cannot register the pups ?
There would be no way of even going further back in its parentage to check for any health defects or problems.

I have mixed feelings about the KC as they will at the moment register any old litter as I believe that money has a lot to do with it . Look at the Accredited Breeder nonsence  any one can apply for that and become a registered breeder, no checks are done for that either

Remember also the CKS who won Crufts and had sired 100's of litters and it had passed the Syringomyelia disorder down through all his progeny. Also another champion at Crufts that had an opperation on it to correct a breathing problem ( cant remember which breed it was ) well to me these dogs should not have won as they had defects and health isues but the owners and the KC didn't seem to think that was a problem.

This is why the KC gets bad press it needs to have a wee rethink about doing checks on Breeders by actually going to see them not just hand out a certificate for breeder schemes just because it has been paid for .

My dog is KC registered and the parents have been health checked as I did a lot or research before I decided on getting her and if I had a litter from my girl I would register them . I would want new owners to be reasured that they were thoughtfully bred and that health checks had been done on the parents .
Now why should I go to all that trouble ( health checking etc ) when people ( I wont call them breeders )let dogs have pups and are able to register the litter from parents that are not checked .

Again I feel as long as they pay the KC for it they will get it .


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

lilacbabe said:


> QUOTE]
> 
> I totally agree:thumbup: Parents not health checked for all the tests that particular breed needs puppies cannot be registered .
> 
> ...


Well said.

Oh and it was a Peke called Danny............


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> Its not about being thick
> 
> Not everyone is as perfect as you....obviously
> 
> ...


Stop trying to make out I am saying something I didn't. What I am saying is that all the information anyone needs about the Kennel Club, breed regsiters, ABS, all the money the KC give to research and charities, all the work the KC do for and about dogs and their owners - in fact anything anyone wants to know about the KC at all - is there on its website for anyone to read. You don't need to be "perfect", all you have to do is read it. Contrary to what you are saying, most people seem to understand it ..............


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

As a breeder i think its down to us to do things correct you can not blame the KC for it all!
People need to think before they buy cheap unregistered pups from pfs and bybs.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Stop trying to make out I am saying something I didn't. What I am saying is that all the information anyone needs about the Kennel Club, breed regsiters, ABS, all the money the KC give to research and charities, all the work the KC do for and about dogs and their owners - in fact anything anyone wants to know about the KC at all - is there on its website for anyone to read. You don't need to be "perfect", all you have to do is read it. Contrary to what you are saying, most people seem to understand it ..............


Everything anyone needs to know about the KC is available........................on the KC website


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

cav said:


> As a breeder i think its down to us to do things correct you can not blame the KC for it all!
> People need to think before they buy cheap unregistered pups from pfs and bybs.


Of course. But what about expensive *registered* puppies??


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

Acacia86 said:


> Of course. But what about expensive *registered* puppies??


Im sorry i dont understand

You are going pay more for a puppy thats parents have had all the relevent health tests done.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lilacbabe said:


> QUOTE]
> 
> I totally agree:thumbup: Parents not health checked for all the tests that particular breed needs puppies cannot be registered .
> 
> ...


Exactly. In your second sentence you have explained exactly why it is important for all litters to be registered irrespective of whether or not the parents were health tested. As all registered litters have information about whether or not health tesing has been done, it is easy at present to find out whether or not a litter you are interested in is from health tested parents, and lines (and info about health defects/problems) can be traced back through many generations. All that would be lost if breeders who didn't health test did not register their litters.



lilacbabe said:


> QUOTE] Look at the Accredited Breeder nonsence  any one can apply for that and become a registered breeder, no checks are done for that either


Don't know where you get your info from but there are many checks done - read this and it will explain:Policing the Kennel Club Accredited Breeder Scheme - The Kennel Club



lilacbabe said:


> QUOTE]Also another champion at Crufts that had an opperation on it to correct a breathing problem ( cant remember which breed it was ) well to me these dogs should not have won as they had defects and health isues but the owners and the KC didn't seem to think that was a problem.


Again, your information is wrong. The peke had had an operation for a throat infection, and the KC withheld the award until this was checked and verified by the vet.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> Everything anyone needs to know about the KC is available........................on the KC website


And your point is?


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

cav said:


> Im sorry i dont understand
> 
> You are going pay more for a puppy thats parents have had all the relevent health tests done.


My point is: You said we can not blame the KC for it all. I certainly do not. A lot of my post in regards to breeding blame bad breeders!

You also mentioned unregistered puppies.......thats fine, but what about those people who still believe that the KC means 'good' breeding? So those that buy registered puppies still believe they are buying well bred pups.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> So basically you want the KC to spell everything out in big writing in words of one syllable for people who are incapable of reading and understanding all the information on their website?
> 
> If people are so thick that they are incapable of looking at a register to find out whether a litter they are looking at buying is from health tested parents or not, then should they really be buying a puppy anyway?


i think ur post is rather unfair.

Its not like there are campaigns out there informing people about health tests. U wont find regular info at vet practices nor on tv etc about health testing dogs so how is the public meant to look up if a litter is health tested or not if they dont even understand or know what health tests are... for so many people its classed as a simple vet check.

Hands up, i didnt know health testing excisted, never crossed my mind. I found out about it on here. But not many people join a forum before they buy a puppy, often after so they can share their joy.

People arent thick, they simply dont know better cause the info isnt there given out to them. Yes, it can be looked up on the internet, but u wont look up something u dont know about.

Too many people i spoke to see the kc registration as some sort of quality stamp for the pups they buy. So why doesnt the KC take advantage of that and actually lives up to what the people believe of them instead of cashing on registration money from pfs and byb and their litters they bred who often live a life of suffering.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> And your point is?


If i had a website for a business then i would only put what i wouldn't mind people hearing about........or rather, to be exact, what people what to hear.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Its not like there are campaigns out there informing people about health tests. U wont find regular info at vet practices nor on tv etc about health testing dogs so how is the public meant to look up if a litter is health tested or not if they dont even understand or know what health tests are... for so many people its classed as a simple vet check.
> 
> Hands up, i didnt know health testing excisted, never crossed my mind. I found out about it on here. But not many people join a forum before they buy a puppy, often after so they can share their joy.
> 
> ...


The kennel club do actual encourage the use of health testing - it's on their website, but I think for many, their prejudice against the KC means they don't bother looking.

I do agree about campaigns though. I'm often disappointed by how few vets even know about health testing and don't advise about them. I also think other bodies could do more too. I have seen much advice about buying a puppy, from vet sites, RSPCA etc and the usual advice is see the mother, nice clean conditions etc. NONE mention health testing and they could. The only site that does is the KC site.


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

Acacia86 said:


> My point is: You said we can not blame the KC for it all. I certainly do not. A lot of my post in regards to breeding blame bad breeders!
> 
> You also mentioned unregistered puppies.......thats fine, but what about those people who still believe that the KC means 'good' breeding? So those that buy registered puppies still believe they are buying well bred pups.


ow i agree just because the puppy is kc reg means nothing about the breeding but i do think it is down to a owner to do research before buying a puppy.
we do need the kc though or how can we check lines ect
i would like to see things improve


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Natik said:


> i think ur post is rather unfair.
> 
> Its not like there are campaigns out there informing people about health tests. U wont find regular info at vet practices nor on tv etc about health testing dogs so how is the public meant to look up if a litter is health tested or not if they dont even understand or know what health tests are... for so many people its classed as a simple vet check.
> 
> ...


I disagree. Have you ever been to Crufts or Discover Dogs? The amount of information there about health testing is phenomenal, and thousands of members of the public visit them every year - and, in the case of Discover Dogs, it is usually people who are researching which breed of dog to buy.

As for doing research before buying a dog - why shouldn't people be expected to search the net etc etc? They'd do it if they wanted to buy a washing machine, for instance, so how much more important is it that they do it when they are thinking about buying a living animal? All it takes is for someone to google "buying a puppy" and the very first site that comes up is the Kennel Club's site - not exactly hard to find info, is it?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> If i had a website for a business then i would only put what i wouldn't mind people hearing about........or rather, to be exact, what people what to hear.


But if you were publicly accountable, you would not be able to put anything that is not true. Are you now trying to say that the Kennel Club is telling lies on its website? You are heading right for a libel case if you are!  :scared:

Just out of curiousity, have you ever even looked at the KC's website? And if you have, what of all the millions of things on there do you think is not true?


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> But if you were publicly accountable, you would not be able to put anything that is not true. Are you now trying to say that the Kennel Club is telling lies on its website? You are heading right for a libel case if you are!  :scared:
> 
> Just out of curiousity, have you ever even looked at the KC's website? And if you have, what of all the millions of things on there do you think is not true?


Erm, where did i say they wrote something that was not true??????

Rather, i insinuated they might have missed some bits out which is NOT ''illegal'' per se 

And yes i have thanks! Good website. I do not actually hate the KC as you may think, i just think they need a serious shake up. Having said that when the ''dreaded programme'' came out and was aired, right after that the KC decided to change things.........Hmmmmmm!! Only AFTER that programme   things should have been changed a long long time ago!!

Anyway i am quite fed up arguing/debating/discussing something that neither of us will budge on! We all have our own opinions and therefore i will agree to disagree.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> The kennel club do actual encourage the use of health testing - it's on their website, but I think for many, their prejudice against the KC means they don't bother looking.
> 
> I do agree about campaigns though. I'm often disappointed by how few vets even know about health testing and don't advise about them. I also think other bodies could do more too. I have seen much advice about buying a puppy, from vet sites, RSPCA etc and the usual advice is see the mother, nice clean conditions etc. NONE mention health testing and they could. The only site that does is the KC site.


Ok, i had a quick look at the Kc site.

Now on the main site wherever i click on health tests it only comes up with the health test finder... now as a puppy buyer having no clue i wouldnt know what this is about. No info, nothing. U have to click through several sites to find info on what health tests are and thats me pretty clued up on the use of the internet and also i knew what i was searching for.

It is made difficult for puppy buyers. The info should be far more easily avaible.
And often buyers wont look at the KC website before buying a puppy anyway.
The info should be given out in real life more than in the cyber world. 
Surely the KC wouldnt go bankrupt if they would invest some money in a simple tv advert about buying a health tested dog. I bet that would be an eye opener for alot of peeps out there.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Natik said:


> Ok, i had a quick look at the Kc site.
> 
> Now on the main site wherever i click on health tests it only comes up with the health test finder... now as a puppy buyer having no clue i wouldnt know what this is about. No info, nothing. U have to click through several sites to find info on what health tests are and thats me pretty clued up on the use of the internet and also i knew what i was searching for.
> 
> ...


Again i agree. If my Gran was to get another dog (without the advice i would give her) then she would NEVER use the internet! She has no clue on how to use a simple mobile let alone being unleashed with the t'internet 

So what about those who have no access to a computer, or can not use them? The vets have next to no idea!

Instead they see an advert explaining how well these pups are bred, and how well loved and cared for etc etc and they buy them because it all sounds so amazing........


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

Natik said:


> Ok, i had a quick look at the Kc site.
> 
> Now on the main site wherever i click on health tests it only comes up with the health test finder... now as a puppy buyer having no clue i wouldnt know what this is about. No info, nothing. U have to click through several sites to find info on what health tests are and thats me pretty clued up on the use of the internet and also i knew what i was searching for.
> 
> ...


I tend tel people go through the breed club when looking for a puppy but again they are always kc reg


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> And yes i have thanks! Good website. I do not actually hate the KC as you may think, i just think they need a serious shake up. Having said that when the ''dreaded programme'' came out and was aired, right after that the KC decided to change things.........Hmmmmmm!! Only AFTER that programme   things should have been changed a long long time ago!!


Not true - the KC were doing most of their health initiatives before PDE was even thought of - as you would know if you had read the site.



Acacia86 said:


> Anyway i am quite fed up arguing/debating/discussing something that neither of us will budge on! We all have our own opinions and therefore i will agree to disagree.


You are right, we will never agree - so I'll agree to disagree and be off to my bed. Nite nite! 

ps - I'll still be unable to stop myself correcting you when you post things that are not true though


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Natik said:


> Ok, i had a quick look at the Kc site.
> 
> Now on the main site wherever i click on health tests it only comes up with the health test finder... now as a puppy buyer having no clue i wouldnt know what this is about. No info, nothing. U have to click through several sites to find info on what health tests are and thats me pretty clued up on the use of the internet and also i knew what i was searching for.
> 
> ...


As a none-clued up puppy buyer of the Jo Public variety, the KC have aimed their website so as to aim people to clidk on 'find a puppy' type people, which I think is only fair? The vast majority of Jo Public are hardly likely to click straight onto the health testing database....


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Not true - the KC were doing most of their health initiatives before PDE was even thought of - as you would know if you had read the site.
> 
> You are right, we will never agree - so I'll agree to disagree and be off to my bed. Nite nite!
> 
> ps - I'll still be unable to stop myself correcting you when you post things that are not true though


But they ''conviently'' only made it public after the programme? Hmmm! Ok, whatever!

Thats ok i will stop posting then! I would rather not have someone seeking out and then nit-picking everything i post :thumbup:


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> As a none-clued up puppy buyer of the Jo Public variety, the KC have aimed their website so as to aim people to clidk on 'find a puppy' type people, which I think is only fair? The vast majority of Jo Public are hardly likely to click straight onto the health testing database....


i did that as well and health testing is after going through 2/3 sites in a little box on the right site. I nearly missed it as i was just about clicking on the breeders info of my chosen breed and the health testing link wasnt there anymore in the box.

It is made difficult for a clueless person.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Natik, I just googled 'buy a health tested puppy' and this is the page that came up:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/buying/[/IMG]]Buy a Heal Tested Puppy

Unfortunately, most people wouldn't know to google 'health tested', is that the KC's fault?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Acacia86 said:


> I also agree Swarthy in some ways.........
> 
> I.E:
> 
> ...


The puppy buyers can play a pretty big role though in stopping it.

I do acknowledge since being on this site that for SOME breeds (certainly not all) the messages are at best, confusing, at worst, non existent.

To that end, I set up an information site to try and create a central information location and have slowly started populating it with help from petforum members.

Sadly, my father is terminally ill and very much in the final stages of his life - so while I am very passionate about the site - I presently have other demands on my time which take precedence. I hope in time to be able to get back to it and take up the many offers of help and support I've had - it is a pretty mammoth task


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Natik, I just googled 'buy a health tested puppy' and this is the page that came up:
> 
> http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/buying/[/IMG]]Buy a Heal Tested Puppy
> 
> Unfortunately, most people wouldn't know to google 'health tested', is that the KC's fault?


ur right they wouldnt.

I dont give fault anyone, im just pointing out that the KC should do more (especially cause they are often associated with "quality" ) and that what they are doing now isnt good enough for a clueless person.

An advert on tv would guide so many people in the right direction. They invest in all the good things, why not invest in educating people properly so they get to know all the important things before they go and buy a pup, instead of leaving them fighting and searching clueless through the internet jungle often already blinded by adverts stating "vet checked healthy pups" avaible.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Sadly, my father is terminally ill and very much in the final stages of his life - so while I am very passionate about the site - I presently have other demands on my time which take precendence. I hope in time to be able to get back to it and take up the many offers of help and support I've had - it is a pretty mammoth task


And one I hope you will have the backing of many people, when you have the time 

PS wanting to tell you to bu$$a off and see to other stuff, but also know how much mundane other life stuff can be so very important


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Natik said:


> ur right they wouldnt.
> 
> I dont give fault anyone, im just pointing out that the KC should do more (especially cause they are often associated with "quality" ) and that what they are doing now isnt good enough for a clueless person.
> 
> An advert on tv would guide so many people in the right direction. They invest in all the good things, why not invest in educating people properly so they get to know all the important things before they go and buy a pup, instead of leaving them fighting and searching clueless through the internet jungle often already blinded by adverts stating "vet checked healthy pups" avaible.


So it's not the KC's fault but it is?? Confused????


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So it's not the KC's fault but it is?? Confused????


heh? see it as u like, im just saying they should do more. Vets should also have more info hanging about.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> i did that as well and health testing is after going through 2/3 sites in a little box on the right site. I nearly missed it as i was just about clicking on the breeders info of my chosen breed and the health testing link wasnt there anymore in the box.


Step by step:

Click on 'Buying a Dog'

Click on 'Choosing the right puppy/dog'

Click on 'Key considerations when choosing a puppy/dog'

Under Health
*Health

There are no naturally unhealthy pedigree dog breeds  but there are breeds in which certain conditions tend to surface more. It will inevitably take time for these conditions to be eliminated but where there are known health problems, which can be tested for, the Kennel Club runs specific schemes aimed at the breeds concerned. Tests such as hip and elbow scoring enable potential owners to have a good idea about the future health of their puppy. Pedigree dogs also carry a breed standard which is an indication of their likely care needs.

Link to Health and DNA pages*

And if you follow the Health and DNA link it says

*Before breeding from a dog or bitch, the Kennel Club advises breeders to investigate whether there are any possible inherited conditions that may affect the breed. Breeders can do this by discussing the matter with the breeder of their dog, the relevant breed club or clubs, the Kennel Club Health & Breeders Services Department or, possibly, their veterinary surgeon. There are several dog health schemes currently in operation to assist in the prevention or control of some diseases (including DNA tests), and where they exist, the Kennel Club strongly recommends that both sire and dam are tested.*

I'm not sure how they could make it more obvious


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Acacia86 said:


> But they ''conviently'' only made it public after the programme? Hmmm! Ok, whatever!
> 
> Thats ok i will stop posting then! I would rather not have someone seeking out and then nit-picking everything i post :thumbup:


We must be living in different worlds - because the KC were promoting their health schemes long before 'that' programme - what they did do afterwards was introduce the "fit for function, fit for life" initiative - Kennel Club - fit for function fit for life

The KC website has, certainly for as long as I can remember, contained information on breeds, breed standards, breeding information, health tests and much much more; it's been publishing DNA results for anyone to download for quite a few years and has an online database where you can check the health results of any dog and explains what all the identified tests actually mean (again available and in the pipeline LONG before 'the programme')



Natik said:


> Vets should also have more info hanging about.


Now I TOTALLY agree with this 

I appreciate that vets cannot be an expert in every variety of every breed - but sometimes their awareness (or lack of it) in respect of health testing is very worrying.

It wouldn't take much for them to keep a bible of all the breeds with details of potential hereditary conditions they could develop and which issues could be tested for and what those tests actually mean - in that some reduce the risk of problems - whereas others such as DNA tests for recessive conditions mean that with the right pairing(s) - none of the offspring will ever develop that condition


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> Step by step:
> 
> Click on 'Buying a Dog'
> 
> ...


ah, but i googled Kennel club (what most people would do i guess) - clicked on the very first link then find a puppy, breed, location, breeder  no sign of "buying a dog" there 

Its all too complicated lol


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Natik said:


> heh? see it as u like, im just saying they should do more. Vets should also have more info hanging about.


Ok, not trying to pick on you but on a classic point if you like. Many people wanting to go to a good breeder assume KC ok? So why should the KC just have a list of breeders readily available, surely learning about the health tests for a particular breed is also good, as is learning what questions to ask? Or do you just want a list of available pups a la epupz?

Vets? Don't even get me started on vets, they are not dog specialists, and certainly do not always have the health and well being of an individual dog at heart. I know from experience


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, not trying to pick on you but on a classic point if you like. Many people wanting to go to a good breeder assume KC ok? So why should the KC just have a list of breeders readily available, surely learning about the health tests for a particular breed is also good, as is learning what questions to ask? Or do you just want a list of available pups a la epupz?
> 
> Vets? Don't even get me started on vets, they are not dog specialists, and certainly do not always have the health and well being of an individual dog at heart. I know from experience


but they have already a list of breeders readily avaible .... just google kennel club, click find a puppy, click ur breed then location and a list of breeders with avaible pups with birth dates will come up. 
This was so easy that my eyes didnt even wander to the box on the right side with the little letters stating " health information"... which disapperas on the site with the breeder details.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ok, so I want a puppy, I want a good quality puppy, because that's what the KC advocate right?

So, google kc buy puppies.....

Find a Puppy - The Kennel Club's puppies for sale service

It ain't rocket science.....


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Natik said:


> This was so easy that my eyes didnt even wander to the box on the right side with the little letters stating " health information"... which disapperas on the site with the breeder details.


If you enter "dog health tests" or "health tests for dog breeding" (without quotes) into Google - you very quickly arrive here - The Kennel Club | Dog Health

- if you enter "what health tests should the parents of my puppy have" - you get to our Lab Health site - Labrador Health: What Health Tests should my pups parents have?

Monthly - visitors arriving at our site using over 1100 health testing related searches - not all related to labradors - as we are very much a breed specific website developed on a shoestring with no marketing budget - I would envisage based on that, that sites such as the KC probably get hundreds if not thousands of times that over the same period - suggesting that many people ARE aware but chose to ignore it 

The number of enquiries my partner gets about pups when he is out walking the dogs, but the minute he explains about responsible breeding - their response is - they can get a pup down the road for £120 - and don't want to know any more


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, so I want a puppy, I want a good quality puppy, because that's what the KC advocate right?
> 
> So, google kc buy puppies.....
> 
> ...


No it aint, but u cant expect of people to type into google something u think should be typed. i just typed the 2 letters "KC" into google ... 

And then i am where i was earlier on...

never mind, i made my point .. i think lol off to bed now though :thumbup:


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> So, google kc buy puppies.....
> 
> Find a Puppy - The Kennel Club's puppies for sale service
> 
> It ain't rocket science.....


And

Step 3 - How to find the right breeder

Under under 'what information to ask a breeder' it states about health tests and dna tests and gives another link to the health test and dna page.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> ...perhaps the KC could [state] that, while a puppy may be registered, [*that puppy] may not be... well-bred...???*


are U kidding? :scared: admit to the consumer that merely registering a pup 
is no warranty of quality or health or longevity or type? *No Way.*


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Exactly. In your second sentence you have explained exactly why it is important for all litters to be registered irrespective of whether or not the parents were health tested. As all registered litters have information about whether or not health tesing has been done, *it is easy at present to find out whether or not a litter you are interested in is from health tested parents, *and lines (and info about health defects/problems) can be traced back through many generations. All that would be lost if breeders who didn't health test did not register their litters.


..but would it not be even easier if health testing was a condition of registration ? - no searching around then for puppy buyers, they would just click on the breed they were interested in the knowledge that that all the breeders listed do health test their breeding stock- and an easily remembered 'soundbite' for the general public that KC reg MEANS health tested dogs !

As for more detailed researching that good breeders do before a mating - well most breeds already have their own data bases ( our own one has just gone on line )- these give a much more detailed picture of traceable ancestors than the KC's can and *breed specific* databases are surely the way to go for all responsible breeders ?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> But they ''conviently'' only made it public after the programme? Hmmm! Ok, whatever!
> 
> Thats ok i will stop posting then! I would rather not have someone seeking out and then nit-picking everything i post :thumbup:


Are you deliberately trying to cause trouble here? Where did I say I would seek out and nit-pick your posts? If you honestly thnk I've nothing better to do than seek out everything you post, then you are very mistaken - I doubt if I've even read more than a dozen of your posts in total. Get over yourself hun! 

However, if I come across a thread - like this one - where I see you posting things that are untrue, or things that I disagree with, I will challenge them - that's no different to how I would treat any poster. It's no different to how any other poster will (and rightly so) challenge me if I should post something that is either untrue, or that they disagree with. That is the whole point of a forum - it's called having a discussion - so why would that make you stop posting? (Unless of course all you want to do is continue to post unsubstantiated untruths as if they were facts - like, for example, your remark in the first sentence. The Kennel Club have always made everything they do public - even before the ridiculous PDE excuse for a program.)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Natik said:


> .
> 
> An advert on tv would guide so many people in the right direction. They invest in all the good things, why not invest in educating people properly so they get to know all the important things before they go and buy a pup, instead of leaving them fighting and searching clueless through the internet jungle often already blinded by adverts stating "vet checked healthy pups" avaible.


That's a good idea Natik - one which I wish they would take up. :thumbup:


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ..but would it not be even easier if health testing was a condition of registration ?


Yes, its so simple, so what is their reason for not doing this??


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> Yes, its so simple, so what is their reason for not doing this??


How would it work though? You can only register pups if you've health tested? What if you've tested and your dog has 53:53 hips, 2:2 elbows, is a cnm carrier and affected for pra, you can still register pups?? Or, do you stipulate what the results MUST be? If so, what if you have a dog that's affected for pra, but is absolutely fabulous in every other respect, and you want to breed using a clear mate??


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ..but would it not be even easier if health testing was a condition of registration ? - no searching around then for puppy buyers, they would just click on the breed they were interested in the knowledge that that all the breeders listed do health test their breeding stock- and an easily remembered 'soundbite' for the general public that KC reg MEANS health tested dogs !


But the KC have that already with the ABS. Why complicate matters by duplicating things? The register is merely a record of pedigrees and lines, a record of whether or not health test have been carried out. Nothing more, nothing less.



Bijou said:


> ..As for more detailed researching that good breeders do before a mating - well most breeds already have their own data bases ( our own one has just gone on line )- these give a much more detailed picture of traceable ancestors than the KC's can and *breed specific* databases are surely the way to go for all responsible breeders ?


This is true for breeds with large numbers of dogs - the data base for our breed (border collies - Anadune) is brilliant. Data bases like these are something all breed clubs should aspire to. However, I suspect that this is nothing like this in place for most breeds with smaller numbers of dogs (I could be wrong!). For example, there is nothing like that in place for our other breed, the Bergamasco. In these cases, having an independent register of information such as the KC's register is invaluable.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Yes, all tests should be shown, along with a clear guide to what the tests mean. Then people can make an educated choice, instead of buying a pup and just expecting it to be well bred, simply because it it KC registered.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> Yes, its so simple, so what is their reason for not doing this??


see my reply to Bijou in post #90 :thumbup:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> Yes, all tests should be shown, along with a clear guide to what the tests mean. Then people can make an educated choice, instead of buying a pup and just expecting it to be well bred, simply because it it KC registered.


I'm confused, the KC database already shows all the health test results, and gives an explanation


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

That's the key, fo me. Many many people assume any KC reg dog is well bred. Most people don't even know what the ABS is.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm confused, the KC database already shows all the health test results, and gives an explanation


Yes, but you have to be savvy enough to go looking. They're not ALL health tested.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> Yes, all tests should be shown, along with a clear guide to what the tests mean. Then people can make an educated choice, instead of buying a pup and just expecting it to be well bred, simply because it it KC registered.


But that already happens - in fact, more than that happens because it is also clearly shown which litters HAVE NOT been health tested. So as it stands now, a buyer can see who to go to *and* who to avoid.

Seems like a good system to me! :thumbup:


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> How would it work though? You can only register pups if you've health tested? What if you've tested and your dog has 53:53 hips, 2:2 elbows, is a cnm carrier and affected for pra, you can still register pups?? Or, do you stipulate what the results MUST be? If so, what if you have a dog that's affected for pra, but is absolutely fabulous in every other respect, and you want to breed using a clear mate??


This is a very valid point - whilst I have been blessed that all my dogs bar one are PRA clear (and I knew what I was doing when I chose the dog) and all my dogs are CNM clear - personally, I would not like to see these types of restrictions placed on breeding registrations - ultimately, it could be very damaging to some breeds with tight gene pools, and for others a significant loss to the breed - one of the most influential SH CH brood bitches in our breed had a slightly higher hipsore and produced more champion children and grandchildren than it is possible to imagine - all without any health problems.

What I do think is laughable in our breed, is people saying - it doesn't matter if the dogs are not elbowscored, but if they are, they should always score zero :

I would far sooner have a complete set of health results where I could evaluate the level of risk - and as you know having studied the databases to within an inch of their lives - hipscores within lines rarely follow significant patterns, moreso when there is a random highscore amongst lots of low ones.

I wouldn't breed my bitch with the higher hipscore, even though all her other results were perfect for a number of reasons, certainly concerns that if one of the offspring did develop problems, I wouldn't be able to live with the guilt - but predominantly, my choice is to avoid doing anything which could have an adverse impact on her health.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> Yes, but you have to be savvy enough to go looking. They're not ALL health tested.


So would you like the KC to ring up people to tell them whether or not the puppy they were thinking of buying is from health tested parents, and what that means? 

The information is there, all people have to do is type in a name, if they're unsure, they can ring the KC or contact them. So for example, if a BVA eye cert wasn't showing as up to date, they might want to make sure that it actually had expired, or that the KC hadn't updated this piece of info. I'm not sure what more the KC can do, they are doing everything you are suggesting, listing pedigree dogs with their health tests, and an explanation of what they mean.......


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> That's the key, fo me. Many many people assume any KC reg dog is well bred. Most people don't even know what the ABS is.


I'm sorry, but buyers HAVE to take some responsibility here.

For example, I'm the least computer literate person in the world. I know nothing about them except for how to switch them on (and can't even manage that until I've been shown how to do it  ). If I were going to buy a computer, I would find an expert and ask their advice. No way would I just look for an advert in the paper and buy the first one I saw.

Now, how much more important is it for someone buying a living animal to do the same? Ignorance is not an excuse - many people may not know anything about dogs, but if they decide they want to own one, surely they should take some resonsibility in finding out about them? Part of that would be looking at the Kennel Club for whatever info they could find there, and part of it would be seeing the ABS and reading about what it was.

I do agree with Natik that the KC could do more to advertise this in the mainstream media - but altering a register to do what the ABS already does is just silly and would not solve the problem of people who know nothing about dogs trying to find info.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> ...perhaps the KC could [state] that, while a puppy may be registered, [that puppy] may not be... well-bred...???


Can you point out where it says on the website where is says KC registered puppies ARE well bred?

I think there are a number of things that will make a difference and it won't come from the KC. Vets giving such info, the animal charities also supporting it. I think vets are key though because so many people do listen to their vets.



> Yes, its so simple, so what is their reason for not doing this??


This may be something they do in the future (I was at a seminar with Jeff Sampson and it was discussed) - it already happens with one breed because they have the support of breeders and most dogs are now tested, however, it is not a hugely popular breed so is there are not huge numbers of pet/byb/puppy farmers producing these puppies.

However, doing so would not make people do the tests it would simply reduce the number of dogs registered (this has been shown to be the case in Europe where their KC have had restriced registration. All this would succeed in doing is making gene pools even smaller - something that the KC is already denigrated for on here). They can't win 

I think the bottom line is that as Swarthy says:



> The number of enquiries my partner gets about pups when he is out walking the dogs, but the minute he explains about responsible breeding - their response is - they can get a pup down the road for £120 - and don't want to know any more


Many people don't want to know or don't care. Even on here I can remember cases where people are advised to buy from health tested parents and they don't. One case I remember they said they were looking they found a litter where the sire was health tested but not the dam. When advised that both parents should be tested they ignored it....

Quite honestly, I'm beginning to thing the general public get what they deserve. If they can't be bothered to do a little research and follow through with it rather than ignore the advice, then they get what they deserve  and that is nothing to do with the KC.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So for example, if a BVA eye cert wasn't showing as up to date, they might want to make sure that it actually had expired, or that the KC hadn't updated this piece of info. I'm not sure what more the KC can do, they are doing everything you are suggesting, listing pedigree dogs with their health tests, and an explanation of what they mean.......


For me, the one thing the KC could do is speed up the process by which the database is updated - and also deal with the fact they do not report on certain health schemes (the eye certificates are the cflassic one)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

swarthy said:


> For me, the one thing the KC could do is speed up the process by which the database is updated - and also deal with the fact they do not report on certain health schemes (the eye certificates are the cflassic one)


I know you chase them up if they haven't updated the info for your dogs, I don't suppose every person who breeds does. I also sent information to them about health tests that for mine that had been done before the KC automatically received the information and updated it to their records, but again, I know not everyone does, Tau's sire isn't shown as having been tested for PRA, as you know, which is a bugga for me, but hey ho!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I know you chase them up if they haven't updated the info for your dogs, I don't suppose every person who breeds does. I also sent information to them about health tests that for mine that had been done before the KC automatically received the information and updated it to their records, but again, I know not everyone does, Tau's sire isn't shown as having been tested for PRA, as you know, which is a bugga for me, but hey ho!


Yes - my eye certificates, DNA results, hip and elbow scores are emailed to the AB co-ordinator as soon as I have them - although at the present time, my boy is showing as having been eye tested twice on the same date 

The last but one time I did it - I had to scan in about 12 items - so it is rather time consuming and you can understand why people are reluctant to do it - or might not even have the technology to 

One of the reasons I've decided to go that route is after hearing problems from other AB's who have been blocked from registering their litters because of discrepancies in the health records (as in done, but not on the KC database).

I do think it is essential to be honest that this is sorted and shouldn't have to rely on a manual process in this day and age


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I wish it was sorted for dogs that have been tested historically as well, would save me the job of testing Tau cbp just so if I do breed then the status of any pups would be shown correctly, never mind! I'd rather do things right, or not do them at all.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

Just a thought- and I freely admit to knowing little about the KC and what are it's legitimate failings but in some of the discussions you see about this you hear mention of other countries Kennel Clubs. Are there existing successful frameworks out there that address what others see as the faults of the British KC?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Are there existing successful frameworks out there that address what others see as the faults of the British KC?


It depends on what those faults are, but yes. There are KC that only register litters from health tested parents.

However, it is not as black and white as that. There are advantages and disadvantages to that. In those countries that only register litters from health tested parents there is much less dog ownership. The byb/puppy farmers still exist - far fewer own kc registered dog and the gene pools are much smaller - so much so that in Germany (as an example) - most have to go abroad to find a stud if they want to breed because the gene pool is so small.

Is that really what we want? All those who decry the KC for allowing registering of non health tested dogs are often those that shout the loudest about having small/closed gene pools! On the one hand they want to have a small gene pool of health tested dogs on the other they criticize the KC for maintaining small gene pools  - It makes no sense and you can't have it both ways.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

If there was the collective will, with a bigger population, would that go some way to address the small closed health tested gene pool problems for the Uk KC? I'm just wondering if the solutions are already out there if the people involed want them or if the foreign models of KC are unhelpful to breed health in the British context. 

For those in the know, is there an example of a foreign registry that is an operationally significant improvement on the British KC?


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

swarthy said:


> All I can say is the alternatives are sitting in the wings watching and waiting - and it will be every dog owners, every responsible breeders, showdogs and working dog owners worst nightmare.


That sounds a compelling argument for the KC to up its game.



> the KC are clearly very anti.


Ask them.

Ask them if they support compulsory permanent ID. If you get a "yes" out of them I will personally sing your praises from my rooftop and post it on Youtube. 



> Some people seem incapable of grasping the fact that PF don't health test, and if they don't health test, they cannot become AB's for a large number of breeds.


I have a problem that they can be accredited at all.



> Explain to why the general public should be exonerated of all responsibility in helping to stop irresponsible breeding - if people didn't buy the puppies - the PF wouldn't breed them - simple really.


This is absolutely true however puppyfarmed dogs are not always as obvious as you say and it is inevitable that some buyers will interpret the term "accredited" to mean that someone who knows a bit about breeding has certified this breeder as okay. Especially when it is promoted thus:

_As a prospective new owner it is understandable to want some kind of reassurance that you are purchasing a pedigree puppy from someone whose priority is the health and welfare of the puppies that they breed... One way to do this is to contact a Kennel Club Accredited Breeder._
Accredited Breeder Scheme (information for pedigree puppy buyers) - The Kennel Club



> they haven't done their research ...


This is true as well but, lets face it, the research is not easy or quick to do and we are, as consumers, unused to the need. Every day I trust my life to the safety of my electrical appliances but I have never once enquired what exact safety tests and quality control my refridgerator satisfied before being deemed suitable for sale and, even if I did ask the answers would not provide much enlightenment unless I also understood the testing procedures and limitations. I just rely on an assumption that the CE mark means that someone who does understand refridgerators has given a quality assurance. Small wonder then that puppy buyers see the same assurance in KC accreditation - especially when the KC market it as such.



> People who believe that the KC not registering pups from unhealth-tested parents will stop people breeding are living in some sort of parallel universe


I understand that some will still breed badly but they won't be doing so with the official recognition and approval of the KC. That, I feel, would be step in the right direction.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> I understand that some will still breed badly but they won't be doing so with the official recognition and approval of the KC. That, I feel, would be step in the right direction.


agreed.:yesnod:


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

The way i look at it is:

Registeration of puppies:

That all dogs that have a litter meet the minimum scores (etc) of health testing. And proof.

Simples??? 

I just do not get why the hell this can not happen?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Acacia86 said:


> The way i look at it is:
> 
> Registeration of puppies:
> 
> ...


Because it isn't that simple. Health test yes - produce certificates yes - impose limits on what can and can't be bred from - risky at best and potentially catastrophic in some breeds to the medium to long term risk of extinction - there are many many shades of grey when it comes to conditions which have a partial hereditary cause with a considerably high element of environmental impact through exercise and diet.

A high(er) not necessaril drastically high hipscore for example DOES NOT mean a guarantee of dysplastic offspring - likewise a lower score doesn't mean the offspring will score low - although the odds are considerably higher.

It's not an exact science and therefore to enforce rigid rules simply wouldn't work.

Likewise for carriers of recessive genes - remove them from gene pools at the breeds peril - because a new condition coming to light would then be far more likely to desecrate even a relatively large gene pool.



Johnderondon said:


> That sounds a compelling argument for the KC to up its game.


It most certainly is - but one way or another it MUST take the breeders with it - a reason why I decided to join the AB scheme - and test over and above the recommended tests for my breed.

Contrary to what people might think - the KC are working very hard with the breed clubs to get things right - and we are seeing a lot more tailoring to individual breeds in terms of minimum and maximum breeding ages, gaps between litters, maximum number of litters rather than the 'one size fits all' there has been in the past.

This simply cannot be done overnight - it takes a lot of discussion and communication, with a LOT of breeds to cover - but will eventually lead to a far more balanced and fairer scheme that gives someone searching for a particular breed a complete criteria on what they should be looking for in terms of the age of the bitch, number of litters, health test results etc.



Johnderondon said:


> Ask them if they support compulsory permanent ID. If you get a "yes" out of them I will personally sing your praises from my rooftop and post it on Youtube.


LMAO :lol: Don't worry - I will speak to them about it.

I wholly support a mandatory method of ID (Chip or tattoo - or both in some instances) and support the campaign for compulsory microchipping - and have campaigned for it on my websites / facebook and forums over the years.

I also think that mandatory chipping requirements for health testing is a step in the right direction.

HOWEVER - I do also have concerns - these concerns lay in vets persistently telling puppy owners it hurts and to wait until they get their dog neutered  and people's perceptions of chipping because the needle is big - this is why this time, I took it upon myself to simply have the whole litter chipped before they left - no arguments there.

In the last 8 years I've had about 18 puppies chipped around the 6 to 10 week mark - with one yelp and one with a little bit of blood and NO lasting effects.



Johnderondon said:


> I have a problem that they can be accredited at all.


Believe me - so do I - I am not saying it doesn't happen - and agree it shouldn't - but - it really isn't as common as people try to make out because of the health tests and other requirements of the scheme - it simply doesn't fit with the actions of PF.



Johnderondon said:


> This is absolutely true however puppy-farmed dogs are not always as obvious as you say and it is inevitable that some buyers will interpret the term "accredited" to mean that someone who knows a bit about breeding has certified this breeder as okay. Especially when it is promoted thus:
> 
> _As a prospective new owner it is understandable to want some kind of reassurance that you are purchasing a pedigree puppy from someone whose priority is the health and welfare of the puppies that they breed... One way to do this is to contact a Kennel Club Accredited Breeder._
> Accredited Breeder Scheme (information for pedigree puppy buyers) - The Kennel Club


I do actually agree with you - and I do think more needs to be done to check adherence - but we MUST get out of the mindset that simply health testing is sufficient adherence.



Johnderondon said:


> This is true as well but, lets face it, the research is not easy or quick to do and we are, as consumers, unused to the need. Every day I trust my life to the safety of my electrical appliances but I have never once enquired what exact safety tests and quality control my refridgerator satisfied before being deemed suitable for sale and, even if I did ask the answers would not provide much enlightenment unless I also understood the testing procedures and limitations. I just rely on an assumption that the CE mark means that someone who does understand refridgerators has given a quality assurance. Small wonder then that puppy buyers see the same assurance in KC accreditation - especially when the KC market it as such.


Unfortunately, most products are covered by the Sale of Goods Act - puppies aren't unless they are sold in the course of business - a hobby breeder who doesn't make a living out of selling puppies is not deemed a business - this falls into the realms of licensed breeders, commercial breeders and (of course) PF  - If the rules on this were changed - hobby breeders would become all but extinct - leaving an even bigger potential gap in the market to be filled by PF.

A lot of these PF do not KC register (or do so sporadically - preventing them being detected as PF) - so are well under the radar of the KC - this is where organisations such as the RSPCA should be stepping in - unfortunately, it is easier to target those breeders and pet owners who already do the right things 

Sadly, some people put more thought and research into buying a new pair of shoes, TV or microwave than they do for a dog, despite the fact they are adding a living creature to their family for the next 8 to 15+ years (dependent on breed)



Johnderondon said:


> I understand that some will still breed badly but they won't be doing so with the official recognition and approval of the KC. That, I feel, would be step in the right direction.


I try to be flexible in my views (it might not always show  ) - and at one point I was all for mandatory health testing for registration - but such a good argument of the problems it could potentially create did make me revise my views. Registration does also retain traceability

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

I don't have all the answers - I don't think anyone does. I agree the KC does have a role to play - but so do puppy buyers. I do get irritated when people don't do any research - but I get much more irritated when I hear of those (of which there are too many to count) who do do their research and then chose to ignore it 

This site has shown me the issues around obtaining information for certain breeds which led me to start a site which will hopefully run alongside the Lab health site - unforunately as I have already mentioned, due to my father being terminally ill it is currently on hold (it is no mean feat) - but I will pick this up again when the family situation is more settled.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> However, doing so would not make people do the tests it would simply reduce the number of dogs registered (this has been shown to be the case in Europe where their KC have had restriced registration. *All this would succeed in doing is making gene pools even smaller *- something that the KC is already denigrated for on here). They can't win


But surely breeders should not be using un health tested dogs any way ...so responsible breeders are already working within the smaller 'tested' gene pool - not registering all dogs would make no difference to the gene pools currently used.

I agree that it is the health information that is important - and that it is then up to the breeder to make decisions based on the results - thre should be no 'cut off ' point for results.

...and lets be honest folks - if the KC really want to put their money where their mouth is they would ONLY advertise pups from breeders who provide proof that they health test- what posible reason can there be for them to accept adverts from those that don't ? -

I have done my fair share of supporting the KC in the past when I felt they were being unfairly attacked but it is difficult to defend them over this - they talk the talk over health testing but do not walk the walk ! - get rid of the ABS - kick out the puppy farmers and ONLY register those that health test and make KC regisration a mark of quality.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Contrary to what people might think - the KC are working very hard with the breed clubs to get things right ...This simply cannot be done overnight...


How long does it take? Here's the KC promising to fix things in 1985. We are being offered the same platitudes today that we were offered then and, although I see exciting promise in new breeders who are keen to roll up their sleeves and and tackle these problems, I see little will to change from the Old Guard. Window dressings and band-aids and, still, a whole heap of denial.



> I do actually agree with you - and I do think more needs to be done to check adherence - but we MUST get out of the mindset that simply health testing is sufficient adherence.


My point wasn't about adherence (although that should be improved) but that the KC are knowingly misrepsenting the ABS as a quality assurance which it does not, in fact, offer.

I am sorry to read of your family's sadness. I am sure your father's time and his passing will be as peaceful and love-filled as you can craft. My deepest condolences and thoughts are extended.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Bijou said:


> But surely breeders should not be using un health tested dogs any way ...so responsible breeders are already working within the smaller 'tested' gene pool - not registering all dogs would make no difference to the gene pools currently used.
> 
> I agree that it is the health information that is important - and that it is then up to the breeder to make decisions based on the results - thre should be no 'cut off ' point for results.
> 
> ...


I feel like I've slipped into a parrallel universe, Bijou.

Have you had an epiphany?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Ask them.
> 
> Ask them if they support compulsory permanent ID. If you get a "yes" out of them I will personally sing your praises from my rooftop and post it on Youtube.
> .


Quote from Caroline Kisko in _Dog World_ September 10th Edition, page 2, in an article entitled "KC calls RSPCA licensing strategy misguided"

_"We have tried licensing before in this country and it hasn't been enforceable and hasn't worked. ........ That is why the KC supports the concept of tracing irresponsible dog owners through compulsory microchipping instead"._

I look forward to you singing my praises from the rooftop - and please do post a link to your you-tube video.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Quote from Caroline Kisko...
> 
> _"We have tried licensing before... it hasn't been enforceable and hasn't worked. ... [snip]
> the KC supports... tracing irresponsible dog owners through compulsory microchipping..." [not licenses.]_


i know *kisko* is a PR-person, but can she speak for the organization Board of Directors? 
or is this just a throwaway quote of if-but-maybe rhetoric by an individual?

has the KC made any press-release on the subject?

BTW - in the USA, an over-the-top resistance + disinformation campaign *defeated animal-ID 
in agriculture - * this is incredible to me, as having any one animal *traceable* is key 
to being able to understand which animal / farm shipped a particular live-animal or carcass 
that later had a reportable disease: hoof-n-mouth, Chronic-Wasting, mad-cow, scrapie, etc.

conservatives beat the drum unendingly that this was an *invasion of privacy*, 
and potentially-culpable individuals or puppy-farmers, clandestine breeders, etc, jumped aboard 
the band-wagon.  so... approx 20-years after CWD *aka* Chronc-Wasting in elk + deer, 
*aka* scrapie in sheep, made the leap to CATTLE + became 'mad-cow' which is all the same prion disease 
in different species - _to confuse things further, if U or i get it, it's variant Kreutzfeld-Jakob disease - _ 
here we are in a supposedly '*developed, technologically-advanced*' country, and our meat industry 
can spend 3 weeks hunting for the source of ONE animal, and * fail utterly *.

this is not reassuring, in terms of food-safety; all of that DESPITE the remarkable success 
of Lousiana's *mandatory chipping program* for equines, which was sorely tested by Katrina 
and _*every single horse, donkey or mule who survived, was either re-united with the owner, 
or ID'ed and sold by the owner or a proxy - *_ there were NO equine-orphans, in stark contrast 
to the dogs, cats, parrots, etc, who were hopelessly separated despite best efforts, from their families.

if we can do it for equines - why not cattle, hogs, chickens, et al? *why not EVERY dog, cat + pup 
who is sold* - not given directly by the breeder as a gift, like a backyard kitten from an unplanned litter, 
but SOLD for $$ ? *traceability is key to enforcing puppy-lemon-laws, underage sales, 
reportable diseases, abuse + neglect, and more*; i think it's an excellent idea, and past due. :thumbup:

JMO, and i would still appreciate info on the KC re mandated-chip-ID.  thanks in advance, 
--- terry


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Quote from Caroline Kisko in _Dog World_ September 10th Edition, page 2, in an article entitled "KC calls RSPCA licensing strategy misguided"
> 
> _"We have tried licensing before in this country and it hasn't been enforceable and hasn't worked. ........ That is why the KC supports the concept of tracing irresponsible dog owners through compulsory microchipping instead"._
> 
> I look forward to you singing my praises from the rooftop - and please do post a link to your you-tube video.


LMAO :lol: go for it :thumbup::thumbup:

ETA to say - and just in case anyone wants to challenge sources, here's the column of the article from Page 2 of the DW - to minimise the risk of copyright infringement, you can read the whole article by buying a copy at your local newsagents 








So looking forward to the video


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> i know *kisko* is a PR-person, but can she speak for the organization Board of Directors?
> or is this just a throwaway quote of if-but-maybe rhetoric by an individual?
> 
> has the KC made any press-release on the subject?


Caroline Kisko is more than a PR person, she is the Secretary, Spokesperson and Communications Director of the KC. The article in Dog World which I quoted in the other post definitely introduces her as the "KC Spokesman Caroline Kisko" and it is obvious in the full article that she is speaking on behalf of the KC.

Here is a link to the KC site that also gives their stance on microchippping:

Shadow Ministers Support Animal Microchipping - The Kennel Club

here is a small quote from the above:

_Caroline Kisko, Communications Director at the Kennel Club, said: "The importance of microchipping your beloved pet cannot be underestimated, and throughout June we aim to show more people than ever just how quick and easy the process is. We are glad to be working alongside Dogs Trust and high profile politicians to promote responsible pet ownership and microchipping as the preferred method of identification."_

Enough evidence for ya hun?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

swarthy said:


> LMAO :lol: go for it :thumbup::thumbup:
> 
> ETA to say - and just in case anyone wants to challenge sources, here's the column of the article from Page 2 of the DW - to minimise the risk of copyright infringement, you can read the whole article by buying a copy at your local newsagents
> 
> ...


So am I Swarthy - wonder if Johnderondon will make good on his promise? :lol: :lol:

Thanks for scanning the article btw - wish I was that advanced in technology!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> So am I Swarthy - wonder if Johnderondon will make good on his promise? :lol: :lol:
> 
> Thanks for scanning the article btw - wish I was that advanced in technology!


Hehe - I did try to copy it from the online version, but DW have been very clever in preventing people doing that 

Johnderondon - Thank you for your kind comments earlier about my family situation.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Hallelujah !! - and has'nt this been what we've all been calling for ? - the key to cracking the puppy farm/rescue problem is to make breeders accountable for what they produce - the good ones already place their pups with the greatest care and undertake to take back or rehome any dog they have bred - the bad ones wash their hands as soon as the money hits their bank account - make pups traceable back to their breeder and follow the trail back from rescue to the puppy farmers - then CLOSE THEM DOWN !


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Quote from Caroline Kisko in _Dog World_ September 10th Edition, page 2, in an article entitled "KC calls RSPCA licensing strategy misguided"
> 
> _"We have tried licensing before in this country and it hasn't been enforceable and hasn't worked. ........ That is why the KC supports the concept of tracing irresponsible dog owners through compulsory microchipping instead"._
> 
> I look forward to you singing my praises from the rooftop - and please do post a link to your you-tube video.


My God! You're right, Spellweaver.

Your KC link doesn't suffice as it speaks only of "prefered method" but I've found this qualified support on the KC website, dated 3rd Aug...

_Whilst the Kennel Club supports the principle of compulsory microchipping it believes that this must be done in conjunction with changes to the law and a public education campaign._
'Dangerous Dogs Act has Failed Britain's Dogs' Says Kennel Club - The Kennel Club

What a very welcome development. 

In January '09 the KC stood as a lone voice against the combined weight of all three main political parties, DT, RSPCA and several other welfare groups and individuals (including their own vet, Abrahams) in opposing compulsory microchipping on the (curious) grounds that new laws could have unexpected consequences. They cited the DDA (which they supported) as an example.

Over the course of '09 that position gradually mutated to a more neutral stance of neither opposing nor supporting the policy. It was somewhat singular for the KC not to take a view on this important issue and by January this year they were evasively (and non-sensically) explaining that, whilst they thought it was a jolly good idea, it would be inappropriate for them to give public support as they had a commercial interest through Petlog. I believe this was still their position as we went into the general election.

I confess I have not followed developments too closely since the school-based campaign group I assist temporarily suspended activity during a school merger so your news of the KC's change of stance is welcome indeed.

Still doesn't alter the fact that the KC were the fly in the ointment and the last to embrace compulsory ID but, in light of your information, this particular criticism is not longer valid and I withdraw it forthwith.

Regrettably the rooftop Youtube offer (which is also withdrawn with even more forthwith-iness) was extend to Swarthy personally rather than a general public offer. My apologies for any disappointment caused.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> My God! You're right, Spellweaver.
> 
> Still doesn't alter the fact that the KC were the fly in the ointment and the last to embrace compulsory ID but, in light of your information, this particular criticism is not longer valid and I withdraw it forthwith.
> 
> Regrettably the rooftop Youtube offer (which is also withdrawn with even more forthwith-iness) was extend to Swarthy personally rather than a general public offer. My apologies for any disappointment caused.


See, I think you should still do the video - I could so easily have pm'd the details to Swarthy and then you would have had no get-out clause - and Swarthy did scan and post the evidence!

Still, I have won lots of bets - I knew you wouldn't do it even though others thought you would


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> See, I think you should still do the video - I could so easily have pm'd the details to Swarthy and then you would have had no get-out clause - and Swarthy did scan and post the evidence!
> 
> Still, I have won lots of bets - I knew you wouldn't do it even though others thought you would


LMAO - what a spoilsport - come on, I could do with a laugh


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> See, I think you should still do the video - I could so easily have pm'd the details to Swarthy and then you would have had no get-out clause - and Swarthy did scan and post the evidence!
> 
> Still, I have won lots of bets - I knew you wouldn't do it even though others thought you would


What a missed opportunity.

I hope your winnings help to ease your sense of injustice.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Bijou said:


> Hallelujah !! - and has'nt this been what we've all been calling for ? - the key to cracking the puppy farm/rescue problem is to make breeders accountable for what they produce - the good ones already place their pups with the greatest care and undertake to take back or rehome any dog they have bred - the bad ones wash their hands as soon as the money hits their bank account - make pups traceable back to their breeder and follow the trail back from rescue to the puppy farmers - then CLOSE THEM DOWN !


Naturally microchipping alone won't achieve this but it is an essential pre-requisite for any effective dog control measure.

I think it will have an immediate effect on puppyfarms (both licensed and unlicensed) but it's real test will be compliance from the BYB's. I think if we can achieve 70% compliance it will become self-sustaining in that people will do it because other people do it. If compliance is below 70% the opposite will hold true.

For this reason it is important not to take half measures or falter at the final hurdles. Compulsion to microchip _must_ be from first transfer of ownership, it _must _included obligations to update the databases and it _must_ be accompanied by a requirement on all canine professionals (vets, dog wardens, boarding kennels, etc) to scan every dog on first introduction.

Looking to the future I think it is inevitable that the databases will be used to store further information about the dog. Medical conditions, veterinary history, breeder endorsements, etc. there is no reason I can see why they should not also record litters and parentage and there, I think, lies the root of the KC's past reticence. They have an effective monopoly on dog registration and, understandably, would rather not lay a path for Identichip or someone to steal any of their golden egg-laying geese.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Caroline Kisko is more than a PR person, she is the Secretary, Spokesperson and Communications Director of the KC.
> The article in Dog World which I quoted in the other post definitely introduces her as the "KC Spokesman Caroline Kisko"
> and it is obvious in the full article that she is speaking on behalf of the KC.


ah :thumbsup: thanks for enlightening me - i thought she might be just a press-mouthpiece.


----------



## lilacbabe (Jun 4, 2009)

> Don't know where you get your info from but there are many checks done - read this and it will explain:Policing the Kennel Club Accredited Breeder Scheme - The Kennel Club


so you are telling me that every one who has got the KC ABS has been checked by the KC sending someone out to them and checking their facilities in person . Therefor how do you account for Puppy mills and so called backyard breeders having the certificate then :confused1:KC must have thought they were OK then Ehh ?



> Again, your information is wrong. The peke had had an operation for a throat infection, and the KC withheld the award until this was checked and verified by the vet.


[/QUOTE]

No think you are wrong 

Strict rules mean dogs which undergo any treatment which may alter their appearance face a ban from competing. 

And owners of show dogs have to supply a vet's report showing when and why any surgery was performed. 

But it is alleged Bert and Philip failed to disclose a throat operation DannyOperation Danny (or Operation Dani, Mivtza Dani in Hebrew) was carried out between the first and second truce of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The objective was to relieve the Jewish population and forces in Jerusalem and to capture Arab territory around Tel 
..... Click the link for more information. underwent at Glasgow University Vet School last June. 

Bert, 49, told the Sunday Mail that the surgery was necessary to correct a problem with the champion Peke's breathing after he had a throat infection and would not have affected his looks. 

And he pointed out that Danny was already a champion show dog - even being named as reserve Best in Show at Crufts last year - before his operation. 

Bert said: "Dogs take ill and have to be fixed up, then you can show them again. We haven't done anything wrong." 

The Kennel Club have launched an official probe and confirmed that three- year-old Danny, show name Dangerous Liaisons, faces losing his title. 

A Kennel Club source said: "Finding this out came as a bit of a shock to us and could end up with this dog losing the title. We weren't aware of any problem. It's very important that we are notified every time a dog has this kind of veterinary treatment. 

"Say a dog was operated on to rectify rec·ti·fy
v.
1. To set right; correct.

2. To refine or purify, especially by distillation. a genetic problem but we weren't notified and the dog was shown and subsequently bred from. You could be possibly passing on inherited problems. 

"If there was any suggestion that it would alter the dog's appearance, we should have been notified, which doesn't appear to have happened. If it's an operation for a throat infection, there's a grey area whether it would alter the appearance of that dog externally." 

But Bert insisted no rules had been broken. He said: "Danny did have an operation on his throat last June but it wasn't anything to do with what he looks like or how he shows. He just was ill and had to get fixed up. 

"He had a bad infection in his throat which affected all his insides and wouldn't clear with antibiotics. 

"We took him to the vet school in Glasgow and he had an operation on his throat. Sometimes they also have to fix a dog's soft palate soft palate
n.
The movable fold, consisting of muscular fibers enclosed in mucous membrane, that is suspended from the rear of the hard palate and closes off the nasal cavity from the oral cavity during swallowing or sucking. , which affects their breathing. We actually had a letter from the professor who did the operation to say he was glad he was back to full health. Danny won a whole load of things before he got fixed up. If we were breaking any rules, I wouldn't have done it." 

A breed defect !!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lilacbabe said:


> No think you are wrong


You can roll your eyes all you want sweetie - the fact is I am right and you are wrong. What you printed was merely *alleged* - the KC investigated and Danny was exonerated.

The "Our Dogs" site won't let me c&p, but if you follow this link Our Dogs Newspaper - News, breeders, showdogs, dog breeds, pedigree show dogs, canine clubs, web design, website uk you will see that Danny had surgery to alleviate an acquired respiratory tract infection but that the surgery did not alter the conformation of the dog in any way. In other words, and contrary to what you say, there was no breed defect. Danny and his owners were cleared of any breach of regulations and Danny rightly kept his title.

I don't know where you got your quote from because you didn't reference it, but I suggest that in future you look for your information in more accurate sources and then you won't make such a fool of yourself.

And re your statement 


lilacbabe said:


> Strict rules mean dogs which undergo any treatment which may alter their appearance face a ban from competing.


please don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. I have been showing dogs for many years and am well aware of all the rules and regulations. The "strict rules" you refer to don't exist. What does exist is Regulation F(B)3 about dogs undergoing operations. This regulation refers to any operation which alters the conformation of the dog. It states that if your dog has any such operation then you have to send a letter from your vet to the KC to explain that the operation was done for medical and not cosmetic reasons. The KC then may or may not give you permission to continue to show. As Danny's operation did not alter his confirmation in any way, he did not need to go through this process. The KC realised this upon investigation, and after confirming with the vet that the operation upon Danny had not altered his conformation in any way. Read the article on the link, which explains it in more detail.

So, now you know the truth, be careful about what you post about this dog. His operation was to relieve an infection, not to alter a breed defect.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

is Danny of a brachycephalic breed? :huh: i'd lay $$ to donuts that they shortened his soft-palate, 
which is often done if the dog snores or reverse-sneezes as a result of an elongated soft-palate; 
*sleep apnea just as in humans, often results from the frequent obstruction of the airway by the relaxed 
soft-palate, which retracts when the dog is awake, but dangles into the throat during sleep. *
sleep-apnea can cause chronic irritability, drowsiness / frequent naps, WEIGHT GAIN due to hormone upsets, 
cardiac problems, ihhalation pneumonia, and more.

an elongated soft-palate also often coincides with *stenotic nares * which are merely the minor signal 
of stenosis / narrowing of the sinuses - exercise intolerance and panting heavily merely from walking 
or climbing a half-dozen steps are the usual effects of stenotic-nares. 
*such nostrils are NOT the normal round fat-dot* with an upside-down comma tail, 
but narrow vertical slots - from *o|o * normal nostrils, to * '|' * stenosis. 
frequently it is simply called * 'Brachycephalic surgery, including soft palette resection 
and correction of stenotic nares'.* IOW it's a package-deal.

surgery can *normalize* stenotic nares - *these are NOT graphic: 
just *-Before-* and *-After-* photos; they are child-safe, no stitches, all healed. *
male-Boston before + after: 
Google Image Result for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f7/Stenotic_nares_before1.jpg/180px-Stenotic_nares_before1.jpg

Google Image Result for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1a/Stenotic_nares_after.jpg/180px-Stenotic_nares_after.jpg

English Bulldog before: Google Image Result for http://www.familyvet.com/Dogs/105.JPG

http://www.vin.com/AppUtil/Image/ha...A&esq=46&page=34&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:332

pen-and-ink DRAWING of a palate-resection: 
http://www.staffords.co.uk/sbtvet/s...fBA&esq=10&page=9&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:79

profile of Frenchie-airway [drawing] Google Image Result for http://www.puppygramnet.com/stenotic%20nares%202.jpg

punch-resection alaplasty - ABSTRACT - 
Punch Resection Alaplasty Technique in Dogs and Cats With Stenotic Nares: 14 Cases -- Trostel and Frankel 46 (1): 5 -- Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association

balloon dilation of nasopharyngeal passage 
Google Image Result for http://avmajournals.avma.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/avma/journals/content/javma/2006/javma.2006.229.issue-3/javma.229.3.385/production/images/small/javma.229.3.385.figure.2.gif

BOAS article with pix - 
Google Image Result for http://www.willows.uk.net/library/img/www/Specialist%20Services/Orthopaedics/before_surgery_soft_palate.jpg

punch-resection alapasty on a Dogue de Bordeaux *minor bleeding - 
right-nostril is done + stitched, left not yet done. * 
Google Image Result for http://www.willows.uk.net/library/img/www/Specialist%20Services/Orthopaedics/airflow_improvement_surgery.jpg


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> is Danny of a brachycephalic breed? :huh: i'd lay $$ to donuts that they shortened his soft-palate,
> 
> sleep-apnea can cause chronic irritability, drowsiness / frequent naps, WEIGHT GAIN due to hormone upsets,
> cardiac problems, ihhalation pneumonia, and more.


heh heh - know all about sleep apnoea - I have to sleep using a CPAP machine because it's something I suffer from. 

Re Danny - he's a peke btw - I don't know what he had done other than something to relieve his infection, but it could not have been anything that altered his conformation in any way because otherwise his owners would have been in breach of Regulation F(B)3 and the KC would not have allowed him to keep his title.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Hey Terry hun,

Yes Danny a Peke. I have no idea the true goings on about all this speculation. No one does except those closely involved  Are they telling the truth? Or did he really have his palate operated on?

We will never ever know!! And to be honest even from my point of view this has been debated to the ends of the earth and its never going to get anywhere!!

I have said all i wanted to on this thread about my own personal views and will not add more. However, if we talking about breeds in dire need...........

Oh and i will add i DO NOT hate the KC. I have admitted on many an occasion i have very limited knowledge about them, as i have no interest in showing and i do not breed. I am literally posting about my own personal views (i will still dig out that DT copy though!) my new puppy is KC reg and the breeder shows her 2 dogs (as well as the previous), they are qualified for life at Crufts!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> Hey Are they telling the truth? Or did he really have his palate operated on?
> 
> We will never ever know!! And to be honest even from my point of view this has been debated to the ends of the earth and its never going to get anywhere!!


Yes we do know the truth.  It doesn't matter how many times it is debated, facts are facts. Follow the link I posted and you will read the truth. Or are you wanting to argue that both a vet (with no links to the KC whatsoever and with his professional integrity to maintain) and the KC are lying? Not very sensible of them if they are, bearing in mind that they would have been caught out at once given the huge national and international media interest in the case at the time.

FACT - Danny had an operation for an infection.

FACT - it did not alter his conformation.

FACT - his owners were therefore not in breach of Regulation F(B)3

FACT - the KC checked this with the dog's vet as part of the investigation

FACT - Danny and his owners were exonerated and Danny kept his Best in Show title.

Simples!

Now why is that so difficult to understand?


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes we do know the truth.  It doesn't matter how many times it is debated, facts are facts. Follow the link I posted and you will read the truth. Or are you wanting to argue that both a vet (with no links to the KC whatsoever and with his professional integrity to maintain) and the KC are lying? Not very sensible of them if they are, bearing in mind that they would have been caught out at once given the huge national and international media interest in the case at the time.
> 
> FACT - Danny had an operation for an infection.
> 
> ...


Many things get covered up in life, this could be one of them  If the Goverment can do it so easily so can the KC 

His conformation?? Is that not mostly the outside of the dog? Surely to have ''good conformation'' they do not need x-rays or any another check internally?! So of course it would not be affected?

Or am i being really dense again?! :lol:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

he was cleared to keep his title by April 20, 2003, but that does not mean he *did not* get a palate resection - 
Facelift or not,he's a real Crufts champion; Merseyside runner- up gives his backing to competition's big winner. - Free Online Library 


> _ The rules of Crufts state *no dog can be surgically enhanced, unless there are clear health benefits.*_


so a palate-reduction is not, from my reading, *disallowed - * there are clear health-benefits, 
it does not alter the dog's appearance; it DOES improve function.

*which would make me wonder - * 
seeing the '*improved*' dog, who breathes easily and is much-more active that he'd have been prior, 
i would PRESUME he would throw pups with similarly free + easy respiration - how would i know 
that he had been surgically-improved, unless the owners spontaneously offer that info? 


> _But she added that it seemed... the dog had undergone surgery for a persistent tonsilitis problem:
> "Having spoken with the owners, the dog certainly has not had a 'facelift' as alleged,
> and we are confident that this matter will be resolved very shortly.''
> 
> ...


so he could have his soft-palate trimmed, *without* 'breaking the rules'. 
correct? as his appearance would be unchanged...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

i cannot believe this - for a 12 to 14# dog?! short-legged, long-backed, and with difficulty exercising? 
retiring at his peke; Crufts winner Danny to give up competition for a life of canine leisure. - Free Online Library


> _ Mr Easdon, 49, who started showing dogs when he was 14, said: "The only way to produce the best,
> is to breed the best with the best." According to Mr Easdon, Danny displays all the key attributes for a Pekinese.
> "Like any breed, there is a blueprint of the ideal dog. A Pekinese should have a big head,
> with a shallow face and large dark eyes. It should have a good high tail and thick-boned legs
> ...


*good Lord - all that F-A-T in one meal!? :scared: for a small dog? * 
IMO that's an awful diet; that one meal has fat enuf for 3 or 4 days, easily, and he eats it daily. 
:nonod: dreadful; i would never feed that to a dog, especially for breakfast each day.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> he was cleared to keep his title by April 20, 2003, but that does not mean he did not get a palate resection
> 
> so a palate-reduction is not, from my reading, *disallowed - * there are clear health-benefits,
> it does not alter the dog's appearance; it DOES improve function.
> ...


Incorrect. Wherever you got this quote from - "_The rules of Crufts state no dog can be surgically enhanced, unless there are clear health benefits_" - it is incorrect. Regulation F(B)3 says nothing of the sort. Neither does it refer just to appearance.

Instead of googling all over the net, and finding and quoting things from journalists who clearly have not researched the subject properly, it would be better if you looked at the actual regulations themselves. All the KC regulations related to showing (including Regulation F(B)3) can be seen here:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/8043/KC-ShowRegs2010.pdf

(the relevant part is on p41 to save you having to read through it all - sorry but it won't let me c&p so I'll retype it here and outline the relevant part in red)

As you will see, it states:

3. No act or operation which alters the natural conformation of a dog or any part thereof may be performed except:
(a) Operations certified to the satisfaction of the General Committee
(b) The removal of dew claws of any breed
(c) Operations to prevent breeding provided that such operations are notified to the Kennel Club before neutered dogs are shown
Nor must anything be done calculated to in the opinion of the General Committee to deceive.

Now, if Danny's soft palate had been altered, then he would have had to notify it to the General Committee and ask for permission to continue to show under Regulation F(B)3(a). (It is possible, under this regulation, for such an oreation to be done and then the committee would decide whether or not it was fair for the dog to continue showing). However, in Danny's case the owners did not do this because his soft palate had not been altered. This was borne out by subsequent investigation by the KC - they wrote to the vet and asked for details of the op. If the soft palate had been altered, the owners would have been in breech of the regulation and Danny would have been stripped of his titles.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> His conformation?? Is that not mostly the outside of the dog? Surely to have ''good conformation'' they do not need x-rays or any another check internally?! So of course it would not be affected?
> 
> Or am i being really dense again?! :lol:


Errrm - yes, unfortunately you are!  See my reply to Terry in post #137 to see why


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

why would a soft-palate resection be any more 'forbidden' by KC rules than a heart-valve surgery, 
or op for a liver-shunt, or GDV-surgery?

all 4 are to one degree or another, heritable conditions - 
all 4 commonly require surgery. :huh: none alter the dog's appearance; they are internal, 
but have external + functional affects: breathing is freer, the heart is more efficient, 
the liver can effectively detox the blood/body, the pressure + necrosis of GDV are removed.

i think a soft-palate-trimming would fall under the same rules as the other 3.

that this is a highly-heritable anatomy problem and is virtually exclusive to brachy-breeds 
makes it a grey area *in terms of ethical breeding,* as IMO we should not breed for facial-folds, 
retrograde noses, accordioned sinuses, warped jaws + dental problems, shallow eye-sockets, 
flat dog-forefaces, stenotic nares and ear-canals, and the extended soft-palate that *goes with them.*

but i don't think the surgery itself - shortening the soft-palate to open the airway - is a 'grey area'. 
*i think BREEDING such dogs to produce an occlusive soft-palate + necessitate the surgery 
is the besetting sin* - and IMO a crime against dogs. 
JMO, 
-- terry


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> why would a soft-palate resection be any more 'forbidden' by KC rules than a heart-valve surgery,
> or op for a liver-shunt, or GDV-surgery?
> 
> all 4 are to one degree or another, heritable conditions -
> all 4 commonly require surgery. none alter the dog's appearance;


It isn't   Didn't you read the regulations? There is nothing in Regulation F(B)3 that relates to appearance   It refers to surgery that alters conformation (ie the internal and external structure of the dog) and "_any other part of the dog thereof_"

If a dog had to have either operation, the owner would write to the KC for permission to continue showing and, providing it had been done for health reasons, the General Committee would probably allow it.

None of that, however, has any relevance to Danny's case, because

a) When someone complained to the KC that Danny had had an operation, the KC looked into the case and wrote to the vet to find out what surgery had been performed.
b) The result of that was that the KC said no letter had been needed under Regulation F(B)3.
c) If no letter was needed under Regulation F(B)3 about the operation, the operation did not, therefore, include any surgery that altered any part of the dog. Therefore he could not have had soft-palate resection surgery.
d) If the dog _had_ had soft-palate resection surgery, the owners would have been in breach of Regulation F(B)3 because they had not written to the KC for permission to continue to show, and the KC would have stripped Danny of his Best in Show award.

I don't know how to make it any clearer! :scared:


----------



## lilacbabe (Jun 4, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> You can roll your eyes all you want sweetie - the fact is I am right and you are wrong. What you printed was merely *alleged* - the KC investigated and Danny was exonerated.
> 
> The "Our Dogs" site won't let me c&p, but if you follow this link Our Dogs Newspaper - News, breeders, showdogs, dog breeds, pedigree show dogs, canine clubs, web design, website uk you will see that Danny had surgery to alleviate an acquired respiratory tract infection but that the surgery did not alter the conformation of the dog in any way. In other words, and contrary to what you say, there was no breed defect. Danny and his owners were cleared of any breach of regulations and Danny rightly kept his title.
> 
> ...


Keep your knickers on mate and I am not your sweetie so dont insult me by calling me that .Yes I did not reference it , so what and as it was there were several pieces about Danny that I could have put in.
Why should I be carefull about what I quote ?:confused1: are you going to sue me ?go ahead as if you want to make a fuss you will have to get in touch with lots of other people who have also written about the dog in question when it happened.
If it is true what you have said you could have corrected me in a more respectfull manner . I notice you have not replied to other posters in the way you have done to me :angry:for instance leashedForLife whom I happen to agree with.

You never replied to my other point about the ABS have you nothing to say about that ??


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lilacbabe said:


> Keep your knickers on mate and I am not your sweetie so dont insult me by calling me that .Yes I did not reference it , so what and as it was there were several pieces about Danny that I could have put in.
> Why should I be carefull about what I quote ?:confused1: are you going to sue me ?go ahead as if you want to make a fuss you will have to get in touch with lots of other people who have also written about the dog in question when it happened.
> If it is true what you have said you could have corrected me in a more respectfull manner . I notice you have not replied to other posters in the way you have done to me :angry:for instance leashedForLife whom I happen to agree with.


Ooooh get you! I answered your post in the same tone as you posted to me - you were the one posting with the sarcasm and the rolling eyes. If you want respect from me you have to first of all treat me with respect, and the tone you took in trying to tell me I am wrong, and trying to explain the regulations to me when you so clearly do not know what you are talking about, was not respectful. Terry (leashedfor life) posted in quite a different manner from you, and was thus treated with the repsect she deserves.

I was trying to be helpful when I warned you to be careful about what you quote. Whatever you quoted (and really, it could be something you have merely made up, because you have not referenced it) not only had incorrect information, it also had out of date information. Quite apart from warning you about copyright law (and forum rules), which state you should reference anything you c&p, I was warning you about the being careful about the content of your post. There are some people on here who know Bert (Danny's owner) personally, and whilst I have no intention of suing you, I am sure he won't take kindly to you printing lies about his dog. I was trying to help you, so answering in this manner "Why _should I be carefull about what I quote ?:confused1: are you going to sue me ?go ahead" _really takes the biscuit - and you talk about my tone! :frown2:



lilacbabe said:


> You never replied to my other point about the ABS have you nothing to say about that ??


What's to say about it? If you aren't able to understand what it entails from the link I printed, then no, I have nothing to say to you about it.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Ooooh get you! I answered your post in the same tone as you posted to me - you were the one posting with the sarcasm and the rolling eyes. If you want respect from me you have to first of all treat me with respect, and the tone you took in trying to tell me I am wrong, and trying to explain the regulations to me when you so clearly do not know what you are talking about, was not respectful. Terry (leashedfor life) posted in quite a different manner from you, and was thus treated with the repsect she deserves.
> 
> I was trying to be helpful when I warned you to be careful about what you quote. Whatever you quoted (and really, it could be something you have merely made up, because you have not referenced it) not only had incorrect information, it also had out of date information. Quite apart from warning you about copyright law (and forum rules), which state you should reference anything you c&p, I was warning you about the being careful about the content of your post. There are some people on here who know Bert (Danny's owner) personally, and whilst I have no intention of suing you, I am sure he won't take kindly to you printing lies about his dog. I was trying to help you, so answering in this manner "Why _should I be carefull about what I quote ?:confused1: are you going to sue me ?go ahead" _really takes the biscuit - and you talk about my tone! :frown2:
> 
> What's to say about it? If you aren't able to understand what it entails from the link I printed, then no, I have nothing to say to you about it.


breathe hunny, breathe


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Starlite said:


> breathe hunny, breathe


 :lol: :lol: Still breathing! :lol: :lol:


----------



## lilacbabe (Jun 4, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: :lol: Still breathing! :lol: :lol:


:bored::bored::Yawn::Yawn:

No point in talking if everything is either poo pooed , told you are wrong and others cant take what they give out themselves !


----------



## skyblue (Sep 15, 2010)

to be honest i'm not keen on the kennel club......what could be a great institution fails in my opinion

take one breed for example...the good old british bulldog,a dog that actually did fight bulls.it was strong and fit,with great stamina......if you get one with a pedigree now its quite different due to kennel club standards...you get a weak dog that struggles to breath that would have a problem walking to the end of the street


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

skyblue said:


> to be honest i'm not keen on the kennel club......what could be a great institution fails in my opinion
> 
> take one breed for example...the good old british bulldog,a dog that actually did fight bulls.it was strong and fit,with great stamina......if you get one with a pedigree now its quite different due to kennel club standards...you get a weak dog that struggles to breath that would have a problem walking to the end of the street


the British bulldog as a breed was not created until 150 years after the sport was banned.

Bull dogs were various crossbreeds normally kept by butchers to keep the cattle in line and used in the "sport"


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Starlite said:


> the British bulldog as a breed was not created until 150 years after the sport was banned.
> 
> Bull dogs were various crossbreeds normally kept by butchers to keep the cattle in line and used in the "sport"


But even so it can not be denied that the breed is in a dire state. I am not blaming the KC entirely, the breed clubs, judges, breeders, buyers etc are all to blame too but the KC have had their own part in the demise just as all the others have.


----------



## skyblue (Sep 15, 2010)

theres a few breeds i could mention


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Starlite said:


> the British bulldog as a breed was not created until 150 years after the sport was banned.


the 'breed' may have been papered + pedigreed then - but it existed as a type long before. 
it was that type that was shrunk, accordioned, twisted, squashed, bulked-up and minimized.

bully-skulls 1890 + 1935 - 
Google Image Result for http://www.andersonbulldogges.com/skull-small.png

bully-skulls 1860 to modern era - 
Google Image Result for http://www.leavittbulldogs.co.uk/communities/4/004/006/961/364/images/4525104596.jpg

wanna buy one just for U? 
http://www.boneroom.com/casts/images_bc/dog_englishbull.jpg

the out-at-elbows, waddling dog with a massive head, crumpled face, corkscrew tail, 
dermal folds, itty-bitty butt, huge barrel torso, etc, was selected for *from that original, 
free-breathing, athletic, powerful, active dog - * which IMO was a long, slow crime against dogdom. 
a breed who cannot breed or whelp without help is truly bathetic. 
JMO, 
- terry


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> But even so it can not be denied that the breed is in a dire state. I am not blaming the KC entirely, the breed clubs, judges, breeders, buyers etc are all to blame too but the KC have had their own part in the demise just as all the others have.


The person I quoted was referring to the bulldog as the British Bulldog we know today and the following quote from Terry emphasises my point that they were not a KC reg dog when they were actually healthy 



leashedForLife said:


> the 'breed' may have been papered + pedigreed then - but it existed as a type long before.
> it was that type that was shrunk, accordioned, twisted, squashed, bulked-up and minimized.
> 
> bully-skulls 1890 + 1935 -
> ...


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Starlite said:


> The person I quoted was referring to the bulldog as the British Bulldog we know today and the following quote from Terry emphasises my point that they were not a KC reg dog when they were actually healthy


Erm, this is my point  (in red)

So why have they seriously gone downhill since? Its wrong, so wrong.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Kennel Club = money making machine, has the monoploy over dog showing, breeding, registering etc. and it takes a TV programme to point out breed standards need changing for the better of the dog - what* is* the point indeed?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> So why have they seriously gone downhill since? Its wrong, so wrong.


You know I find it fascinating that there is almost universal repulsion at what the Bulldog has become and yet this is a breed that has exploded in popularity in the last decade or so. The KC registration figures for last year show 4,217 Bulldogs registered -compare this with the far more naturally shaped Canaan dog -( only 6 registered in the same period ) similarly with Pugs , another exaggerated breed, they come second in popularity in the Toy group with 4,769 registrations compared to the far more free moving (and breathing) Lowchen at 113 - you have to ask yourself just what is going on here ?. The conclusion must be that the dog buying public actually LIKE their dogs with these features - and it's the same old story - as long as there is this huge demand these features will continue to be bred for .

I've never understood why breeds such as Norweigan Buhunds, Canaans, Australian Cattle Dogs and Swedish Valhunds are not more popular - all are unexaggerated, free moving, versatile, 'naturally shaped and healthy breeds -even my own breed ( Groenendael ) are less extreme in shape and have far less structural and hip problems than their close cousin the GSD yet only 90 Groens were registered compared with 10,338 GSD - go figure !!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> The KC registration figures for [2009] show 4,217 Bulldogs registered -
> [vs] the far more naturally shaped Canaan-dog... only 6 registered in the same period... [snip]...


Canaan-Dogs are like BCs for activity-needs, sheer busyness + brain-gigabytes; 
*but* in addition they have a guarding streak which can lead to turfiness, RG, etc. 
they are not a novice-pet, altho i agree they are a lovely natural breed. 


Bijou said:


> I've never understood why... Norsk Buhunds, Canaans, ACDs and Swede-Valhunds
> are not more popular... unexaggerated, free moving, versatile, naturally shaped and healthy breeds -


these are all herding-breeds, can all be barky, and ACDs are notorious heelers + biters - 
nipping calves, pinching Achilles-tendons, and biting + shaking leashes are built-in features of many ACDs.


Bijou said:


> ...even my own breed, the Groenendael, is less-extreme [with fewer] structural... problems
> [vs] the GSD yet only 90 Groens were registered [vs] 10.338k GSD...


the GSD -aka- Alsatian feels 'more familiar' than the BSDs [Groen, Terv, Mal, Laek] - 
better the devil U know than the unknown, even for a healthier breed lighter in body. 

i agree that sadly, puppy-buyers [who often know No Better and are TOLD No Better] do not realize 
the built-in breed flaws they buy with that puppy, of whatever breed or mix... 
the recent _"breed myths"_ i hear are phenomenally irritating, including such asinine B-S 
as _*"the wrinkles in Bulldog faces lead the blood away from their eyes..."*_ 
yeah, right, sure, buddy; whatever U say.  *this is a dog who can have trouble getting up 
after lying-down and be under-2-YO... how inna H*** would a 'modern' Bulldog CLAMP THE NOSE 
of an adult-cow or steer, and HOLD ON?! &%$#@!, some of em can't eat kibble because of their 
pathetic snaggle-teeth and wry-jaws, severe underbite and difficulty breathing while they 'chew' - 
or at least, mash it up against their hard-palate and pretend it's masticated before swallowing.*

get real! _"lead the blood away from their eyes", _ sheesh - the BLOOD not in proper circulation 
is the oxygenated, glucose-rich blood that *should be* circulating in the brains of puppy-buyers.  
granted, breeders feed them this hokum - but they swallow it, and regurgitate the swill as 'facts'.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Sorry I do'nt buy the 'buyers don'y know the flaws' arguement - you only have to stand next to a Bulldog and you can hear it's laboured breathing - how can ANY puppy buyer think this is ok ? 

There are over 400 breeds to choose from - even if the breeds I have mentioned may not 'fit the bill' there will surely be a healthier alternative - my point remains the same - I believe that the public LIKE these flat faced breeds ( can't see it myself ! ) - there has been a similar rise in the popularity of French Bulldogs and Boston Terriers and although the Bulldog is the most extreme of this type they all will have compromised breathing because of their head shape if there was no demand then irrespective of what breeders deem correct , if they could not sell them then they would stop breeding them .


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Bijou said:


> Sorry I do'nt buy the 'buyers don'y know the flaws' arguement - you only have to stand next to a Bulldog and you can hear it's laboured breathing - how can ANY puppy buyer think this is ok ?
> .


i must agree with u there, looking at a bulldog in real life just brings tears to my eyes. Its so evident that it suffers that a puppy buyer cant be fooled that its normal.

But on the other hand how can ANY _Breeder _think this is ok and the question pops up why the breeder breeds this dog, unless there arent any ethical breeders within this breed at all 

The same question can also be directed at judges at shows who are placing bulldogs.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> Kennel Club = money making machine, has the monoploy over dog showing, breeding, registering etc. and it takes a TV programme to point out breed standards need changing for the better of the dog - what* is* the point indeed?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Even if the above were true, why would that be anything to do with the Kennel Club? Breed standards are set by the breed clubs, NOT the Kennel Club!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lilacbabe said:


> :bored::bored::Yawn::Yawn:
> 
> No point in talking if everything is either poo pooed , told you are wrong and others cant take what they give out themselves !


Or if you know you are totally in the wrong and are not honest enough to apologise for your mistake and thank those who are trying to help you


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Even if the above were true, why would that be anything to do with the Kennel Club? Breed standards are set by the breed clubs, NOT the Kennel Club!


but breed standards are accepted by the KC, so the KC does play a major part in regards to breed standards.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Even if the above were true, why would that be anything to do with the Kennel Club? Breed standards are set by the breed clubs, NOT the Kennel Club!


Well said 

If you listen to half the people who talk about the show world and the KC - between us we are collectively responsible for anything and everything that has gone wrong in the dog world - never mind that in the main, the show world has been instrumental in most breeds in driving for healthier, fitter dogs that STILL meet the breed standard.

Forget the BYB, the PF, the cash symbols in eyes breeders, the pet breeders who breed solely for colour or temperament or health without an understanding of how they all should work together rather in SILO's, the puppy buyers who incessantly fall for the same old flannel year in year out, they have absolutely NOTHING to do with the way some dog breeds have gone or some of the problems in the 'sub-breeding' market


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

swarthy said:


> Well said
> 
> If you listen to half the people who talk about the show world and the KC - between us we are collectively responsible for anything and everything that has gone wrong in the dog world - never mind that in the main, the show world has been instrumental in most breeds in driving for healthier, fitter dogs that STILL meet the breed standard.
> 
> Forget the BYB, the PF, the cash symbols in eyes breeders, the pet breeders who breed solely for colour or temperament or health without an understanding of how they all should work together rather in SILO's, the puppy buyers who incessantly fall for the same old flannel year in year out, they have absolutely NOTHING to do with the way some dog breeds have gone or some of the problems in the 'sub-breeding' market


well said both of you


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Well said
> 
> If you listen to half the people who talk about the show world and the KC - between us we are collectively responsible for anything and everything that has gone wrong in the dog world - never mind that in the main, the show world has been instrumental in most breeds in driving for healthier, fitter dogs that STILL meet the breed standard.
> 
> Forget the BYB, the PF, the cash symbols in eyes breeders, the pet breeders who breed solely for colour or temperament or health without an understanding of how they all should work together rather in SILO's, the puppy buyers who incessantly fall for the same old flannel year in year out, they have absolutely NOTHING to do with the way some dog breeds have gone or some of the problems in the 'sub-breeding' market


So true.

Blaming the Kennel Club for every little thing is getting to such a ridiculous state that any day now some wannabe journalist, trying to make a name for himself/herself despite a lack of talent, is going to find "proof"  that the KC are responsible for the recession, for Princess Diana's death, give money to Al Queda, have Osama bin Laden as a head judge, and are really aliens who are trying to take over the world ............... and the geese who believe all the present lies will swallow it hook, line and sinker :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jazmine (Feb 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> So true.
> 
> Blaming the Kennel Club for every little thing is getting to such a ridiculous state that any day now some wannabe journalist, trying to make a name for himself/herself despite a lack of talent, is going to find "proof"  that the KC are responsible for the recession, for Princess Diana's death, give money to Al Queda, have Osama bin Laden as a head judge, and are really aliens who are trying to take over the world ............... and the geese who believe all the present lies will swallow it hook, line and sinker :lol: :lol: :lol:


So that's where he's been hiding!!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> ...some wannabe journalist, trying to make a name for her/himself despite a lack of talent,
> is going to find "proof"  that the KC are responsible for ...Princess Diana's death...


no - that was the Queen's Corgis, but they had help.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> no - that was the Queen's Corgis, but they had help.


:lol: :lol:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> no - that was the Queen's Corgis, but they had help.


:lol: :lol: :lol: don't tell me - the were registered with the KC!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

I am well aware of the fact the breed clubs make up the breed standards. But as Natik has said the KC accept them...........they could have easily turned around and said no because it would be detrimental to the breeds (and individual dogs) health.

And one more thing that gets me is the fact they have no limit on the use of a stud dog! Thats wrong on so many levels.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> I am well aware of the fact the breed clubs make up the breed standards. But as Natik has said the KC accept them...........they could have easily turned around and said no because it would be detrimental to the breeds (and individual dogs) health.
> 
> .


They did and do though hun!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

I think there's a lot of confusion here.

It is not breed standards that are the problem, but the interpretation of them. If you read a breed standard they are very loose guidelines and could fit a wide variety of shapes/sizes of dog. It is the the interpretation of them, some judges that award dogs and fashions that cause the exaggerations.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Acacia86 said:


> And one more thing that gets me is the fact they have no limit on the use of a stud dog! Thats wrong on so many levels.


WHY? and how would you impose a limit on the number of times a dog is used without compromising the breed and reducing the size of the gene pool without possibly the need to bring in less suitable dogs?

If there was a limit of 'x' times on a fabulous producer - then surely a kennel would want to retain those genes for their own breeding lines - removing many opportunities for breeding to type rather than pedigree.

People will follow a potentially quality producer - but this will drift off if the quality isn't there in the offspring.

If you added this to the mix of removing everything that doesn't conform to people's interpretations of health test results (in particular recessive genes) - and according to some on here anything that is not a champion / near champion - and so many breeds would suffer (some to the point of extinction) at a rather frightening speed.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

swarthy said:


> ...how would you impose a limit on the number of times a [stud] is used without compromising the breed and reducing the size of the gene pool without possibly the need to bring in less suitable dogs?


the use of matador-breeding [fab-stud of the month] has been responsible for massive pruning 
of the gene-pool of many dog-breeds; familial and line-breeding or in-breeding has only magnified this. 


many breeds have a literal number of individuals in the thousands, with a 'virtual' popn of fewer than 20, 
due to extreme genetic homogeneity within the breed.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

swarthy said:


> WHY? and how would you impose a limit on the number of times a dog is used without compromising the breed and *reducing the size of the gene pool *without possibly the need to bring in less suitable dogs?
> 
> If there was a limit of 'x' times on a fabulous producer - then surely a kennel would want to retain those genes for their own breeding lines - removing many opportunities for breeding to type rather than pedigree.
> 
> ...


See this is what over use of a stud does do  it does make gene pools smaller....

It has been proven by some breeds.....in dire straits, or even the demise of. (obviousy there have been many other factors too but this plays a part)


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Oh and how would i do it?

If i were the KC i would limit the numbers by keeping track of the litters registered by a certain stud, and stop registering at a certain point. Or make it a rule that a stud can only sire so many litter.........its fairly simple really!!! And much better for the breed as a whole and the stud in question!

I know a lot stud owners are responsible but some.........well!


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

If the Kennel Club doesn't have anything to do with breed standards at all - what is this about then? 

Breed standards OWNED and changes APPROVED by the Kennel Club - in their own words yet you say they don't have a hand in it - are they lying then? As I said , it took a TV prog to point out that some needed to be changed and only the KC can approve that, regardles of what individual clubs do - guilty as charged i'm afraid!
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/210

Kennel Club changes breeding rules after BBC suspends Crufts - Telegraph

As to the above post - why would the KC want to limit any form of breeding? - they make money out of every litter, hence why even though a bitch can only be used a certain amount of times in a particular period, the BRS shows that some are used too often but STILL the litter is registered. Probably some lame excuse of "accidental mating" and the pups get registered - they even flout their own rules!


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Acacia86 said:


> I am well aware of the fact the breed clubs make up the breed standards. But as Natik has said the KC accept them...........they could have easily turned around and said no because it would be detrimental to the breeds (and individual dogs) health.
> 
> And one more thing that gets me is the fact they have no limit on the use of a stud dog! Thats wrong on so many levels.


The KC are beginning to attempt to convince the breed clubs to produce a better breed standard. The pekingese clubs did so willingly and the bulldog club has also altered theirs. They are also discussing witholding CCs from GSDs until the breed standard is amended, and this was all going on before the BBC documentary 
But as my wee granny says, _"you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink" _



rocco33 said:


> I think there's a lot of confusion here.
> 
> It is not breed standards that are the problem, but the interpretation of them. If you read a breed standard they are very loose guidelines and could fit a wide variety of shapes/sizes of dog. It is the the interpretation of them, some judges that award dogs and fashions that cause the exaggerations.


The interpretations I agree are skewed on some breeds.
The popularity of one aspect/colour that is preferred by some judges is horrendous, but old ways die hard and becoming a judge is not easy so I dont see alot of significant change for the next 10+ years when alot of younger judges will be more established.
But we _always _run the risk of a new fad being adopted by breeders who cater more to the pet market and judges with preset minds of the breed standard, as most do.

Nothing is going to change overnight and instead of pointing fingers like kids I think its time people became united in their goal to improve dogs, INCLUDING working with the KC.

sorry, long post . . x


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

If the Kennel club own breed standards why do they have to "convince" breed clubs to change them - is it because they have already approved unhealthy standards in the first place?

Surely as owners and approvers they can insist the breed clubs change them - after all they have (supposedly) instructed judges what to now look for in certain breeds and on looking at their breed standards web page some have already been changed.

I understand it will take some time for certain lines to conform to such changes but at the last Crufts show it was clear to see GSD's with certain (now undesirable) features still winning when there were other's in the ring that looked more healthily built.

Osama Bin Laden jokes aside - all very funny i'm sure - but I feel, as many do that the buck stops with the KC for approving these standards in the first instance. Of course breeders and breed clubs are not exempt from some blame but it doesn't take much brain power to see when a dog just isn't right and the KC are the only ones who have the ultimate power to put a stop to it, as they are now doing - finally!

The only reason they limited tail docking was because of the Animal Welfare Act - again pressured into doing so. 

Just to add - I don't believe it was the "pet market" these concerns were aimed at - I believe it was the show dogs that were largely in question.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Malmum said:


> If the Kennel club own breed standards why do they have to "convince" breed clubs to change them - is it because they have already approved unhealthy standards in the first place?
> 
> Surely as owners and approvers they can insist the breed clubs change them - after all they have (supposedly) instructed judges what to now look for in certain breeds and on looking at their breed standards web page some have already been changed.
> 
> ...


The kennel club dont own the breed standards, they are written for each breed by clubs of hobbyists called breed clubs for their own specific requirements.
KC Registered Breed Clubs will, in future, be instructed that they must adopt the Kennel Club's Code of Ethics and that any additions or departures from these must be referred to - and be approved by - the Kennel Club. These will form part of Breed Club Annual Returns in future.

*The breeds became unhealthy due to interpretations of the breed standards.*
The KC cannot control the action of every judge and thankfully more people are complaining about some judges decisions

As I expained, many GSD breeders and clubs are not happy about basically discontinuing a line they may have developed over the last 20yrs to get their dogs the way they want and the way they have judges have looked for, and its not "some lines", its about 95% of winning show lines!
I also explained the KC have been discussing changes to certain breed standards BEFORE the BBC programme and severely penalising those how dont, but I suppose thats irrelevant as most would like to believe a "hard hitting" one-sided "documentary" 

I dont agree with the docking ban,. Docking done correctly by a vet is fine by me.To quote the Kaiser Cheifs
_
We are the angry mob
We read the papers everyday
We like who we like
We hate who we we hate
But we're also easily swayed_

A person tends to be smart. A mob is as panicky and irrational as a heard of sheep so if something becomes the "in" thing to be outraged about our pathetic government will bend over backwards to keep the masses quiet and win favour. Same with the hunting ban but thats another thread.
It was not the KCs decision to ban tail docking, it was the governments so the KC had to ask them to change the breed standards in order to comply with the law.

As far as Im aware show dogs are pets, and dogs which have been run on and dont meet a breeders liking are normally given to pet homes.
My "pet market" comment is justified imo.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Just to point out . . .

Some of us appreciate the hard hitting documentary because we were alive and well and participating in the dog world for most of our own lifetime already, and for many, many dog generations (wasted now), and were all too aware that the registries and clubs often choose to give lip service but take no action - or 'softly softly' action that amounts to the same thing (nothing).

I clearly remember a discussion of the same troubles now talked of back in 1969! If I could remember further back, I'm sure there were conversations on this same topic much earlier as my grandfather was preaching about diversity back in the 30s and 40s, and made sure his children learned its merits . . . just uneducated farmers they all were though, obviously not anyone to be listened to by those sophisticates in the show world that 'really' knew what they were doing! (Yes, I have listened to that exact garbage coming out of involved breeder's mouths many times over, for more years than I care to remember).

Even direct approaches expecting at least some changes didn't seem to do the trick in the past. Continuing that path obviously gets nowhere.

1985 - On Video - Pedigree Dogs/The Kennel Club - same topic - similar discussions - 




1994 - A Terrible Beauty - TIME - A Terrible Beauty - TIME

So if the mob mentality or the chaos that might ensue is a bit threatening, . . . . those involved who deliberately refused to make changes even with years and years of patience from those with concerned observations and warnings, have brought that on themselves.

Frankly I am more fearful of letting things continue unchanged, than of chaos.

CC


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Just to point out . . .
> 
> Some of us appreciate the hard hitting documentary because we were alive and well and participating in the dog world for most of our own lifetime already, and for many, many dog generations (wasted now), and were all too aware that the registries and clubs often choose to give lip service but take no action - or 'softly softly' action that amounts to the same thing (nothing).
> 
> ...


My point is tho hun action has been taken this time, but the BBC doc only put the issue to the forefront of discussion.
In this case the dog was not the catalist for it to happen in the first place


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Acacia86 said:


> Oh and how would i do it?
> 
> If i were the KC i would limit the numbers by keeping track of the litters registered by a certain stud, and stop registering at a certain point. Or make it a rule that a stud can only sire so many litter.........its fairly simple really!!! And much better for the breed as a whole and the stud in question!
> 
> I know a lot stud owners are responsible but some.........well!


The KC couldn't just 'stop' registering litters at a certain point - a stud may have ten visiting bitches over a period - some might not catch - other's might - and any limitation such as this could VERY QUICKLY result in unregistered litters quite possibly from some of the top dogs in the world 

Likewise, breeders plan their use of studs often a couple of years ahead - responsible breeders don't decide on a whim what dog they are going to use, they study form at shows, they spend hours pouring over databases and planning their road ahead and will have a pool of good dogs in their sight often long before they use them.

It makes me shudder to be quite frank that people who clearly don't understand the breeding world come up with ideas which are re-enforced by certain animal organisations who haven't got a clue.

Put all these rules into place, and you wouldn't have better dogs and wider gene pools, you might have a handful of super dogs, and the remainder a shadow of what they should be.

You can pick any top stud dog in my own breed, and yes, some of them will have been used many times - but you will find it that some of the top working lines will have sired often double the number of litters of their equivalent top show bred dogs - and - possibly even more unbelievably - some pet / commercial sires will be on a parr with, or even have higher numbers than the working dogs.

So effectively, show sires - even the top producers fall nowhere near the numbers produced by top producing working dogs or pet/commercial studs.

I know you weren't specifically singling out the show bred dogs in this instance, but so many people do, and once again, they are making sweeping assumptions without knowing any of the facts.

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

I agree in numerically smaller breeds gene pools need to be widened - but placing limitations on a dog is not the way to go - and I am not sure what is.

Education maybe - relaxation on a breed by breed basis by the KC for AI in some at risk breeds - shock horror - inclusion of cross over-breeding of dogs with different coat / ear types - I don't know if this would work, how it would pan out - but all these are ideas that could be looked at - because a simple limitation wouldn't work for all sorts of reasons - the predominant one being that we are dealing with nature and living creatues, and not an exact science.

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

ETA - All these ideas which limit how good responsible breeders breed will once again create a gap in the market which will happily be filled by PF who really don't care what sires they use, or what health problems they suffer from, or how any of it will affect the long term welfare of their puppies.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Malmum said:


> As to the above post - why would the KC want to limit any form of breeding? - they make money out of every litter, hence why even though a bitch can only be used a certain amount of times in a particular period, the BRS shows that some are used too often but STILL the litter is registered. Probably some lame excuse of "accidental mating" and the pups get registered - they even flout their own rules!


What rule are you talking about?

There is NO Rule on the number of litters that can be registered from a within a specified period - unless the breeder is licensed - in which case they have to abide by the 12 month rule.

The rules are - not mated before the age of 12 months and not 8 years old without permission (and must have had at least one litter previously) and no more than 6 litters in the bitches lifetime.

I have my own thoughts on some of those rules, but that is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about flouting the existing rules - and the KC don't allow it.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

swarthy said:


> ...a simple limitation wouldn't work for all sorts of reasons - the predominant one being
> that we are dealing with nature and living creatures, and not an exact science.


if that's true, swarthy - 
why does Padgett point-out specifically the damage caused by matador-sires? 
the gene-pruning, loss of diversity, and increase in relatedness thru-out the breed? 
Amazon.com: Control of Canine Genetic Diseases (Howell reference books) (9780876050040): George A. Padgett: Books

BTW - it is not necessary to [shock! horror!] *buy the book* to see what he says - 
nor even to *borrow it from the library - * U can enter the term *matador sires* in the SEARCH THIS BOOK box, and click 'go'.

i would like to add that *genetics* is an exact science; it is impossible to declare that "we cannot know" anymore, 
we can know very precisely, if we want to - we can also ignore risks blatantly, if we wish. 
but *wishing* won't improve the health or longevity of our dogs, or their breeds; action will. 
would U like to be among those who act - or those who wish?

the longer we delay acting, the worse the state of our beloved dogs and breeds. 
that's a fact, too - just like genetics; it is heartbreaking, but absolutely undeniable, 
that if we do nothing but what we have done, purebred dogs will become impossible to recover, 
at some point; inbreeding depression with its attendant infertility, auto-immune problems, and more, 
is already affecting multiple breeds.

waving our arms and protesting is futile; the future of purebreds will have to be *a concerted change in how we breed, with attention to COI, carrier status, and more,* or the eventual demise of entire breeds, and later, purebred dogs themselves, entirely.

all my best, 
- terry


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> If the Kennel Club doesn't have anything to do with breed standards at all - what is this about then?
> 
> Breed standards OWNED and changes APPROVED by the Kennel Club - in their own words yet you say they don't have a hand in it - are they lying then?





Malmum said:


> If the Kennel club own breed standards why do they have to "convince" breed clubs to change them - is it because they have already approved unhealthy standards in the first place?
> 
> Surely as owners and approvers they can insist the breed clubs change them - after all they have (supposedly) instructed judges what to now look for in certain breeds and on looking at their breed standards web page some have already been changed.
> 
> I understand it will take some time for certain lines to conform to such changes but at the last Crufts show it was clear to see GSD's with certain (now undesirable) features still winning when there were other's in the ring that looked more healthily built.


Starlite has answered this one for you:



Starlite said:


> The kennel club dont own the breed standards, they are written for each breed by clubs of hobbyists called breed clubs for their own specific requirements.
> KC Registered Breed Clubs will, in future, be instructed that they must adopt the Kennel Clubs Code of Ethics and that any additions or departures from these must be referred to - and be approved by - the Kennel Club. These will form part of Breed Club Annual Returns in future.





Malmum said:


> The only reason they limited tail docking was because of the Animal Welfare Act - again pressured into doing so.


   What on earth are you on about here? The Kennel Club ruled that no docked dogs could be shown once the law stated docking was illegal   



Malmum said:


> Just to add - I don't believe it was the "pet market" these concerns were aimed at - I believe it was the show dogs that were largely in question.


Yeah, right. Because pet dogs were never docked at all 



Malmum said:


> why would the KC want to limit any form of breeding? - they make money out of every litter, hence why even though a bitch can only be used a certain amount of times in a particular period, the BRS shows that some are used too often but STILL the litter is registered. Probably some lame excuse of "accidental mating" and the pups get registered - they even flout their own rules!


Really? And you can reference evidence to prove this can you, so that we can see it's not just something you've made up?

Ermmm - it was raining today. Just pointing that out cos you've not blamed the KC for that yet


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

I am not a great supporter of the Kennel Club and there are a great many things that I believe they could do much better. However, without them, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that dogs would be much worse off than they are now. The KC is by no means perfect, but leaving regulation to a body which has no real understanding of dogs (the RSPCA for example, which is as ignorant as it is arrogant) would be totally disastrous.

Mick


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

raindog said:


> I am not a great supporter of the Kennel Club and there are a great many things that I believe they could do much better. However, without them, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that dogs would be much worse off than they are now. The KC is by no means perfect, but leaving regulation to a body which has no real understanding of dogs (the RSPCA for example, which is as ignorant as it is arrogant) would be totally disastrous.
> 
> Mick


Very much my thoughts Mick ...


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> BTW - it is not necessary to [shock! horror!] *buy the book* to see what he says -
> nor even to *borrow it from the library - * U can enter the term *matador sires* in the SEARCH THIS BOOK box, and click 'go'.


 would you like to explain EXACTLY what you mean by that? just how patronising are you capable of being?

What about a little of your own opinion based on factual experiences and knowledge of the breeding world?

If genetics were that clear cut - please explain why we still have humans and animals alike living often painful and frequently shortened lives from so many conditions which should, with such an exact science, it should be possible to erradicate. I've no doubt there will be a research paper to answer that one as well.

Research data is seldom presented 'raw' and therefore can be manipulated to present whatever element of bias a writer has to the outside world


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

swarthy said:


> would you like to explain EXACTLY what you mean by that?
> just how patronising are you capable of being?


i was trying to make a joke, sorry  it means U can *see what he says* about matadors, 
right-here and right-now. there is no need to spend $$, wait 10-days for an interlibrary loan, etc. 


swarthy said:


> What about a little of your own opinion based on factual experiences and knowledge of the breeding world?


IMO matadors are, and have been, a disaster.

as a singular and not shining example: 
they are STILL trying more than 50-years on, to get rid of the vertical-fronts introduced into Boxers, 
by the enormous over-use of a Boxer-stud who had *a bee-YOO-tee-full headpiece* :001_tt1: 
all the besotted saw was that show-winning head, not the body it sat on, and Boxers are paying... 
and paying and PAYING - for that myopic focus on 'heads' in a 'head-breed'.

his call-name BTW was 'Johnny' or some spelling-variant of it - Jonnie, Jonny, Johnnie... 


swarthy said:


> Research data is seldom presented 'raw' and therefore can be manipulated to present whatever element of bias a writer has...


this is NOT research-data or 'one paper' - its a book, on breeding, and specifically *purebred dogs* 
and heritable diseases and conditions, *by a specialist - * DVM Padgett is a vet-pathologist at MSU, 
in the veterinary-college.

if Padgett is so easily dismissed, why do so many breed-clubs and breeders organizations hire him 
as a guest-speaker or use his seminars, books, and articles as references?

Working Dogs.com - from his seminars: 
Control of Genetic Disease

GDC Interview, George A. Padgett - Alaskan Malamute Health

READABLE ON-LINE: 
Naturally occurring animal models of ... - Google Books

'LGD.org' - their article database - 
Why Have Open Registries?

*B*ernese *M*ountain *D*og health-links Page 2 - 
BMD Health Links 2

Bearded Collie Foundation For Health - genetics page
Untitled Document

BEACON's open-health-registry - 
Open Health Registry Main Pages

Samoyed Club Of America - health-link 
Samoyed Health Links - Page2

NCA Health Library - Newfs, "genetic disorders" 
NCA Health Library: Genetic Disorder Library

Lowchen-Aus links - 
Links to the best Breeding & Whelping sites and articles on the net!

JOURNAL ARTICLES - those stupid 'biased' research findings, just ignore them - 
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Animal model: The mode of inheritance of craniomandibular osteopathy in west highland white terrier dogs - Padgett - 2005 - American Journal of Medical Genetics - Wiley Online Library 
he probably faked his data - right? *<-- sarcasm alert! *

_Padgett's a pedant with an axe to grind, 
a triumph of megalomania; just an effete, of the quasi-elite...
and I am Marie of Roumania. 

with apologies to Dorothy Parker, 
- terry _


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> would like to add that genetics is an exact science


sorry but I disagree - genetics is far from an exact science- if it was then we would have eradicated most genetically transferred problems - I teach kids with severe and profound disorders many of which are genetically inherited - in my 27 years of teaching I have seen incidences of severe Autism leap in number - this is a condition with an inherited factor but it is inherited in a complex far from 'exact' way

If it were as simple as lowering COI's and widening gene pools then why is our own species so riddled with genetic disease - I know of no family where at least one member has not been affected by some inherited problem even if it is as 'trivial' as short sightedness -and how many families have been devastated by an inherited predisposition to Cancer or heart conditions or Alzheimer ?

Humans are not line bred or in bred - they have VERY low COI's and certainly don't suffer from 'popular sire' syndrome !!! -and yet .......

The plain fact is that we are dealing with living organisms - of course we should be as careful as we can when breeding but we will never produce a completely gentically healthy dog - it can't be done just as it can't be done for any other species and quite frankly I am sick of the breeder bashing that goes on by folk that have never bred a litter in their lives - I'm not going to wear a hair shirt because I breed pedigree dogs that actually LOOK like the breed they are supposed to be - do I want to use inferior dogs in my breeding programme ? - hell no and if this means using the best dog around then that's what I'll do irrespective of how many other breeders use him .


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> sorry but I disagree - genetics is far from exact - if it was then we would have eradicated most genetically transferred problems - I teach kids with severe and profound disorders many of which are genetically inherited - in my 27 years of teaching I have seen incidences of severe Autism leap in number - this is a condition with an inherited factor but it is inherited in a complex far from 'exact' way
> 
> If it were as simple as lowering COI's and widening gene pools then why is our own species so riddled with genetic disease - I know of no family where at least one member has not been affected by some inherited problem even if it is as 'trivial' as short sightedness -and how many families have been devastated by an inherited predisposition to Cancer or heart conditions or Alzheimer ?
> 
> ...


I want to frame this post - it is BRILLIANT - and very much along the lines of what I was trying to say in my very hamfisted (and because of my own current family situation - way too emotional) way.

God help the dog world the day we start 'breeding by numbers alone' - yes - such calculations are useful tools - I calculate the COI over 5, 8 and 10 generation pedigree for every potential mating I think about - I've done it for friends deliberately looking specifically for outcross matings - but still ONLY where the dog can complement their bitch, almost more of a curiosity factor to confirm a belief of whether a pedigree is an outcross beyond the easily visible 5 generations.

I would be interested also to note how this 'popular sire' theory correlates with the fact that some numerically smaller breeds seemingly suffer from less hereditary conditions - and why there are few, if no documented health problems in some animal species where brother / sister matings are the norm rather than the exception.

Why do some animals in the wild with very closed gene pools, not having the benefit of preventing brother / sister, mother / father matings suffer less hereditary conditions than some of their domesticated counterparts.

There is also evidence to show that the growth of 'casual breeders' with a lack of understanding of genetic hereditability has been the the single biggest cause of an increase in genetic illnesses amongst dogs.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Bijou said:


> sorry but I disagree - genetics is far from exact - if it was then we would have eradicated most genetically transferred problems - I teach kids with severe and profound disorders many of which are genetically inherited - in my 27 years of teaching I have seen incidences of severe Autism leap in number - this is a condition with an inherited factor but it is inherited in a complex far from 'exact' way
> 
> If it were as simple as lowering COI's and widening gene pools then why is our own species so riddled with genetic disease - I know of no family where at least one member has not been affected by some inherited problem even if it is as 'trivial' as short sightedness -and how many families have been devastated by an inherited predisposition to Cancer or heart conditions or Alzheimer ?
> 
> ...


I wanted to give you rep for this post, but it won't let me!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

let's stick to dogs, bijou - 
since we have few genetic tests we can do in humans to pre-screen, and PLENTY we can do in dogs, eh? 
many of the problematic genes that are identified are not multigenic, and are avoidable. 


Bijou said:


> ...do I want to use inferior dogs in my breeding programme ? -
> hell no...


U don't have to use *inferior dogs - * 
~50% of dogs born are M; there are plenty of potential sires, many of excellent quality. just don't join 
the *Stud--Of--The--Month* club, or *This--Years--Crufts--Winner--In-My--Breed Club*. 


Bijou said:


> ...if this means using the best dog around then that's what I'll do
> irrespective of how many other breeders use him.


which is precisely how so many variant-alleles are lost... EVERYbody's dogs in a given breed 
end-up tracing back to 'this particular super-stud'. U just proved my point for me.  
and no - it's not a happy moment; i expected better, and am genuinely disappointed + discouraged. 
see ya, 
- t


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> let's stick to dogs, bijou -
> since we have few genetic tests we can do in humans to pre-screen, and PLENTY we can do in dogs, eh?
> many of the problematic genes that are identified are not multigenic, and are avoidable.
> 
> ...


Terry, I think you neatly missed the whole point of that post by Bijou, either by choice, or because you think in a different way entirely!


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

So you're telling me that there isn't a limit on how often a bitch can have a litter and register them - really - not even if part of the KC accredited breeder scheme? That is appauling to know that even an AB can overbreed their bitch!

Spellweaver - Why would any breed club want to adopt the KC's code of ethics when they are not as good as their own? Don't know about your breed but the AMCUK has much better ethics than the KC, limits on litters, age restrictions of bitch being higher for first time bred and lower for last, and no more than four litters in a lifetime - now that is a *real* code of ehtics!
The Alaskan Malamute Club of the UK

However thanks to the KC and it's lackadasical code many poor dogs will continue to be overbred and registered.

Yes - tail docking was dropped from show dogs but not by the KC (cruel as it was) the animal welfare act made it illegal so they *had* to drop it, it would still be going on today if left to the KC!

I was not referring to tail docking and the pet market - I was referring to breed standards and the show ring and how some standards for showing were at the detriment of the dog!

How anyone can condone the KC's code of ethics is beyond me, unless they themselves have a vested interest in it. Allowing litters to be registered regardless of the welfare of those litters or the dam, is very concerning. No wonder there are so many BYB's and PF's!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> So you're telling me that there isn't a limit on how often a bitch can have a litter and register them - really - not even if part of the KC accredited breeder scheme? That is appauling to know that even an AB can overbreed their bitch!


I think you have your facts wrong - there are limitations imposed on the number of litters a bitch can have and the age they can have them.

I completely agree with Mick's post


> I am not a great supporter of the Kennel Club and there are a great many things that I believe they could do much better. However, without them, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that dogs would be much worse off than they are now. The KC is by no means perfect, but leaving regulation to a body which has no real understanding of dogs (the RSPCA for example, which is as ignorant as it is arrogant) would be totally disastrous.


And add Swarthy's comment too


> There is also evidence to show that the growth of 'casual breeders' with a lack of understanding of genetic hereditability has been the the single biggest cause of an increase in genetic illnesses amongst dogs.


Public opinion is that all labs suffer from HD. It is a problem in the breed, but from the vast number of labs that I see and know, the problems are almost always in pet breed/puppy farmered/byb bred labs. Talking to people too, there is a misconception that it is a problem of the heavier show labs.... again, a complete misunderstanding - not so.

I do think CC has made some good points, but most caring breeders will be thinking along those lines.

Human nature is such that there will be those that do what they want and those that do things for the betterment of the dogs they breed. I get far more concerned about people breeding from their pets without knowledge than I do from those who do it with knowledge.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Bijou said:


> in my 27 years of teaching I have seen incidences of severe Autism leap in number


OT sorry - but do you believe this leap has any link to the MMR vaccine?


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

swarthy said:


> What rule are you talking about?
> 
> There is NO Rule on the number of litters that can be registered from a within a specified period - unless the breeder is licensed - in which case they have to abide by the 12 month rule.
> 
> ...


Rocco -I thought there were but must have misread this post - or just misunderstood it.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

[Public opinion is that all labs suffer from HD. It is a problem in the breed, but from the vast number of labs that I see and know, the problems are almost always in pet breed/puppy farmered/byb bred labs. Talking to people too, there is a misconception that it is a problem of the heavier show labs.... again, a complete misunderstanding - not so.]

I agree mostly with that and have been told by an orthopaedic surgeon that even health testing doesn't carry a guarantee of likewise pups but is better if in place.
Looking at the BRS it is alarming how many people breed and how often - would they be doing it so much if they couldn't register their stock though?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> Public opinion is that all labs suffer from HD. It is a problem in the breed, but from the vast number of labs that I see and know, the problems are almost always in pet breed/puppy farmered/byb bred labs. Talking to people too, there is a misconception that it is a problem of the heavier show labs.... again, a complete misunderstanding - not so.


Without a shadow of a doubt. It is no secret that one of my girls injured her leg and goes for weekly physio - the staff at the clinic STILL swoon over her every week, because in terms of the labs they see, she really is an anomaly - a lab that really does look like what she is - a well bred lab from good breeding stock who has just been more than a tad unlucky 

Malmum - as Rocco has pointed out - there ARE limits on breeding - my reference was to the common misconception that breeders cannot register more than one litter from a bitch in a 12 month period - this only applies when the breeder is licensed - and could explain the growth of 'unregistered' litters from KC registered breeding stock.

I never said I agree with it in general terms as a bitch needs time to recover, but then there are times when very occasionally it does happen with no detriment to the bitch.

I am led to believe in some countries, it is not uncommon to have back to back litters and then give the bitch a 2 year + break.

Increasingly also, if you sign up to the KC letters, you will see more breed specific restrictions being brought onto the AB register such as - no litters before 2/3 years of age, no litters after 6 years of age, no more than 'x' number of litters in a bitches lifetime etc -

I suspect we will see a LOT more of this coming on board as the breedclubs agree the best terms for their breeds.

This is a much more sensiible approach which says - a bitch shouldn't be mated until at least 12 months, which might be fine for some smaller breeds but not for larger ones - or for litter numbers where average litter sizes are generally small rather than the possible 12 to 14 or so pups which can happen in other breeds.

Some breeds it might be easy to have a litter off a 7 or 8 year old healthy bitch - whereas others you simply wouldn't dream of it.

The more breed specific these rules become will undoubtedly benefit all breeds and responsible breeders.

Just like I actually like your idea of it stating on the registration paperwork that no health tests have been done for health tests considered mandatory under the ABS membership - it's not perfect - but it would be a darn good starting point.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Looking at the BRS it is alarming how many people breed and how often - would they be doing it so much if they couldn't register their stock though?


I only have gundog BRS and tbh, only look at labs, so can't really comment. There are one or two (and considering it has the highest registrations of all breeds by far) that ring alarm bells, but nothing that would cause worry overall. I honestly don't think it would make any difference to those people - they would probably (and possibly are) simply have unregistered litters or register them with something like DLRC.


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

The KCs COE is a load of bull, they may as well not have one! Even when you report people who are CLEARLY not following it - They do nothing.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> I only have gundog BRS and tbh, only look at labs, so can't really comment. There are one or two (and considering it has the highest registrations of all breeds by far) that ring alarm bells, but nothing that would cause worry overall. I honestly don't think it would make any difference to those people - they would probably (and possibly are) simply have unregistered litters or register them with something like DLRC.


Yes I agree, I only look at the working BRS and the Malamute is being bred far too much. A one year old bitch is still a baby regardless of the breed IMO. Malamutes definitely are - all good breeders know they don't reach maturity until around three, some even longer. that's why people find them so difficult at times and re home them - if only they'd wait a little longer and they'd have a truly wonderful dog.


----------

