There are three problems with this...Hip scores are not yet proven genetic, two dogs with 0/0 hips can produce a dog with poor hips but from the same litter have a dog with good hips and dogs with poor hips have been known to have good hips in their offspring. Until a common genetic patern is made I doubt the kennel club will act.

Alot of vets give their opinion on the xrays before sending them off to the BVA so a dog with poor hips can get away without anyone knowing because hip scores are not mandatory.

The BVA keep changing the "average" hip scores so for example 18 was average 2 years ago so dogs were bred from with hips like this now its 16 so they are now classed as above "average".

I have herd stories of people going to one vet and getting a heigh hip score but going to another vet and getting one below average. Its down to the vet and the experiance too.

Also you will find a good breeder will not breed from a dog with poor hips.

I believe the kennel club and BVA should work together on this but hip scores are still very hazy.

I believe that a couple of points above isnt the end of the world but I know of a sheltie (the average is 16) who was bred from even though its hips were 24. (17/7) thats not right...at least in my opinion.

I agree that children should be taught responsible pet ownership when at school but who will do it? Teachers have a full curriculum as it is and the education authority will not be interested in adding such teaching to already overworked teachers.

WE, animal lovers are the ones who can help in this area. When my ex OH used to keep many different reptiles I used to take them to our local school on Friday afternoons to explain how they should be kept, their natural environment and the way they reproduce. I took snakes, gheko's, iguana's, bearded dragons, water dragons, tortoises, tarantulas, praying mantis and many more. the children loved it and so did the teachers.

I thoroughly enjoyed it too, the children were very interested and did subjects on their favourite creatures. It's not hard to get children interested in animals and sometimes their parents don't have any so it was an added bonus for them.

__________________

Flynn - Kali - Britches - Bruce - T-Bo - Marty



"For the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack"

solutions to breeding problems are rarely 'black and white' - I hear what you're saying about the KC and that it should insist on only registering dogs with good health tests but every dog that fails it's test and is eliminated from breeding programmes narrows the gene pools down even further - and whilst you can breed for good hips or eyes for example, by using a restricted gene pool, you also stand a good chance of introducing some other genetic 'nasty' - we cannot square this particular circle - each test introduced restricts our choices even further - breeders must be allowed to use test results as part of the information they use when breeding but not breed soley on test results - for example the sire of my last litter did not have his current annual eye test - but I chose him because he was epilepsy free ( am MUCH bigger problem in my breed ) - had good hips , bone and construction , an excellent temperament , and great breed type - eyes are not a problem in my breed , so as I breeder I weighed up the information I had and made my decision - if the KC had refused registraion because he did not have a current eye test then I would not have had the option to use him ( I've just had his daughter eye tested and she's come back clear )

it is simply not possible to constantly introduce new health tests and then eliminate all dogs with poor results - our gene pools would very quickly become unviable !!

The kennel club have no powers to enforce anything. The only health tests they can insist are done, are for members of the ABS where a particular test or tests is/are required. If the breeder hasn't got these test(s) in place, the KC can refuse to register the pups, but they still can't stop anyone from breeding. The KC are a registration body, not a policing or enforcement body as such, and I personally would prefer they stick to that, and only enforce the ABS rules. They've made great headway helping to educate people to buy from good breeders, it's up to the public to do their research. Unfortunately, even when you tell people the breeder they're looking at buying a pup from isn't that ethical, they will still buy a pup from them because it's the breed/colour etc they want, and it's convenient for them. I get a number of regular emails asking for chocolate Labrador pups, and although I offer to help and give people the information they need about the breed, very rarely do they take me up on the offer, and if I do look at a breeder for them, and tell them I wouldn't contact them personally and give reason(s) why, then I generally don't hear from them again.

Sorry Aannas09, I'm not sure what your point is with this? Were all the predecessors of this spaniel health tested? Health is nothing to do with KC registration, and, in fact, by far the most people who health test are those who show, closely followed by growing numbers of those who work I'd say, who obviously breed KC pedigree registered dogs for the main part. These are the people at the fore front, the only others who health test are hobby breeders, and anyone who wants to pull the wool over the buying publics' eyes. I know of several ABS breeders I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, because they're breeding for the wrong reasons. And yet, at the very least, they are breeding healthy examples (generally) that keep the gene pool broad. Breeding non-KC dogs that have no health tests in place doesn't really help any breed??

No they don't, they have the power to refuse to register litters, it's only if you're a member of the ABS and you breed more than the rules say, that they can do anything; even then, they can't stop you from breeding further litters, only remove you from the ABS and then you can register as many as you like up to a point. Many puppy farmers and byb's get round this by breeding a pedigree litter one season, and a fashionable cross breed the next.

Apologies annas09, I misread your post. I'm still not sure what your point is generally, many breeds have very healthy representatives that are shown, Labs to name but one

Umm, no, they simply don't register the pups with the KC, and then dupe buyers into believing they're just bred for pets, and, besides, all those pedigree dogs are inbred and unhealthy, right? They can still breed as many litters as they like.

Taking your first point, health tests should not be used as a tick box for breeding ie, all clear/low then I can breed. The whole dog needs to be taken into account, one of the more recent show Labradors, that achieved highly in working as well, gaining his SGWC, has higher hip scores than the BMS. Does that mean we should reject his fabulous conformation, temperament and proven working ability from the gene pool? Or do we use that information to our advantage, to breed to a lower scored dog. Particularly when you bear in mind that a high hip score does not necessarily mean the dog shows any outward signs of dysplasia, for that reason, each dog should really be taken as an individual, and assessed accordingly.

You can no longer become a member of the ABS simply by paying, the scheme has it's flaws, but the KC are trying at least to put something in place and close loop holes.

Of course there's a difference between a KC pedigree dog and a non-registered dog, a KC dog will have a history that you can trace, and, if bred by someone ethical, it should be a good representative of it's breed. That's why education is the key, many believe, to trying to stop all the unecessary breeding, cross breeding for the sake of a daft name, or just because you don't know any better etc.

No you can't.

The idea behind the scheme is to make things more apparent. If you would only want dogs with hip scores below the BMS would you reject one that scored 1 point over?

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous statement to make. There MAY be no or little difference, but it's unlikely. Even without the ABS, around 50% of KC registered dogs are health tested before breeding. The number of unregistered dogs being health tested before breeding is negligible.

The reasoning behind that is that the KC want to encourage people to health test. By refusing kc registration to all but health tested puppies, this could severely deplete gene pools. You only have to look to Europe to see how this happens. In my breed, so many come over here to find studs because of these restrictions leading to fewer dogs being kc registered.