How do we get 'ALL KENNELS' to health screen? - Page 1

Over recent months there have been several threads on here about improving the GSD in the UK and what needs to be done.

On receiving the KC Breed Supplement a couple of weeks ago, I was horrified to find 4 out of 5 siblings scores were horrific.  Having spent quite a bit of time reseaching both on the KC discs and on here for german imports I have a pedigree that no owner would wish to acknowledge.  On the mothers side I found 3 dogs with no evidence of screening and 1 with a score of 39 - not bad out of 7 dogs, which basically gives 4/7 dogs that should not have been bred from.

The KC should be made to recognise that Health screening is a MUST and that the GSD has been scoring for enough years that more than the parents should be screened and achieved a sensible score.  No longer should they be allowed to get away with the soft touch that they've had.  Also the mother of the litter has achieved a stud book number and multiple wins - all things that should NEVER be given to a dog with no screening.

If anyone would like to add their voice to this issue I would appreciate it.  I will be writing to the KC about this issue and the breed council too.  After all the KC are stating that they are going to work to improve our breed, but they dont appear to have enough backbone to help us erradicate this kind of issue.

easy make it mandatory not health screened no registration of pups

Please see the thread:  "NEWS Regarding the GSD in the UK".  I have "bumped" it to the top of the board.

It's a waste of time writing to the KC but if you can persuade your MP to do so... great, because they actually reply to them!

Our BC are doing their best I believe but ultimately, it's down to the KC. 

Many rules, regulations and laws can be created to deal with this issue such as..........

Only animals that have a clear health screen (yearly) can be registered and shown.

Breeders who breed or show a dog without health screens to be banned from the industry.

Animals who clearly fail the health screen to be altered before leaving the Dr's office.

People who breed animals with bad hips/elbows, or other congenital defects to be identified and the details posted on front page of national newspaper.

How far does one want to take this issue?

Buyers must be informed, and informed, and informed and (did I mention informed).......... about the medical costs, animal's pain and heartache, etc. associated with purchasing any animal without proper health screenings. (cats, dogs, horses, etc....).

Once informed, if a buyer decides to purchase such an animal, then the buyer is just as responsible as breeder for this mess. As long as people continue buying these animals, these animals will continue to be bred.

it has been a fact for as long as i can remember that the KC in the UK are interested in one thing and one thing only MONEY and i cant for the life of me see that change, they do not have the welfare of pedigree dogs at heart only how much can we charge the breeders and make MONEY, and until we can set that straight nothing will happen to help further the health of pedigree dogs in this country.

jim h

Sadly whilst the KC are in command we probably never will get all breeders to health screen, from their perspective its easy, all they have to do is give breeders notification of a time limit to screen all future breeding stock of say one year, THEN any litter registrations with both parents NOT screened for breed specific health issues & coming within set guidelines, will simply be refused registration, providing ample time is given with full information on all KC documents/websites this could be very easily put in place...sadly the biggest hurdle is to convince the kennel club to do anything that 'might' loose them revenue.

Another thought would be to bring in rules saying that any dog shown over a certain age, has to have proof of having had & passed its breed health screening sent in with show entries.

It is tragic that they still have the gaul to put themselves up as an organisation set up for the improvement & good of pedigree dogs, talk about hypocrytical .

 Judges have a lot to answer for, in our breed alone dogs known to have well above breed average hip scores are still being given CC's, when CC's are at an all time low numbers wise, why are judges scandering them on dogs that should never be allowed ( hopefully) to feature in the breed gene pool, have they not the balls to with hold if there are honestly no better dogs in contention ? FAR better then promoting animals that are exactly what breeds do NOT want, genes wise.

Singe - I like the idea of presenting health checks with show entries, and the judges should be checking on the day too, then anything with above above mean and even more so cricket scores would not be receiving CC's would be a fantastic step forward in the breed.  Especially as many "Joe Public" see the show results as a sign of a really good dog.

Liebe - untill Joe public stop buying from stock not health tested, unregistered stock and the KC stop allowing people to register progeny from sire/dam not tested or tested but high scores then nothing will change, recently seen a bitch advertised as having a score of 11 when in fact the KC have no record of recieving any results from this bitch.

Even if people had to present certificates for hips/elbows toi show their dogs how many of all the dogs/bitches that produce registered progeny in the UK actualy show their dogs? this would probably have very little impact. In the 90's there used to be lots of dogs around with 0:0 scores, these days you are lucky if there are 2-3 a year.

Pam

Wildmore.

I also remember many more 0:0 scores years ago, is it perhaps the influence of the German breeding where the 'a' stamp etc encompasses a far wider range hip status then our actual numerical scores ? Something that has also always puzzled me is that IF more dogs are being scored why is it that the mean score has remained EXACTLY the same for years & years ???? surely we should be seeing some variation be it good or bad?

I agree with your comments on how many people show & that it wouldn't make much difference, but I also agree with Liebe saying that 'Jo'Public' assume dogs that win are good dogs worthy of being bred from, therefore at least if some system was brought in that health certs etc had to be shown at shows, at least it would ensure that the dogs being shown & winning were at least health screened & IF the KC could be persuaded that its their duty to enforce health screening within all breeds then things might improve, providing it was all publicised not just within the dog fraturnity but in places were the puppy buying public would learn about new rulings then hopefully, eventually the  irrisponsible breeder & puppy farms would either have to clean up their act or not sell or produce so many litters.

Oh for an ideal world