Search forum
Back to German Shepherd Dog
Liked top 20
ForumsGerman Shepherd Dog > Kennel Club Agrees New Approach To Caesarean Sections (27 replies)
Kennel Club Agrees New Approach To Caesarean Sections by Videx on 22 January 2011 - 15:04 |
| Kennel Club Agrees New Approach To Caesarean Sections The Kennel Club has had discussions with the major veterinary organisations over restrictions on the number of litters born by caesarean section which may be registered from an individual bitch from 2012. The Kennel Club has confirmed that it will no longer register any puppies born by caesarean section from any bitch which has previously had two such operations, except for scientifically proven welfare reasons and in such cases normally provided that the application is made prior to mating. Refusal to register a third or subsequent litters of puppies born by caesarean section would occur irrespective of whether the progeny from either of the first two operations had been registered with the Club. Following discussions with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, the organisations have agreed to advise their members that any caesarean sections which they perform on a Kennel Club registered bitch should be reported to the Kennel Club. To allow the reporting of such operations by veterinary surgeons, an additional section will be incorporated into the form which is presently completed to notify the Kennel Club of any operation which alters the natural conformation of a registered pedigree dog. This policy will become effective for all litters born on or after 1st January 2012. Further details relating to the timing of reporting by veterinary surgeons will be announced in due course. Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Communications Director, said: “Adding the reporting of litters born by caesarean section to the paperwork already used by veterinary surgeons will go a long way to enabling us to achieve our objective of improving the health and welfare of all pedigree dogs. “It is particularly vital that the Kennel Club knows as much as possible about surgical operations which alter a dog’s natural conformation, so that we can continue to ensure that only those pedigree dogs which are healthy are likely be used for future breeding.” Peter Jinman OBE, President of the RCVS, said: “We are very pleased to see that the Kennel Club is taking steps to limit the number of litters which it will register born by caesarean section from a bitch. We are keen to support this move, although in time we would very much like the limit to be reduced to one caesarean only. But this is the first step, which demonstrates that we are all working towards the same end: an improvement in health for all dogs.” The Kennel Club will amend its regulation B22c to cover the new policy regarding the registration of puppies born by caesarean section. The amended part of the regulation will read as follows: ‘The General Committee will not accept an application to register a litter when:- (5) The dam has already had two litters delivered by caesarean section, save for scientifically proven welfare reasons and this only normally provided the application is made prior to the mating.’ |
Videx by Videx on 22 January 2011 - 15:07 |
| CONTINUED:- The litter form to be completed by breeders will also be amended to incorporate the new policy. A new section will appear in red on the form asking the breeder if the litter was delivered as a result of a caesarean section, and whether this was elective or an emergency procedure. The form will request details of how many caesareans, including the litter in question, the bitch has had. Guidance notes will also appear on the litter application form/online services relating to the above under the heading ‘Caesarean Sections’ and will confirm the revised Regulation B22c. All puppies born by caesarean section will be marked accordingly in the Breed Record Supplement. The Kennel Club recognises that some breeds will be affected more than others by this new policy and intends to review its efficiency after a period of a year. |
by Sue B on 22 January 2011 - 16:54 |
Quote :- "....the organisations have agreed to advise their members that any caesarean sections which they perform on a Kennel Club registered bitch should be reported to the Kennel Club." Considering unique / individual "Identification" is not even a Mandatory requirement for KC registered dogs, can the KC please explain exactly how they expect to effectively enforce this? Without absolute proof of actual KC registered name/number of the bitch undergoing the Ceasarian section, what on earth do the KC expect any Vet to report???? The only bitches vets would be able to confidently report, are the ones which were bred by reputable breeders, who had bothered to individually identify her as a pup in their litter by Microchip and/or Tattoo and informing the KC of this number at the time of registering the litter. Once again confirming that only the reputable could be Proof Checked and thereby held accountable on this. Yet more meaningless Hot Air and point scoring B***S*** from the KC. Sue |
Sue B by windwalker18 on 24 January 2011 - 04:11 |
| While it wouldn't effect GSD's as much, such breeds as French Bulldogs, Pugs, Pekes and English Bulldogs would be slammed by that requirment as the breeding for large heads requires most litters be delivered by C section... also as others posted, without positive ID required, and Veterinarian compliance it's a lot of hot air. |
windwalker18 by Abby Normal on 24 January 2011 - 16:53 |
| Windwalker While it wouldn't effect GSD's as much, such breeds as French Bulldogs, Pugs, Pekes and English Bulldogs would be slammed by that requirment as the breeding for large heads requires most litters be delivered by C section... I think that is the whole point......they want to discourage the breeding of exaggerated features, ie overlarge heads....... They clearly do need to specify that bitches must be permanently identified by either microchip or tattoo; operating as the BVA hip scoring scheme does at present. Simple enough to include I would think. |
Abby Normal by Videx on 24 January 2011 - 19:48 |
| The Microchip is very simple to include for every pedigree puppy registered with the Kennel Club, HOWEVER - The Kennel Club are S**T scared this is a step to close to a DNA parentage test for ALL pedigree dogs, something which will certainly bring down their pedigree dogs IVORY TOWER. The Kennel Club know for certain that the DNA parentage test will certainly uncover a massive number of incorrect pedigrees amongst their Kennel Club registered dogs. Anything to do with greater emphasis on identification for pedigree dogs is shunned by the Kennel Club. It was the BVA who introduced tattoo/microchip identification requirements for all of its health screening tests, notably this was a unilateral decision by the BVA, not a joint decision with the Kennel Club. I issue a challenge to each and every pedigree dog breed here within the UK to push for a DNA parentage scheme for their breed with the Kennel Club. I guarantee they will NOT agree to introduce one, for the very reasons I have given. Look to the AKA experience to be convinced! They introduced DNA parentage tests in 1998 and suffered approx. 11% failure rate - 10 years later in 2008 they still suffered approx 5% failure rate. Because I published a LINK to a page on their website which contained this information - they have "changed it" Much to the premature relief of the UK Kennel Club. BECAUSE I COPIED THE ORIGINAL WEB PAGE - to a pdf file ha ha ha See it here: http://www.videxgsd.com/PDF/AKC%20DNA%20information.pdf when you open the pdf file "click" on the link at the top of the page to see their new changed webpage - then compare and see what they deleted. |
by bazza on 25 January 2011 - 08:31 |
| Bump |
by Abby Normal on 25 January 2011 - 10:37 |
| Doubtless the same thing will happen, but to do nothing to improve the situation in respect of identification for the future is only sticking one's head in the sand and perpetuating the problem ad infinitum. KC need to bite the bullet, and now would seem like an opportune time :) Perhaps Jemima H should pick this up, along with the issue of allowing litters from parents not within acceptable health result ranges for the breed to be registered. Time for a massive shake up IMO. Jemima? |
by Videx on 25 January 2011 - 22:47 |
| Jemima could and should run with the "identification" issue. Identification by means of Microchip and DNA Parentage tests are at the very foundation of ALL health tests. Without such clear and known identification both physical (microchip) and genetic (DNA parentage test) how can anyone be certain of the pedigree and therefore the hereditary questions about any found genetic mutations in a dog through any DNA tests. It is clear that DNA tests for numerous diseases is the future for the health of pedigree dogs. Therefore DNA Parentage and microchip identification is absolutely essential. All pedigree dog club committees and everyone involved in any pedigree dog breed should strongly support a campaign for such identification. If they do not, the question must be asked, what have they got to hide? The Animal Health Trust (AHT) can facilitate a DNA Parentage Test scheme. |
by Abby Normal on 27 January 2011 - 10:03 |
| IMO The issue of allowing litters from parents not within acceptable health result ranges (or not tested) to be registered, is more important in the short term, with mandatory tattoo/microchip ID requirements. I agree the KC should plan to move to DNA ID in the longer term. DNA testing for the purpose of identifying genetically inherited conditions is performed on an actual dog's DNA, and so ancestral DNA in this regard I don't see as particularly relevant. When a dog is labelled ‘clear by parentage’ for a particular disease identification is extremely important, but again, identification by microchip or tattoo should be adequate. DNA testing at the AH requires this identification. Obviously the blood tests for all DNA health testing should be carried out by a properly licensed vet or or organisation like the AHT, identification recorded – by them, and then the sample sent to the appropriate lab by the vet or AHT to preserve the integrity of the identification. Results to KC to be registered, as with existing tests. JMO |
by Member on 27 January 2011 - 10:45 |
Identification is a must and should be used in all Health Checks but without DNA which is in turn linked to the parents and as many relatives as possible it is useless. Very shortly we are going to be informed about a Breed Worth valuation here in the UK and promoted by the UK Kennel Club these values are going to be based on pedigrees not on individual DNA taken from just the parents . Without any knowledge of the correct parents of all the dogs in these pedigrees through the lack of DNA I cannot see the value. The German ZW (Breed Worth) for Hips and Elbows is based on the knowledge that in recent years DNA is compulsory. |
by Videx on 27 January 2011 - 13:53 |
| A DNA test for the purpose of "identifying genetically inherited conditions" MUST be supported by a DNA Parentage test. EVERYONE will then know that the sample for DNA health screening can ALSO be used, randomly or otherwise, to check it is from the correct animal, by checking the DNA parentage profile. The phrase "genetically inherited" screams out for the accurate DNA Parentage check. Many diseases, JRD for example, can readily be traced back, however the use of accurate DNA parentage test/result will greatly assist. Chasing ghosts is not an option. The AKA suffered an 11% failure rate in DNA parentage tests in 1998 - they still suffered a 5% failure rate in 2008. I sincerely believe that the Kennel Club will PUSH the line - DNA Parentage Tests are a "longer term objective" - of course then one only has to ask, "how long is a piece of string" The KC will "string" us along for many many years. I can hear it now from Caroline Kisko - "DNA parentage Tests are a long term goal" BULLSHIT! |
by Abby Normal on 27 January 2011 - 16:37 |
| John Identification is a must and should be used in all Health Checks but without DNA which is in turn linked to the parents and as many relatives as possible it is useless. If you mean without DNA ID, then I disagree. I can have a dog with unknown parentage tested for a specific condition, lets say PD for example, and know - without any knowledge of parentage - whether MY DOG carries the gene, and with that information I can avoid reproducing that disease. Pretty useful I think! For those diseases which there are currently no tests for, ancestral accuracy becomes more important, especially if certain diseases are suspected in certain lines, but for existing DNA tests, no. If you are prioritising a move towards breed worth which may be introduced, then of course DNA ID would be necessary, for then ancestry would prove crucial. However, unless all a dog's progeny are tested, isnt the ZW to a large degree inaccurate in any case? It does explain though why some people have a desire to prioritise DNA Identification, over more immediate health concerns. IMO DNA ID is a MUCH lesser concern than the current health testing (with bad results or lack of) being bred from and resulting litters being allowed to be registered. Edited to add: Additionally, focusing on the health testing issue would be of immediate benefit to a range of breeds and not just the GSD. |
by Videx on 27 January 2011 - 18:07 |
| I recognise once again it is pointless debating woth people who consistently illustrate a severe case of "tunnel vision". |
by Sue B on 27 January 2011 - 19:24 |
David, Tunnel Vision you say, simply have to disagree with you there as the gift of Second Sight has been clearly illustrated here!!  Abby, in reply to John.W (member) you said, "I can have a dog with unknown parentage tested for a specific condition, lets say PD for example, and know - without any knowledge of parentage - whether MY DOG carries the gene, and with that information I can avoid reproducing that disease." Lets examine that statement, warts and all. Firstly, a dog with unknown parentage is a Mongrel. Secondly, the only way that statement works (i.e. that you could avoid reproducing that disease by testing a dog with unknown parents) is to NEVER breed from that dog. Which you could do without testing for a specific condition, after all, if you are going to discard the dog from the gene pool if it carries the gene for one specific condition why stop there?? After all, it goes without saying that every living thing (and dogs are no exception) will carry the gene for some genetic defect / disease, so as I have said many times before, the only sure way not to produce a fault is NOT to breed (full stop) !! Now for the only sure way of actually tracing faults in bloodlines is as David and John rightly suggest, thats to first ID the parents and progeny with Microchip and secondly to DNA the progeny for proof of parentage. That way once a genetic fault is established by DNA profiling to specific bloodlines, then breeders are more able to make informed choices when it comes to deciding on a suitable mate. I do hope I have sufficiently explained what I mean in a way you will understand why DNA tests to prove parentage is invaluable when used correctly to identify genetic defects passed down through generations. Regards Sue B |
by Videx on 27 January 2011 - 20:57 |
| succinct and absolutely correct Sue |
by bazza on 27 January 2011 - 22:06 |
| I sincerely hope you would not reproduce any way with a dog of unknown parentage!!!! |
by Videx on 28 January 2011 - 10:20 |
| The DNA Parentage Test is the only way to prove the parentage of a pedigree dog. This requires a DNA parentage test SYSTEM, similar to the SV system to be introduced here in the UK. As the records of DNA Parentage tested dogs build up over the years, it will accumulate the number of dogs in pedigrees that have been actually DNA Parentage tested and therefore PROVE the pedigrees through the generations. We have the science - why don't we use it? answer = Because the KC ivory tower would crumble under the strain of the many failures. remember AKA in the USA 11% failures in 1998 and still having 5% failure in 2008. That is 5 out of every 100 tested that failed = parentage INCORRECT. How can you call them "Pedigree Dogs"???? This is by far superior than a breeder having on the bottom of a pedigree (not all have this) To the best of my knowledge this pedigree is correct: Is it? How do you know? Prove it! Based on trust is it? are all thoughts that come to mind. |
by blackfurbabe on 28 January 2011 - 17:18 |
| Imo No bitch should be bred again if it has had 2 caesarean sections,no matter what breed, it is not a natural way,these dogs would die if it was not for the operation.IMO a bitch having to have this operation is seriously at risk of complications/infections so on and so forth, I totally agree all dogs should have ID trace- able to the breeder and /or owner.. DNA is not an expensive test. it would insure parentage is true, I am going to DNA my dogs asap. Videx you are right,thank you for explaining all that, how does anyone know if a pedigree is correct,when they purchase from a stranger or even someone they know. This is just my opinion,no slamming please. |
by Abby Normal on 31 January 2011 - 10:11 |
| For those diseases which there are currently no tests for, ancestral accuracy becomes more important, especially if certain diseases are suspected in certain lines, but for existing DNA tests, no. SueB I have not suggested that DNA ID shouldn't be carried out at all, but that there are more immediate concerns that can be addressed in respect of health testing with the microchip/tattoo methods we currently have, and I agree that where other defects that are suspected, but that there is not currently a test for, it is very useful for (see above). Secondly, the only way that statement works (i.e. that you could avoid reproducing that disease by testing a dog with unknown parents) is to NEVER breed from that dog. Exactly, I could decide not breed from that dog as I now have certain knowledge that it carries a defect for that condition, thereby avoiding reproducing the disease (that's the whole point Sue). Alternatively I could breed to a clear dog, and then select clear to clear in the future. Yes, Sue, I know a dog of unknown parentage is called a mongrel, and I love them! (but no, I don't breed them!) the statement about a dog of unknown parentage (as you all well know) was to illustrate that genetic tests for speciific defects are based on the dog in front of you, not it's ancestors, so Bazza - you're being silly, of course one wouldn't breed from it. |
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!