This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Dingodog on 23 January 2010 - 12:01
Jamesie said : If you read my first post on this thread i stated why some breeders do not health test the blame for this lies with the KC
This is a very interesting thread. I am not surprised that people within the BC/GSD partnership are giving out this information/breeding without what I would consider the most paramount of health tests. However, what amazes me most of all is the statement above. That it is the KC's fault that breeders do not health test. NO IT ISN'T, IT IS THE BREEDERS FAULT. Especially when those breeders have involvement in the breed clubs and councils who certainly know better. Instead of blaming the KC, all breeders who represent themselves, here and elsewhere as champions and protectors of the breed, should take responsibility for their actions, and personally I think that anyone connected with the breed in this way who chooses to ignore certain health tests should be dismissed from any 'office' (voluntary or otherwise) that they hold.
The breed council's web page shows this under the tab 'Breed Improvement Scheme'
Breed Improvement Schemes
Hip Dysplasia
The National Dog Tattoo Scheme
Haemophilia A
They represent themselves as the collective voice for the GSD in the UK. Well they are not saying much of any value are they???
GSD League website:
Breeder incentives - to advertise requires HD below 19 and males Haemophilia clear. They do have a tab covering DM and HD - but again, that's it.
Is that all that is needed to improve the breed? To my mind that is the absolute BARE minimum of health tests. There is no information given about the host of other ailments that beset the breed, and no advice about them. Where might I ask is the mention of ED??? What about PD, Epilepsy, DM, AF, Eye diseases etc ? When I first saw this I simply couldn't believe it. I notice much mention on this board of the representations that have been made to the KC about implementing mandatory health tests and how the KC have 'ignored' these representations, but no mention of any of this under the Breed Improvement Scheme page, (which is a real misnomer). Why are these representations not mentioned on the BC webpage and listed as recommendations? Exactly what health testing has been asked for as mandatory? Just HD & Haemophilia?
Every breeder can have the full range of health testing done if they choose to. This is what it is all about - CHOICE - let's not kid ourselves that it is the Kennel Club's fault - and if they really care about the health and welfare of the breed, they would. The bigger question is why they don't?
Yes, if the KC introduced mandatory health testing it would bring most breeders into line, but this should not have to apply to those people so 'connected' to the breed clubs, and allegedly their health and welfare. What on earth is going on here? It seems to me that both of these websites seem far more dedicated to showing and winning than they do to promoting the health and welfare of the breed.
This is a very interesting thread. I am not surprised that people within the BC/GSD partnership are giving out this information/breeding without what I would consider the most paramount of health tests. However, what amazes me most of all is the statement above. That it is the KC's fault that breeders do not health test. NO IT ISN'T, IT IS THE BREEDERS FAULT. Especially when those breeders have involvement in the breed clubs and councils who certainly know better. Instead of blaming the KC, all breeders who represent themselves, here and elsewhere as champions and protectors of the breed, should take responsibility for their actions, and personally I think that anyone connected with the breed in this way who chooses to ignore certain health tests should be dismissed from any 'office' (voluntary or otherwise) that they hold.
The breed council's web page shows this under the tab 'Breed Improvement Scheme'
Breed Improvement Schemes
Hip Dysplasia
The National Dog Tattoo Scheme
Haemophilia A
They represent themselves as the collective voice for the GSD in the UK. Well they are not saying much of any value are they???
GSD League website:
Breeder incentives - to advertise requires HD below 19 and males Haemophilia clear. They do have a tab covering DM and HD - but again, that's it.
Is that all that is needed to improve the breed? To my mind that is the absolute BARE minimum of health tests. There is no information given about the host of other ailments that beset the breed, and no advice about them. Where might I ask is the mention of ED??? What about PD, Epilepsy, DM, AF, Eye diseases etc ? When I first saw this I simply couldn't believe it. I notice much mention on this board of the representations that have been made to the KC about implementing mandatory health tests and how the KC have 'ignored' these representations, but no mention of any of this under the Breed Improvement Scheme page, (which is a real misnomer). Why are these representations not mentioned on the BC webpage and listed as recommendations? Exactly what health testing has been asked for as mandatory? Just HD & Haemophilia?
Every breeder can have the full range of health testing done if they choose to. This is what it is all about - CHOICE - let's not kid ourselves that it is the Kennel Club's fault - and if they really care about the health and welfare of the breed, they would. The bigger question is why they don't?
Yes, if the KC introduced mandatory health testing it would bring most breeders into line, but this should not have to apply to those people so 'connected' to the breed clubs, and allegedly their health and welfare. What on earth is going on here? It seems to me that both of these websites seem far more dedicated to showing and winning than they do to promoting the health and welfare of the breed.
by jaymesie51 on 23 January 2010 - 12:01
Hi Dingodog it is without doubt the KC's fault that health testing is not done on all breeding stock if they made it mandatory to health test parents before registering their offspring then most if not all would have to health test if they wanted to KC register there stock jo-public will buy registered stock first so it would make sence to health test the parents to ensure that the pups you are not keeping will indeed find good homes. Most breeders that exhibit there stock do infact health test its the ones who dont show or work there dogs but breed umpteen litters per year that dont,, also the puppy farmers who breed any type of dog to any type of bitch now if they had to health test before they could register most would clean up their act or find something else to do
jim h
jim h
by Member on 23 January 2010 - 13:01
Most dedicated and genuine breeders will I am sure promote all the health checks but how many of these make up the annual registration totals of our breed ? The only way in other countries they have been able to regulate and control the breeding of German Shepherds to such high standards is for the governing body (in our case it would be the KC) to only register dogs from health checked parents ( with agreed mininum requirements) also in addition they incorporate breed surveys and working qualifications to be part of the total package. As Jim quite rightly explains this overall responsability lies with the UK kennel club. If only they would allow breed clubs to manage their own breed ie( Breed Council) or (GSDP) and to report into them their findings and recommendations as is done elsewhere in the world and work together we would not be in the mess we find ourselves in today. The atitude taken by the KC that things will be done their way and they know best is the problem. It is the case that the KC are to blame, if they want to be in charge then the buck stops with them.
by Aileen Ann Mathieson on 23 January 2010 - 14:01
Personally, I believe it is BOTH THE BREEDERS (whatever discipline they are in) and THE KENNEL CLUB that share the blame for the lacking in health tests across the board - both have to take responsibility.
ALL BREEDRS who breed animals should do every test available and then stick by the results and the KC should make it Mandatory. However, the KC are no longer prepared to listen to the Breeders, the Clubs or the Partnership. They have done a body swerve round the BC and the Partnership now and gone straight to the Clubs - that is very devious and cunning is it not. This means they now put pressure on the Members of the Clubs to make a MAJOR DECISION for the BREED IN THIS COUNTRY - absolutely unacceptable.
Health Tests for all breeds of dogs should become LAW and MANDATORY thus forcing the KC and Breeders to comply therefore at least this would be a forward step to healthier dogs - hopefully the Bateson Report and the APGAW Reports will eventually force their hands, along with continued pressure from us ALL.
On a personal note I bred a young bitch in 2002 with a great hip score to a beautiful dog (not my dog) who had good hips too, but she produced ONE PUPPY out of 8 living pups (12 born) which had PANCREATIC INSUFFICIENCY. The one lucky thing about this was WE kept this puppy back as she was the only short coat black and tan female puppy in the litter. Once she had a firm diagnosis I dressed both mum and puppy at the appropriate age and stopped breeding from this bitch. I was castigated by a few for dressing the mother, but why should I be castigated for doing the right thing. It takes 2 to produce a PI puppy and both mother and father carry the gene for this disease. I made sure she never produced this again and that her daughter would not have puppies either, why would I breed from a SICK DOG. The puppy remains with us today at the age of 8 years old, thriving on her daily medication and loving life. I have had no reports back from the owners of the other 7 puppies whether they have had this disease or not, but if I had sold that puppy on I may have been in a lot of trouble especially these days as owners are more ready to take you to court on these issues than they were years ago.
Maybe one day there will be a pre-screening test for PI and I do hope for all other canine diseases, I may not see it in my lifetime though. I may be very harsh here, but I believe that any animal carrying or being found to carry any genetic disease should be spayed to prevent further damage to the breed. It does not mean they cannot live a good life as a pet or in some cases working dogs depending on the disease of course. NO ANIMAL UNDER THE AGE OF 2 YEARS SHOULD BE BRED FROM AND NOT UNTIL ALL TESTS AVAILABLE ARE USED.
In the future I will USE EVERY TEST THAT COMES into being so that my dogs have a decent chance in life.
Also, the most important issue is that any Breeder should demand to see ALL HEALTH PAPERS for intended Stud Dogs & VICE VERSA on the bitch, and work with each other to produce healthy dogs, too many times in the past the health of some dogs and bitches have been hidden or lies have been told and some have fallen for it and the results have been disasterous. If in doubt DON'T DO IT, find a stud with the appropriate tests, check his papers and make sure you test your bitches up to the hilt before you breed.
I would rather have an occasional health litter or none, than mass produce for the money, but to many it is a money making issue, not a health issue.
Here's to a brighter future by making HEALTH TESTS MANDATORY whichever WAY it takes to do so.
Aile
ALL BREEDRS who breed animals should do every test available and then stick by the results and the KC should make it Mandatory. However, the KC are no longer prepared to listen to the Breeders, the Clubs or the Partnership. They have done a body swerve round the BC and the Partnership now and gone straight to the Clubs - that is very devious and cunning is it not. This means they now put pressure on the Members of the Clubs to make a MAJOR DECISION for the BREED IN THIS COUNTRY - absolutely unacceptable.
Health Tests for all breeds of dogs should become LAW and MANDATORY thus forcing the KC and Breeders to comply therefore at least this would be a forward step to healthier dogs - hopefully the Bateson Report and the APGAW Reports will eventually force their hands, along with continued pressure from us ALL.
On a personal note I bred a young bitch in 2002 with a great hip score to a beautiful dog (not my dog) who had good hips too, but she produced ONE PUPPY out of 8 living pups (12 born) which had PANCREATIC INSUFFICIENCY. The one lucky thing about this was WE kept this puppy back as she was the only short coat black and tan female puppy in the litter. Once she had a firm diagnosis I dressed both mum and puppy at the appropriate age and stopped breeding from this bitch. I was castigated by a few for dressing the mother, but why should I be castigated for doing the right thing. It takes 2 to produce a PI puppy and both mother and father carry the gene for this disease. I made sure she never produced this again and that her daughter would not have puppies either, why would I breed from a SICK DOG. The puppy remains with us today at the age of 8 years old, thriving on her daily medication and loving life. I have had no reports back from the owners of the other 7 puppies whether they have had this disease or not, but if I had sold that puppy on I may have been in a lot of trouble especially these days as owners are more ready to take you to court on these issues than they were years ago.
Maybe one day there will be a pre-screening test for PI and I do hope for all other canine diseases, I may not see it in my lifetime though. I may be very harsh here, but I believe that any animal carrying or being found to carry any genetic disease should be spayed to prevent further damage to the breed. It does not mean they cannot live a good life as a pet or in some cases working dogs depending on the disease of course. NO ANIMAL UNDER THE AGE OF 2 YEARS SHOULD BE BRED FROM AND NOT UNTIL ALL TESTS AVAILABLE ARE USED.
In the future I will USE EVERY TEST THAT COMES into being so that my dogs have a decent chance in life.
Also, the most important issue is that any Breeder should demand to see ALL HEALTH PAPERS for intended Stud Dogs & VICE VERSA on the bitch, and work with each other to produce healthy dogs, too many times in the past the health of some dogs and bitches have been hidden or lies have been told and some have fallen for it and the results have been disasterous. If in doubt DON'T DO IT, find a stud with the appropriate tests, check his papers and make sure you test your bitches up to the hilt before you breed.
I would rather have an occasional health litter or none, than mass produce for the money, but to many it is a money making issue, not a health issue.
Here's to a brighter future by making HEALTH TESTS MANDATORY whichever WAY it takes to do so.
Aile
by Wildmoor on 23 January 2010 - 14:01
Sorry Jim and John
But you can not let All the blame be put on the KC; just in the Show fraternity how many breeders elbow score their breeding stock whether under the BVA scheme or the SV, not as many as you think I can assure you, especially under the BVA, considering the amount of years since its inception. In fact if you check you will find those breeding for coat/colour are quickly surmounting the show breeders and certainly more numerous than the working fraternity.
I agree on the point that the KC should have long ago made all relevant health tests for the breed Mandatory before registering any progeny. In fact, it would be better if they just maintained the breed register and a specialist non-biased group were in charge of whether a particular mating could go ahead. This would be to make sure all health tests were completed before mating and the pedigrees were compatible and checked by geneticist and cynologists to ensure the breed could continue forward with Health and Temperament foremost in mind no matter what type/line.
Pam
But you can not let All the blame be put on the KC; just in the Show fraternity how many breeders elbow score their breeding stock whether under the BVA scheme or the SV, not as many as you think I can assure you, especially under the BVA, considering the amount of years since its inception. In fact if you check you will find those breeding for coat/colour are quickly surmounting the show breeders and certainly more numerous than the working fraternity.
I agree on the point that the KC should have long ago made all relevant health tests for the breed Mandatory before registering any progeny. In fact, it would be better if they just maintained the breed register and a specialist non-biased group were in charge of whether a particular mating could go ahead. This would be to make sure all health tests were completed before mating and the pedigrees were compatible and checked by geneticist and cynologists to ensure the breed could continue forward with Health and Temperament foremost in mind no matter what type/line.
Pam
by Mark3 on 23 January 2010 - 15:01
Picking up on Dingodog’s points about websites, this is a good example of a proactive and dedicated resource to drive forward health improvement in one’s breed.
www.ashgi.org/index.htm
www.ashgi.org/index.htm
by jaymesie51 on 23 January 2010 - 16:01
OK the point i am trying to make is if you did not have the choice to breed from untested stock then all breeding stock would be tested. Now the only way to make this happen is for the KC to make it mandatory which they refuse to do because they will lose money, which it is obvious is there main concern, certainly not the health and welfare of pedigree dogs so yes it is the KC to blame because they will register stock from untested parents so more money in there coffers.We all know if you break the law and get caught you will suffer the consequences if we make health testing of parents mandatory and you use dogs which are not tested then you suffer the consequences because you can not register the pups imo that will go a long long way to ensuring most if not all puppies born will be from health tested parents
jim h
jim h
by petowner on 23 January 2010 - 16:01
I agree with Aileen that both breeders and the kennel club should take responsibility for the health testing of all dogs although the fact remains that breeders cannot force the kennel club to do anything BUT the kennel club CAN force the breeders !!!!.
Aileen you said both sire and dam had to carry the gene for PI ?, I have to question that because I know of 2 dogs from different lines in my county, one in the late 80's and one later that produced PI quite badly to the majority of bitches they were mated with, however the bitches did not produce it to other sires.
Aileen you said both sire and dam had to carry the gene for PI ?, I have to question that because I know of 2 dogs from different lines in my county, one in the late 80's and one later that produced PI quite badly to the majority of bitches they were mated with, however the bitches did not produce it to other sires.
by Dingodog on 23 January 2010 - 17:01
I agree completely that the KC need to make health testing mandatory - no argument from me there, and I think it will happen in the future. The point I am trying to make is that everybody seems to lay all the blame at the door of the KC. I am not a big fan of the KC, but I really find that this blaming of the faceless KC sticks in my throat. I reiterate, breeders have had the choice (and the chance) for many years to health test for many more defects than HD and Haemophilia, and thus improve health in the GSD. For arguments sake, lets just take the 'good' breeders, not BYB or Puppy Farmers - have they taken the lead? No, why not? Because the KC didn't make them? This should be the desire and goal of all GSD breeders, not a situation where they will only do it if 'made' to.
This thread refers to certain individuals who are considered to be knowledgeable in the breed and have held or do hold positions within the BC/Council, and are giving 'advice', and allegedly breeding litters without even the minimum health tests recommended. Horrifying. People of this 'standing' should be leading the way, but it seems not - WHY?
Why are health issues not promoted/discussed on the websites? Are there any copies of the recommendations for mandatory health testing that they have put to the KC on websites? No. WHY NOT? As I said, there has been a huge number of statements that the BC has been pressing for mandatory health testing, and that they have led the way in promoting health testing. It does not appear that way to me. I hear it being said, but I don't see anything of the kind mentioned on the websites. I am truly concerned that the 'collective voice for the GSD in the UK' does not address
anything but minimal health issues, and doesn't appear to say very much at all in fact. Can somebody please explain WHY?
Let's get really specific and choose one particular condition just for an example - elbows. Someone 'in the breed' advised that elbows are not a problem in GSD's - that's news to me. As far as I am aware it is a growing problem. Why is ED not even mentioned on any of the websites, and why are so few breeders testing for it? Plenty of space is devoted to showing, the Sieger and show results. Call me a cynic, but to me that seems to be where the main interest really lies, not in improving the breed at all.
This thread refers to certain individuals who are considered to be knowledgeable in the breed and have held or do hold positions within the BC/Council, and are giving 'advice', and allegedly breeding litters without even the minimum health tests recommended. Horrifying. People of this 'standing' should be leading the way, but it seems not - WHY?
Why are health issues not promoted/discussed on the websites? Are there any copies of the recommendations for mandatory health testing that they have put to the KC on websites? No. WHY NOT? As I said, there has been a huge number of statements that the BC has been pressing for mandatory health testing, and that they have led the way in promoting health testing. It does not appear that way to me. I hear it being said, but I don't see anything of the kind mentioned on the websites. I am truly concerned that the 'collective voice for the GSD in the UK' does not address
anything but minimal health issues, and doesn't appear to say very much at all in fact. Can somebody please explain WHY?
Let's get really specific and choose one particular condition just for an example - elbows. Someone 'in the breed' advised that elbows are not a problem in GSD's - that's news to me. As far as I am aware it is a growing problem. Why is ED not even mentioned on any of the websites, and why are so few breeders testing for it? Plenty of space is devoted to showing, the Sieger and show results. Call me a cynic, but to me that seems to be where the main interest really lies, not in improving the breed at all.
by petowner on 23 January 2010 - 18:01
Dingodog. I share your sentiments with most you say EXCEPT the individuals you are referring to are NOT anything to do with the breed council, they are individuals who thought they were clever enough to start a GSD owners information group which is very often used by the general public thinking they are getting good advice from them but instead they are told that elbow dysplasia is not a problem in german shepherds so the testing for elbows is not needed. If that were the truth then how come the rest of the world and the BVA say there is an elbow problem ???. Of course there is an elbow problem there always has been, if there was not a problem, the dogs scored to date would all be 0. If all the xrays were submitted it would reveal plenty of affected elbows. Such people should not be so high and mighty in deciding that their opinion is better than the experts !!!. As said in earlier posts there is no point in promoting research for DM, EPI,AF,Epilepsy etc if the dogs are crippled with elbow dysplasia. Not all elbow operations are successful. My opinion and my vets opinion is that once the BVA hip/elbow forms are signed by the dogs owner at the time of xraying they should not be allowed the choice of whether they are submitted for scoring or not .
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top