Title of Proposal: Addressing the weaknesses of under-regulated dog breeding practices in the United Kingdom.
Subtitle: What the Government needs to do | What the Kennel Club needs to do
GOVERNMENT:

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, secondary legislation, provide protection for dogs from the suffering and premature death which is the result of inherited diseases and traits.
.
Incorporate the EU principle: No one should breed companion animals without careful regard to characteristics (anatomical, physiological and behavioural) that may put at risk the health and welfare of the offspring or female parent). Sign the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals.
.
Authorise and fund an independent welfare organization, such as the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC), to monitor the work of the Kennel Club and breed clubs.
.
Law requiring permanent identification of dogs (PI)
.
Law requiring veterinary profession to provide data on breed specific diseases (eg, Paul McGreevy’s Scheme)
.
Include normal consumer protection: if a puppy later develops a recognized genetic disease, and if it is proved that recommended health screening had not been carried out, pet owners should be refunded the full cost of the puppy by the breeder (perhaps an upper age limit should be included).
THE KENNEL CLUB

Make Kennel Club registration a mark of quality by only registering litters from dogs which have been health screened or DNA tested and found to be clear of breed specific hereditary disease. (This must include all schemes – not just the BVA/KC and other ‘official’ schemes)
.
Scrap the seriously flawed Accredited Breeders Scheme which even if reformed would still create a two tier system and leave the vast majority of pedigree dogs unprotected (see Notes).
.
Actively help to facilitate a long term project to collect DNA from all dog breeds to facilitate future DNA tests (as in Finland)
.
Require breed specific Certificate of Health for entry to dog shows and for breeding (see Notes)
.
Limit the use of stud dogs to no more than 12 litters (number would depend on existing genetic diversity and would therefore need to be breed specific)
.
Create an on-line facility for breeders to calculate Coefficients of Inbreeding (COI). Encourage a lowering of COI in all breeds to ideally below 6% based on a ten generation pedigree. COIs to be recorded on pedigree certificates against the breed average.
.
Where Estimated Breeding Values (EBV) or Genetic Breeding Values (GeBV) are available, record these on pedigree certificates
.
Ban the mating of close relatives, such as mother to son, brother to sister, and any other mating whose offspring would have COI > 20%
.
Allow outcrossing to a related breed to reinvigorate the gene pool if the Effective Population Size falls below 50, or where the incidence of a particular condition is high
.
Require health testing certificates to be included in the documentation given to puppy buyers
.
Require breed clubs to be open and transparent. Ordinary members of breed clubs should be entitled to see the Agenda and Minutes of Committee Meetings
.
Require breed club committees to have at least one member to represent the interests of pet owners.
.
Provide a publicly accessible online resource for all registered dogs, linked to pedigree, where owners can enter health records, including date of death.
.
Provide compulsory training for judges where the priority is on health and soundness, and avoiding exaggerated traits.
Notes:

A tiered registration system might be an alternative which would include an improved Accredited Breeder Scheme.

Vets to issue the ‘fit for breeding’ certificate based on DNA submitted, COI and health testing.

‘Fit for breeding’ certificates should also be issued by professionally qualified breed wardens from within each breed who would assess temperament and physical qualities.





__________________

Apologies if I am hijacking this thread and if folk are interested I could start another thread on this instead - but if legislation similar to the one proposed below came in to force ( and personally I dislike some parts of this proposal ) - how many people think that farmers and those with working dogs should be exempt ? should such legislation take into account remote farming communities ? - I live in the Lincolnshire Fens another r area which relies almost soley on farming for it's income and where farm dogs are kept outside and the results of their matings sold at the farm gate along with the hen eggs etc
should it only be KC breeders who must adhere to strigent breeding codes ?

TBH tho I dont think most farmers are making pots of money from there surpluss puppies

Rightly or wrongly the farming lobby is imensely powerful in the UK and IMO it would be hard to get any legislation approved which put farmers at a disadvantage to their European competitors. It's true some farmers are very wealthy, but many are not and have to live and work in conditions which most folk wouldn't tolerate. (e.g. Hardly ever having a holiday away from home )

I suppose you could 'sell' the idea to farmers on the basis that properly health tested pups would live longer and thereby prove a better investment but somehow I don't see that cutting much ice with most farmers, since they see their 'working' dogs as tools of the trade, much like their tractors and grain dryers. How would you 'police' such legislation

Of course many farmers have pet dogs, these are treated well and looked on as pets and have a different life to the working dogs. Personally, I favour the idea of making anyone who sells puppies 'licensed' to do so (with a fairly high license fee) that would force everyone to either give their puppies away or apply for a license, even then humans (being such a devious lot) would find ways to circumnavigate the law

I don't think work bred collies have anywhere near the health problems that many pedigree KC registered dogs have.

I agree with parts of your post Losos but do have to take issue with other parts.

I know what it is like having a husband who very rarely takes a holiday - and it is nigh on impossible for us to go away together even for a weekend, never mind a week. He therefore doesn't go on holiday, and I go with my sister or a friend.

In my experience, with shepherds and farmers I know and have come across, most do not see their dogs merely as a tool of their trade. They see their dogs as work mates and companions. No doubt there are some farmers out there who don't give a toss about their working dog - but that isn't the experiences I have had so far (thank goodness).

Not sure about your comment that health testing should be promoted on the basis that dogs will live longer and be healthier. Unfortunately health testing doesn't work like that.

I also have only seen a handful of shepherds who treat their pet dogs in a better manner than their work dogs. I guess it all depends on what you think of as *better* treatment. I know most, if not all, our working collies would choose their working life (albeit living outdoors, without the home comforts of a sofa or endless cuddles) to the life of the average pet dog.