What Should the KC and RSPCA be doing?

OK, so many of us have been critising the KC and/or RSPCA following on from the BBC documentary about pedigree breeding (and some have been defending).

So, if you were in charge of either of these organisations (and assuming you had the total co-operation on whatever you proposed from the other one)...

What do you think the priorities should be to try and ensure healthy dogs with good temperaments and how would you deal with the issues?

OK here is my list:

Have health testing on ALL registered breeding stock.

No dog can WIN BIS or BIB with a health defect, this should be classed as a very serious fault in the show ring.

Change some breed standards to impove quality of life.

Where the gene pool is too small look into bringing in new blood from another country or breed. (this would have to be done with the breed club and breeders)

Ban mother son, granddaughter grandfather ect type breeding.

Complete overhaul of the code of ethics for breeders to limit the number of time a bitch or dog can be used and the ages better. The current code is a bit of a joke!

Right thats my two pennies worth!

Hali I think for a start both have to work together on this and one having nowt to do with the other isn't a very good way to go atm.xxxxxxxx

Include a clause in ALL breed standards which states that:

Any physical trait which may detract from the dog's ability to behave naturally, (including whelping, running, breathing) should be considered a MAJOR fault ending in instant disqualification.

Perhaps the RSPCA and KC should revise the existing list of accredited KC breeders and start a new list between them both? Inclusion on the new list of ethical breeders should depend on: DNA testing to PROVE pedigrees, a visit of the breeding environment by RSPCA officers, PROOF of health-testing etc etc.... They should have a whole list of quality control checks which MUST be met before inclusion on the list of approved breeders, and these breeders MUST re-submit any proof necessary every 12 months or forfeit their accreditation.

Yep! Also remove the registration of people who breed from dogs carrying or affected by genetic illnesses.

Lots of education with breeders, the public, judges, KC members etc.

Ban judges who place unhealthy dogs from judging again.

Remove registration from breeders dogs if they are found to be practising culling of puppies.

Well this new pasport scheme for certain breeds the KC are trying to bring in for showing may do some good. However only with people who want to show. You need vets who will cooperate as well. At present you can't show a sharpei if its had to have skin stiched as a puppy but I know some vets are not reporting it unless requested by the breeder, easy for an unscrupulous breeder to not do anything. I have a friend whose pet GSD has fits but only when he is asleep so only the owner & the vet need know. I think if the dog is registered (he's not) then the vet should notify the kennel club & it should go on his pedigree. If a dog is brought in to the RSPCA, I think they should ask for its medical history &, if its registered, its papers, not to pass on but so that its lines are known in case of trouble.
Personally I'd like to see it that no adult dog can be shown without having had the tests for that breed done & have to produce a form with all the results in the ring. After all there are many diseases that can not be seen even by a judge with an expert eye. I always remember about 15 years ago I had a friend with two GSDs one was very wobbly in hock & didn't move very well the other was always perfectly true & firm. When she had their hips done the poor mover had a nearly perfect score of 2. The very sound dog had a score in the 60's. Unless we can see some form of paperwork no judge will be able to help imrove things. At present even if you know a dog has a fault you can't see you are not supposed to know the dog in front of you so you can't take it into account. I'd like to see the kc have tests printed on a form & not allow dogs to show without the form. As for the RSPCA I'd like t see them attend more seminars on diffrent breeds so they know how to deal with things in a breed specific way, then we won't get problems like the dog I went to see for a friend. They had found him wandering & taken him to the RSPCA saying if he wasn't claimed they'd have him back. The RSPCA told them he was viscious & biter & they wouldn't want him. When I saw him he was about 7 months old & teething. He came home with them & made a lovely dog. Peronally I'd like to see more uniformity withinthe RSPCA as well & more help for branches from head office

just for a start {im in the middle of making dinner so will get back to this thread,}

but from the KC point of view,

I would like to see the min age a bitch can be mated and have the pups reg put up to 2 years old,
the reason being, I think most bitches are to young at one year old, it would also give the breeder longer to see if any problems health/temprament are going to crop up {that said most good breeders wouldnt mate a 1 year old bitch}

I would also like to see health testing being made compulsory

not allowed to reg litters where inbreeding has occured

a visit of the breeding environment by RSPCA officers,

Er no way Jose-I will NEVER allow the RSPCA to step over the entrance to my drive, they have NO knowledge of breeding healthy dogs,they have no idea of how to select a suitable stud for a bitch & having seen how they allow bitches to whelp(in oval plastic dog beds on old blankets)in a block of kennels with other bitches present & visible they haven't a clue on how to treat a whelping bitch

Are the RSPCA qualified to say that the dog's home environs is suitable for breeding ????? No they are not, they can recognize if the dogs are dirty or in cramped conditions(but rarely do anything unless publicity is guaranteed), but how do they know if a person has sufficient knowledge to be a successful in breeding & rearing healthy dogs. This will undoubtedly including feeding & I know that they frown certain dog food manufacturers & also raw feeding(friend was turned down for a long stay dog(in kennels for over 3 years)because her dogs are fed a raw diet & have been for 40 odd years !!her dogs all live well into their teens)

As for no dog being shown that has a genetic condition(such as SM)that is asymptomatic sorry that is a no/no for me. My Loukar has no symptoms at all-he'll never be bred from so will not pass on his condition.

Mongrel, crossbreed, Non Recognized breeds & non registered breeds would get away without having to do any health checks & could proudly state Not KC reg, Not In Bred etc as they are doing now & the focus is supposed on breeding healthier dogs ????????? No sorry putting a straight jacket on responsible breeders alone who already endeavour to breed healthy dogs will fuel the flames of the puppy farmer & BYB who breed for money.

If you want to be fair the breeding & health testing rules must apply to ALL dogs that are bred from irrespective of KC status !

CS Agree with most, excepting the bold typeface. Removing carriers from a gene pool would adversely and disproportionately affect genetic diversity, making those left more homozygous (similar) and potentially concentrating down yet more bad genes. In many dog diseases deleterious genes are recessive so if all stock are tested its safe to put carriers and even affecteds to clears as they can never pass it on. Obviously, this is not the case in dominant genes, in which case you are right.


Mary

I`d like to see the KC and the RSPCSA collaborate on a publicity campaign educating the general public about what they should demand or look for when buying a dog. I think it should make it clear what the minimum standards of health-checks should be, and also what the legal rights of buyers are, and point out the pitfalls of buying from BYB and `bad` breeders.
I would also like to see them set up a database for reporting health problems from owners, breeders and vets, that can be used to pinpoint problem lines.