As I have already explained...





I'll try and make it clearer using my particular breed of dog as an example.

I have explained that the KC, the Beagle breed club and beagle breeders have all assured me that there are no required OR recommended health tests for the Beagle breed. When we took our first pup to the vets for a checkup the vet mentioned that the Beagle is one of the few breeds that they don't see problems with.

Some people in this discussion seem to think otherwise and believe that Beagles should be screened.

There are two possibilities.

1. The KC, breed club, breeders and my vet are correct and there is no need for health screening in the Beagle breed

OR

2. It's a big cover up on the part of the KC, breed club, breeders and even my vet and you guys are right. Beagle SHOULD be health screened.

**IF** the latter is true, then the KC is failing to do it's job and the breed clubs and breeders clearly can't be trusted to do the right thing of their own accord. In which case if the BBC, Dogs Trust, Pedigree Chum and all the others pulling out of Crufts out of protest raise public awareness of the problem the truth is likely to come out. People will start to come forward and say "well my dog has X problem or Y problem". The day will come when the KC, breed club and breeders simply can't get away with lying about the health of the breed.

And when that day comes people will readily embrace a new governing body. One that is not afraid to insist upon health tests that are unpopular with breed clubs and breeders. One that is not afraid to boot out anyone that doesn't follow the rules to the letter.

I hope that's clearer!




I bought from a breeder who performed all recommended screening of her breeding stock (who happened to be the chairperson of the breed club).

There are no health tests required or recommended for Beagles by either the kennel club or the Beagle breed club.

As I have made clear, IF it is the case that the breed clubs, breeders and KC are putting the beagle breed at risk by failing to recommend health screening then it is a problem that needs to be corrected urgently. If the KC fail to take action then the general public will do as borderdawn suggested and start refusing to buy KC registered dogs. This would leave an opening for a new governing body that would refuse to recognise any breed that was not healthy or any breeder that did not have a proven track record of producing healthy pups.



As I explained earlier...



But I think your point is valid. If the KC refuse to take action against the 'bad' breeders and if groups like the BBC, Dogs Trust, Pedigree Chum etc continue to dissassociate themselves with crufts then public awareness will be raised to the point where the general public do start to penalise excellent breeders simply on the grounds of their association with the KC.

At this point in time KC regsitration means nothing. If things continue the way they are I will probably start to see it as a negative thing. I could well begin to boycott KC regsitered breeders. Certainly if a new group was formed that would refuse to recognise any breed that was not healthy or any breeder that did not have a proven track record of producing healthy pups then I would favour breeders that belonged to that group over KC registered breeders.

Settagirl, I did. I don't want my dogs registered anywhere in someone elses name.

But this is another area where the BBC's action might hit the pockets of the KC hard. I'm quite sure many people will refuse to do this out of protest - especially if their attention is drawn to it.

You seem reluctant to answer questions about the health status of your dogs's parents, were they tested or not/ Did your research find responsible breeders wanting to do right by the breed?

I'm not sure that that is the main issue, is it? Woody is KC Registered (does it really mean anything these days, especially to simple pet owners such as us?) but that doesn't mean I condone un-ethical breed standards as are apparent in lots of breed types mentioned above.

Not really sure what my point is and confess to not knowing enough about it all to get in too deep, but I do know that even though Woody is KC Registered (we weren't out for that in our search anyway) I still do not agree with the Kennel Club's lack of "action" on this. I mean losing some of their biggest sponsors and now the BBC has surely got to tell them they are doing something wrong!

I
1. Yes. As I've said many times, my personal research has lead me to believe that the breeders of both my dogs are excellent, responsible breeders and we are delighted with both of our dogs.

2. Both breeders performed ALL of the health tests required by the KC and the breed club. As did the breeder of the father of both pups.

3. My personal research has not uncovered any information that leads me to believe that the KC and the breed club are reporting inaccurately on the need or even recommendation for health testing of breeding stock.

Scarter ...found this for you, it took all of 5 mins , as you seem to have had no success in your search on health in the Beagle... though tyou may like to read this.

Since being a beagle owner I have come into regular contact with lots of beagle owners, lots of beagle showers and lots of beagle breeders. The general consensus is that the Beagle breed is healthy. I have heard of just a single case of hip dysplasia (the dog in question is fully mobile and not in any apparant pain) and a problem with epilepsy (two dogs destroyed at a young age and two requiring medication) with a single breeder.

Settagirl, I did. I don't want my dogs registered anywhere in someone elses name.

But this is another area where the BBC's action might hit the pockets of the KC hard. I'm quite sure many people will refuse to do this out of protest - especially if their attention is drawn to it.