Kennel Club Registration, Should Health Testing Be Mandatory?

Don't know if anyone else reads Dogs Today, but I've been following their recent KC registration/health testing debate. I really do believe it's about time that KC registration meant everything the general public perceive it to be, eg "the best"!

So what's your opinion? Should health testing be mandatory before KC registration can be applied for?

I really can't see any down sides to this option, so opinons would be appreciated.

Whilst I am 100% in favour of this, I can see an obvious downfall.
Some years back, patched Dallies could not be registered but unscrupulous breeders were doing it anyway. As a senior KC member once remarked to me, "how do the KC know whether it's patched or not?" Similarly, "wrong" colours would not be checked and such dogs registered under whatever the breeder knew was acceptable. Even BAER hearing test results can be manipulated, a breeder can swap puppies around so that a promising looking but unilateral pup can be sold as hearing normal, while the correct certificate is allocated to one going to a pet home. This is why the AHT is pushing for DNA profiling or some other virtually foolproof method of proving which results belong to which animal.
Therefore, unless there is a way of supplying proof, such a scheme, whilst laudable, will only have limited success.
The point about KC registration meaning "the best" - sorry but again, this is of limited value unless a dog is assessed for conformation etc as well. This is the case in France where a dog cannot apply for a pedigree certificate until it is a year old and been assessed as meeting a certain quality. Health checks will only give some assurance that the dog is not predisposed to certain conditions, but will not tell anyone that it's confirmation could lead to problems too.
Finally - can you really see the KC making registration more difficult and losing revenue???

For the health tests I carry out in my breed the dogs have to be microchipped first before the test is carried out. Something that could easily be insisted upon for hearing tests surely? You can't manipulate a result if it has the puppies chip number on it!
I think first and foremost DNA profiling should be mandatory and that way only puppies from known parentage should be registered as I know for a fact that there are dogs registered with the name of the sire the breeder 'thinks' is the one.
Then once that has been sorted out we can go for mandatory health tests, certainly in respect of DNA tests which are (we hope lol!) definitive. Then there can be a program of breeding so that eventually only clear dogs are bred from.
Becky

I totally agree, I think all the health checks recommended for that particular breed should be carrried on or the KC should refuse to register the puppies. I also think microchipping is an excellant way to ensure the same dogs not tested twice under a different name.

I'm intending to chip my poodle pups at 4 weeks this time around as they will more than likely be all the same colour so easier to distinquish with a chip! I've only ever had patterned litters before!
Becky

Think you'll find they cant be done before 8 weeks (thats what a dogs trust recommends).

Don't quite understand do you mean the parents must have all health checks before a litter is registered or the puppies, if its the parents then possibly, though I'm afraid in popular breeds it'll just lead to more unregistered dogs being sold.When I worked picking up & transporting dogs for GSD rescue I would be told time & again its a pedigree & it would have a piece of paper with parents names on etc but
in 99% of cases theywere not KC registered & the people did not know the difference.

One word, yes.

Optigen have just announced that they will take cheek swabs for pra DNA testing, which I think is awful, as long as you have a witness (anybody in fact) that's all the proof they need whereas before, when tested using a blood sample, it had to be drawn by a vet and the micro chip number checked.

I don't think there is any safeguard in this cheek swab method at all, so making the test completely worthless....my girls have been Optigen blood tested, but this cheek swab makes it a mockery.

I think for the KC to maintain their credibility I personally believe that only dogs from health tested parents should be able to be registerd.

Any system is open to abuse from unscrupulous people but I think the system as it is now is being abused greatly anyway.

As a member of Joe Public I always thought that KC registered was a mark of quality and reassurance - rather like a CORGI registered gas fitter etc- and didn't realise that all the registration means is that both parents were registered with the KC. What I thought was a mark of quality - along with a lot of other members of JP - was no guarantee at all. I realise that dogs can never come with a guarantee but I would expect a KC registration to mean that the pup had been bred as carefully and healthily as possible.

Reputable breeders - who health test anyway - would still be able to register their pups as they are already fulfilling this criteria voluntarily but those breeders who don't bother would either have to conform or not be able to register their pups.

Reputable breeders are being done a disservice, IMHO, by the KC who will register pups from any source as long as the parents are registered with them.

KC registered suggests one thing but often the reality is different.