The Kennel Club is a registry that runs shows, health schemes, funds research & keep a stud book. They can only enforce health testing if all the breed clubs agree(as with the Irish & the Irish Red & White setters have done). It only takes one breed club(as with the GSDs)to vote against the compulsory health testing for it to be blocked.

I would like the KC to act like the ISDS-to register a litter with them, your have to be a member & abide by the health testing rules when you join. Worked with the ISDS registry

All I can say is, its done the world of good in rotties, the amount of rotties now {from good blood lines} that suffer from HD, has dropped dramaticly,

I will have a look at reg figures later for both beagle and rotties to compare numbers,

but I cant see how testing then not breeding from high scoring parents would be detrimental to the breed,

I believe you when you say it's done the world of good in rotties - there was a serious problem there that was causing a lot of suffering. Of course it's vital to tackle the problem and screening is the ideal way to go about it.

Some would argue that in order to gain membership to breed clubs and KC itshould be compulsory to screen breeding stock in these breeds where dogs are suffering. Others argue that screening should be compulsory in all breeds whether dogs are symptomatic or not.

In the case of Beagles both KC and the beagle breed club maintain that screening is not required - not even recommended. If those that say the breeders and breed club can be trusted to do the right thing are correct then we must conclude that screening for HD in the Beagle isn't necessary or even beneficial.

If screening IS beneficial or necessary in the Beagle breed then we can only conclude that at least some breeders and breed clubs CAN'T be trusted to self-regulate.

How are pet owners looking for healthy pets supposed to know which ones to trust ? I'm sure there are no breeders or breed clubs out there that will put their hands up in the air and say "we can't be trusted - if you want a healthy pet choose a different breeder or breed".

So this is why as a pet owner I'd want to see a governing body (not necessarily the KC) that has an impartial panel of medical and genetics experts that decide what tests and steps are necessary to ensure the health of the various breeds. Anyone looking for a healthy pet would be able to trust that if they went to a breeder who was a member of this body that they would be guaranteed to get a pet who's parents had been properly screened and appropriately bred.

What we have now is breeders disagreeing amongst themselves. Some claim that they can be trusted to self regulate. Others point out that many breed clubs (not just individual breeders, but the entire group representing a breed) are not breeding responsibly.

My point isn't to suggest that Beagles shouldn't be screened. My point is that I don't know! The official ruling from both KC and breed club is that it isn't necessary and is not even recommended. If this ruling is incorrect then it proves that breed clubs and breeders can't be trusted to self-regulate. You only have to look at some of the 'problem breeds' to know that self-regulation isn't something that can be relied upon.

As for my choice to go ahead and get beagles anyway. Well, as I've explained. I have only been able to find one Beagle in the country with symptoms of HD and those symptoms have dissapeared now the dog has lost weight. My vet says it's not common in the breed in this country. Whilst some breeds (such as Rotties) are typically screened there is still a problem of symptomatic HD in those breeds. A beagle is currently still a safer bet despite the lack of screening of the breed. Only time will tell whether that will remain the case.

Afraid to say, they all do down here! I was shocked that KC allow farmed pups to be KC reg and then be sold to dealers. It's wrong.

Not all puppy farms breed back to back, but they most certainly register their pups. When they have between 30 and 50 bitches they would never keep up breeding two litters per year.

Some of you may know that I live near to the 'kennel' that was well documented several years ago (they are no longer there, the place was sold shortly after the programme was broadcast). The bitches were kept in sqwaller, never saw daylight (internal kennels with no external runs), were unsocialised e.t.c Yet guess who this kennel supplied?


Harrods!

It is expressly forbidden by the KC to sell registered puppies via a third party-the"other"registry that cannot be named was set up after two breeders were banned by the KC for selling puppies to the old Mayfield Kennels

Travelling in a car without wearing a seatbelt is forbidden as is talking on a mobile phone whilst driving, buying alcohol under the age of 18 (I could go on and on but you get the picture!) It goes on and in LARGE quantities.

The KC obviously need to clamp down.

& how are they going to do that ? The dogs are sold with the breeder's signature on the breeders registration form, they are never transferred to the puppy dealer's name(that's how the KC proved that the banned couple were trading with the old Mayfield Kennels)

TBH most of the dogs that are in pet super markets or sold by puppy dealers(who are all LA licensed BTW)are registered with the registry that cannot be named who issue KC lookalike certificates that aren't worth the paper they are printed on or they are bred & registered in Eire with the Irish KC(which is a private company). They certainly are at the local puppy dealers just over the river from me.

Cancer?? Hereditery? I don't think so. People should look at what they feed for the answer to that. You are what you eat.