I think it'll be nice for Crufts to get back to being a dog show instead of a "shopping" show. Went to LKA yesterday and had a lovely day, Isla spent most of the day with me wandering around the tradestands, sitting by the ringside and begging for food (her not me!). Not once did she get stood on, smacked in the face by shopping bags or have a grotty little childs finger poked right in her face. Heaven!

Roll on Crufts minus the TV coverage is all I can say!

I get so cross that everytime the KC are held up against something they try and excuse their way out of it.

I love Crufts, have watched it all my life and was lucky enough to go a few years ago, but I am NOT going to condone un-ethical breed standards any longer. Its time something was done and well done all those who are risking a fortune to take a stand agianst this.

As I explained in my initial post, at that time I believed that if the KC said there were no health issues and no need for health screening that they could be believed.

Here is a link to the KC's new Accredited Breeders Scheme leaflet. You'll see that it lists the tests required AND those not required but simply recommended for various breeds. There are no tests required for Beagles. There aren't even any tests recommended for Beagles.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/down...healthreqs.pdf

I didn't look to the breed club specifically for details of health issues (I *thought* I'd already cleared that with the KC). But I did approach them for a recommendation of a good breeder. One would hope that a reputable breed club wouldn't recommend a breeder that doesn't follow good breeding practices to ensure the health of their pups. As far as I am aware the breed club maintain that the Beagle is a healthy breed (at least, that's what they tell me when I've asked) and they do not recommend any health tests for the breed.

So who should the prospective pet dog owner trust over these issues-

- the Kennel Club?
- the breed club?
- the breeders?

who all seem to be in agreement when it comes to the Beagle breed. Or some stranger on a discussion forum that contrary to what the KC, breed club and breeders say thinks that Beagles should be screened for health problems?

Now you must realise that having seen the recent BBC documentary very many people will start to believe the stangers on discussion forums over the KC, breed club and breeders. I am quite prepared to believe that in many cases those strangers on discussion forums are right. The recent BBC documentary has proven to us that we can't blindly trust breeders, breed clubs or the KC.

But the general public's lack of trust in the KC will result in problems to reputable breeders and breed clubs. How do we know which ones to trust if the KC insists on 'protecting' the bad ones?

I remember someone on these boards saying that they had been palmed off with a Beagle / Harrier cross from a puppy farm when they thought they'd purchased a Beagle from a pet shop. Borderdawn made the comment that

She went on to clarify the health issues that she was concerned about.

This is the danger. The KC won't make a stand against the bad breeders so people have no way of telling the good from the bad. Many people will begin to see things the same way as Borderdawn and choose a puppyfarm cross breed over a pedigree dog. In the case of some breeds it might well be a wise choice. But if the Beagle breeders and KC are being truthful about Beagles it's a damn shame if all of their hard work to keep the breed healthy and persuade people to choose reputable breeders over puppy farms is undone because of incorrect public belief.

Exactly! And if show/work type breeders fail to agree on what needs to be tested and then enforce it then there is tremendous potential for a new group to form. Pedigree pet dog breeders. A group governed by a body that is not afraid to insist upon health tests that are unpopular with the breed clubs and breeders, and that is not afraid to boot out anyone that doesn't follow the rules to the letter.

To be absolutely clear. I believe that there are very many excellent show dog breeders and many healthy pedigree breeds. But thanks to the attitude of the KC the general public have no way of separating the wheat from the chaff. That renders the KC useless to the general public and creates a need for a new type of breeder, breed standard and governing body. The era of the well governed pedigree pet dog breeder

Surely that typifies you! You are slagging off the KC yet you have bought 2 kc registered dogs!!

I am a little unclear , as to how you got the info that no tests are needed..

My own breed on the list says no health tests, but I can tell you they do need to be heart scored... and you will get that information from the breed club.


If you read paragraph (f) it tells you to look to bred clubs for relevant tests for individual breeds.

Not sure I understand this... whether the dogs are of show or working type the health tests will be the same as set down in the bred club code of ethics...

Sadly though it is more likely that the working type breeders are the ones to ignore any heath screening on their dogs....as mos tare only concerned with the working ability of said dog.........and that will go across the board from hounds/terriers/gundogs.

It would be interesting as if you could answer the question put to you by a couple of members.. about your breeder health screening their breeding stock.

As although you are anti the KC and registered breeders... you are promoting health screening of dogs...

So did you buy from a breeder who screened their dogs?????

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!

Point being why approach the KC for a registered pup if you couldnt give a monkeys about it? I mean she could of gone for the "pet" bred types in preference. I think she knew that going through the right channels meant a more healthy animal (even though she wont answer about whether the parents of her dogs are hip scored and eye tested) and more so that she would stand a better chance of finding a reputable breeder. If she didnt think the KC had relevance, why not browse the free ads for a cheaper pup?

You were considering using your dog at stud, surely you thought that being KC registered had some meaning? Or were you happy to use him regardless?

I dont know why people think all these people pulling out of Crufts will have some bearing on those that matter most, the dogs! Not a chance, its typical of just how much "research" they have done (BBC) by stating the Rottweiler is one of the breeds they wont broadcast!

EXACTLY... Im still pulling my hair out as to WHY?
if i dont find out soon I guess I will have to contact the BBC... I dread to think how that will go If they use recent bad media publicity.....as there excues.. as for the life of me I cant figure out why they are at risk health wise....

blood pressure going up and up and up.

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.

Can I ask a question, to all those that are against the KC and have KC registered dogs... did you pay the KC to change the ownership, cos that money goes into their coiffers!!