I would urge breeders and dog owners to take the time to listen to the whole of this recording, especially Mark Evans' explanation of the Science Review. Margaret Carter

Posted at 18:07 on 13 Feb 2009 by
Cassandra | Report as inappropriate

Just listened to this, Mark Evans puts forward a balanced, common sense, impressive review of the report published. he dosnt claim to have all the answers but i for one wish he was speaking for the KC !!

Posted at 22:03 on 13 Feb 2009 by
tictac | Report as inappropriate

Having had Bracchi for a number of years now and dealings with Kennel Clubs in other countries I feel that compulsary testing of all breeds for known and recognised hereditory disorders would be a positive step forward. Is it too much to expect a breeder to spend about £300 on a dog to get it hip/elbow and eye tested in light of this breed which can bring in excess of £10,000 for one litter? In Finland all Bracchi used for breeding are required to be hip scored in Finland. Results taken in other countries are not accepted. In Sweden the same is to be said and you are not permitted to breed with dogs above a certain score. The Bracco has in recent years seen a number of problems come to light which because they are not tested in Italy is very hard to trace. Many breeders are now choosing to ignore and turn a blind eye to these issues because it affects their breeding and generally joe public buy these puppies in complete ignorance. To say that compulsary testing could only be confined to Accredited breeders is wrong and in my opinion the Accredited Breeder Scheme, although working for many who really are committed to their breed for others is a title bought for £10 and can be attained it would appear if you have never bred a litter before. I have to wonder how many puppies farmers are Accredited? Accreditation is something that should be earned through experiencem dedication and time, not something purchased at will. I feel it is in most part meaningless. The Cavalier King Charles is a prime example of what happens to a breed. The KC should never have registed any puppies from parents tested positive for this problem they have with the skull. Each year we see the KC boast on increases in registrations, 14000 or so cocker spaniels, but how many of these are from puppy farms? The Kennel Club must now look to become the guardians of all breeds and if compulsary testing is the answer then so be it. The genuine breeders who put health first will continue and those who seek to profiteer from such breeds as the Bracco will hopefully give up. I personally would like to see a drop in registrations as surely this would instigate a drop in the number of dogs languishing in kennels desperate for a new owner. Jo Norman (Gunstrux)

Posted at 17:39 on 14 Feb 2009 by
WelshBracco | Report as inappropriate

I would just like to add to my previous comments that if the last health initiative by the KC is anything to go by, those breeders who know they have problems will not fill in these questionaires or be honest. Only a very small handful of Bracchi breeders completed the last one.

Posted at 17:40 on 14 Feb 2009 by
WelshBracco | Report as inappropriate

I'm sure The Kennel club would love to be in a position to enforce such testings and non registration of litters bred outside of said guidelines, that is obviously why they called for Statutory powers from the Government. Without the legal powers to enforce such rules as in Finland, Sweden and Germany there's very little they can do about the Actual breeders on the ground be they show or non show breeders. I am an accreddited breeder, I pay out over £300 per dog for health testing non of which is listed by the KC, I do it because I want to know that my breeding animals are in great health and condition, genetically as well as physically. How much longer will I continue I don't know? I am totally disheartend by this whole mess am tired of being the 'bad' guy because my dogs are show dogs too. I'm still trying to work out when we show exhibitors/breeders stopped being 'Pet' owners of our dogs after listening to Mark Evans............... maybe Aug 08?

Posted at 20:51 on 14 Feb 2009 by
Mandie | Report as inappropriate

I have to wonder if the KC actually would welcome the power to enforce this, reduced registrations means reduced income. Surely if they really cared then long before now they would have made more effort. The health questionaires available in 2004 were not as in my breed filled in by people who know they have issues and don't want them made public. As for the compulsary testing. Surely the KC has the right to stipulate minimum requirements? If they don't then what are they other than another profit making organisation.

Posted at 22:51 on 14 Feb 2009 by
WelshBracco | Report as inappropriate

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/4427/annrep0708.pdf Take a look at the KC's annual report for 07/08 to see what they do and how much income expenditure they've got, where the money goes. Without the powers to enforce any new regulations and apply them to ALL dog breeders (pedigree/non pedigree etc)they can't do a lot other than what they're doing. All that will happen is either new registration organisations, as in the USA, or folk will breed under the radar without testing with fewer of us actually complying within the new regulations - I can't really see that as a viable option certainly won't improve the health/life of the dogs. In every walk of life there are such folk, having been in Parrots, poultry, dogs, reptiles I can honestly say I've met many unethical breeders of all species. We can't stop them they always find a way to carry on no matter what we try to stop them, meanwhile the rest of us comply because we can see the need and validity of doing so.

Posted at 00:17 on 15 Feb 2009 by
Mandie | Report as inappropriate

Could I mention the excellent Article the KC have given in Response to the RSPCA Survey. We Lovers of Cavaliers have much to thank the KC for, in their funding for the Research into the Cavaliers'Health Problems Bet Hargreaves

Posted at 16:46 on 15 Feb 2009 by
bolshie | Report as inappropriate

May i remind people that many breed have set up " A Health Committee" Been Guided mainly up the garden path, These committees have worked very hard and diligently , published their findings etc, only to be threatened called liars publicly and ridiculed by the relevant breed "eleders" who suddenly sat up took notice and then took over some schemes and then promptly ignored them. Only to find that the "KC" has taken these people at their word and ignored the real committees. Now we find that the KC is busy fiddling whilst rome burns. As i said many times before the KC can make people put dogs health first by not allowing puppies from un tested parents to be registered. Simple ! Changing standards isnt goint to have any effect whatsoever for at least 25yrs ! We as a committee have been calling for the above for months now then suddenly because the Rspca stir things up the Kc sit up and take notice . What a shambles this really is . When working for our breed and with the relevant Kc bigwigs we where constantly finding we had to keep justifying ourselves against these people who had an "ear" in the highest office but would not have dialog with us beacuse we where deeemd troube makers by those who wanted nothing to change, when doing our work Not Once did anyone at the KC return phone calls or emails when asking for guidance and when they did it was to crisicise . We have worked hard for the past 18mths, and for nothing, had our careers in dogs ruined and our reputations , by people who are , quite frankly , not fit to be involved in the dog game . Now do your worst .

Posted at 00:08 on 16 Feb 2009 by
Nemesis | Report as inappropriate

Nemesis I fully understand. I know some people like to frequent the KC buildings and attend the library merely to rub shoulders with the elite in there. They do gossip but . Jeff Sampson is a fair minded man though who will listen and even sees some of those gossiping ninnies for what they are....ignorant. One breeder and judge doesnt even understand the difference with a DNA test and a DNA profile, now thats intelligence for you , yet they are held in such high esteem by sheep like followers ... SAD isnt it, dogs are caused more harm by those that tell all they care..... The KC need to sit up and listen to those who maybe outside of the clubs and social circles, they spend time with their dogs and help and assist others in need.One thing they dont do is lunch with the KC.

Posted at 09:52 on 16 Feb 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

Fifi wrote:- "One breeder and judge doesnt even understand the difference with a DNA test and a DNA profile, now thats intelligence for you , yet they are held in such high esteem by sheep like followers ..." How about the breeder / judge (CC; Group; BIS) who does not know that the pins bones are part of the pelvis; or where the hip joint is located; or that the tail is an extension of the spinal column i.e. vertebrae!!! And this is a mentor for potential judges at breed specific seminars.

Posted at 11:02 on 16 Feb 2009 by
Trysori | Report as inappropriate

Talking of Seminars, one recent session contained a good few "allrounders " They all failed !! Whats the expression , Oh yes, "Jack of all trades and master of none". As for the person mentioned above , he was mentoring us and our committee on the health scheme, That is until he started ingoring us, now wont even answer an email never mind take phone calls.

Posted at 17:50 on 16 Feb 2009 by
Nemesis | Report as inappropriate

I'm still trying to work out when we show exhibitors/breeders stopped being 'Pet' owners of our dogs after listening to Mark Evans............... maybe Aug 08? Posted at 20:51 on 14 Feb 2009 by Mandie | Report as inappropriate Mandie. I havenot shown for years but remember 12 years ago coming first at one show and second at the next with my pet Monary line cairn terrier bitch that did not like the ring at all. At the second show the winner said he would have to get rid of the winner because he was not good enough??? When I wanted to find a local Heshe dog to use for mating I got turned down maybe my bitch was too good??? (well thats what my sister said they did not want the competition) So not all show people had pets then never mind now Paul

Posted at 18:06 on 16 Feb 2009 by
neutral | Report as inappropriate

Instead of promoting mixed breeds - why doesn't the RSPCA promote scrapping the PETS Scheme making it easier for new dogs to enter the UK to make a contribution to the gene pool. The majority of countries are rabies free, and most dogs are vaccinated against rabies. I am british, but having lived on the continent for over 30 years the paranoia about rabies still astounds me. Here even our foxes are rabies free vaccinated by treated meat.

Posted at 21:27 on 16 Feb 2009 by
KRummery | Report as inappropriate

sorry I meant ..the majority of countries in Europe..

Posted at 21:28 on 16 Feb 2009 by
KRummery | Report as inappropriate

Both spoke well and I sense of a 'coming together' of the KC & the RSPCA. If the BBC wanted to help pedigree dogs by producing their undoubtedly biased programme in fairness they should produce further programmes hopefully showing some of the changes that are happening. The general public are not as thick as some might imagine - they know full well that Pedigree Dogs Exposed was a 'hatchet job' Thanks to Dog World for letting us here the interview.

Posted at 09:04 on 17 Feb 2009 by
Yorkshireroots | Report as inappropriate

Thank you, Dogworld for this excellent interview! So much to talk about in cooperative terms of the best way forward for the betterment of all dogs' health. Caroline Kisko stated that there are large areas of agreement and shared objectives. I also agree with Mark Evans' statement that we must "leave our baggage at the door" and find the best way forward working together. He also said and I do so agree that if puppy buyers and the general public see that all involved continue to argue about whose fault it is and whether a problem exists in the first place, they will surely lose faith in purebred dogs. No one wants to buy a dog that is prone to serious health issues. The puppy buyer must have faith that their companion will be able to live a comfortable, happy life.

Posted at 14:04 on 17 Feb 2009 by
Freedonian | Report as inappropriate

The general public are not as thick as some might imagine - they know full well that Pedigree Dogs Exposed was a 'hatchet job' Thanks to Dog World for letting us here the interview. Posted at 09:04 on 17 Feb 2009 by Yorkshireroots | Trouble is there was smoke and fire . It was a wakeup call not a hatchet job. The public had a right to know that both puppy farmers and certain people in the show fraternity were selling doge with health problems.. Paul

Posted at 17:42 on 17 Feb 2009 by
neutral | Report as inappropriate

The public had a right to know that both puppy farmers and certain people in the show fraternity were selling doge with health problems.. This is an obvious line to take ! The Problem is actually that Puppy Farmers and some irresponsible breeders do not Do HEALTH CHECKS. All breeds have Hereditary problems in some form or other, EVEN HUMANS . in this day and age of "everything MUST be saved " people have left themselves wide open to the fall out, they sell these puppies ( if they have survived ) and know nothing of what is in store for that puppy, usually they where weak and sickly because they where not viable in the first place. Way back , when breeders knew more of what they where doing ( ie, they learned form more exprienced breeders) Any offspring that where sickly or even deformed where put down, only the strongest survived , this helped to keep the breeds healthier. Now everything is saved , at what cost ? As for the crossbreed scenario , well, dont these advocates realise that the likelyhood is that the offspring will in fact inherit the health problems of both breeds? What a ridiculous world we live in. No we have the Protestors being BUSED IN to Crufts to Demonstrate! Lets hope the KC PAY for Proper Security .

Posted at 16:31 on 18 Feb 2009 by
Nemesis | Report as inappropriate