Sorry, I wasn't sure what to title this.

My friend has a St. Bernard who is IKC registered. (We are in Northern Ireland) The parents were not health tested, and the puppy now has serious hip dysplacia that requires surgery, which my friend's insurance are not willing to pay for. I am aware she should have bought from a breeder who health tests, and so is she, and I think the lesson is learned.

My friend would like to take action, if possible, aganist the breeder, not only to recover the costs of the medication her bitch is on, and the surgery she needs, but also to attempt the breeder to take responsibility for what has happened. Not least as her puppy's Mum was expecting another litter by the time the pup was seven months old.

I have heard of legal action being taken against breeders who haven't health tested, in cases like this, but does anyone know any more about this? Has she got any sort of chance at all?

why wont the insurance company pay out?

They say they don't cover hip displaycia, she is going to appeal, but she is insured with E & L, so I don't fancy her chances...

Unfortunatly Hip problems are difficult to pin down on purley bad breeding. Certainly the breeder should have taken the responsibility of scoring and using good stock and I would have thought they are at least in legal terms partially to blame. However it would be vitually impossible to discount any environmental issues no matter how well your friend has brought up her pup and the courts would need absolute proof of breeder neglect to find her totally responsible. However I do think a trip to the trading standards agency is in order if for no other reason than to frighten the breeder into doing things better next time. After all the "goods" are to some degree "not fit for the purpose they were purchased for". I feel unfortunatly though she may be on a looser with any compensation. The Insurers should cover it unless it specifically said they don't in the policy. Read it very carefully.
Aileen

I would have thought the main problem here is that you are effectively dealing with two different countries, if your friend lives in Northern Ireland but the dog is IKC registered so must have been bred in Southern Ireland.

I understand your friend's predicament but this all seems bizarre to me. In this day and age people are so quick to want to take legal action.

Your friend obviously knew that she wasn't buying from health tested parents and that was her choice.

My dog has allergies that my vet said is probably inherited from parents... Did I tell the breeder? Yes. Did I try to sue the breeder? No! These things happen. Also, how do you know that the dog's condition is not something that your friend has caused rather than being inherited? I know bad hips can be inherited but they can also be caused by the dog being too heavy, being over exercised... sometimes it's just one of those things.

Also, she maybe should have asked for some recommendations before insuring, I doubt anyone would have recommended E&L!!

Not trying to cause offence to anyone, just giving my opinion.

Surely this is a case for Trading Standards? All 'goods' (and that includes puppies) that are sold should be fit for purpose and a dog with Hip Dysplasia clearly isn't. If the breeder didn't hip score they haven't taken all possible care to ensure the health of the puppy. Agree that it might be complicated if the breeder is in Southern Ireland - but it's definitely worth speaking to Trading Standards.

E&L Insurance - well if they are as awkward with dogs as they are with horses you'll be lucky to get any money from them for anything!!!

Cases like this are very difficult Jackson.

From what you have said,  your friend has little if no hope in getting a penny from this breeder, tell her not to waste her money on solicitors in this case.

The only hope that she does have is if she can prove that other dogs from this breeding pair have also suffered the same fate, then she very much has a case.

Unfortunately at present it is not the law to hip score a dam or sire, it is not the law that dogs have to have health checks, only if there is a pattern of other affected pups can a breeder then be brought to court as knowingly potentially breeding unhealthy pups. Or if one or both of the parents has HD then again she has a case here, otherwise............

If she has no other back up here then it can not be proven that HD has come from the parents genetics.

Sorry, but these type of breeders and puppyfarms have got away with these issues for years due to it not being a legal requirement to score and test, it is only up to puppy buyers to choose carefully the breeder of their pup and decrease the chances of this happening.

Surely this is a case for Trading Standards? All 'goods' (and that includes puppies) that are sold should be fit for purpose and a dog with Hip Dysplasia clearly isn't.

But the dog wasn't sold in the UK so our laws surely won't apply.

I'm not condoning the lack of health tests here, but does your friend know that the pups parents actually have bad hips, just because they haven't been scored doesn't necessarily mean they are.

> I'm not condoning the lack of health tests here, but does your friend know that the pups parents actually have bad hips, just because they haven't been scored doesn't necessarily mean they are.

Yes.  I know of a dog with a very low hip score - total of 2 - yet it sired pups with scores in the 50's, 60's 70's!      I think your friend just has to put it done to lack of foresight on her part for not buying from hip scored parents after all she knew that from the start.   

Thanks for the replies. I realise it is a difficult situation.

My friend realises her mistakes (not buying from health tested parents AND insuring with E & L!) I have nagged her about both until the cows come home since she got the pup. She does take full responsibility for her mistakes, and it isn't a case of the money involved, more trying to do something to make the breeder stop and think about what they are doing.

I do realise that even if the parents had great hip scores, there are no guarantees, but at least they would have taken all the steps possible to try and prevent it. It is obvious what sort of breeders they are as they had the bitch in whelp again at her next season.

I will speak to her about contacting trading standards and see if they advise anything. I did speak to the IKC on her behalf (she is very shy) and they said she could put a complaint about the breeder in in writing, although not sure if that would even come to anything.

Thanks for the replies.

Got to ask... what about the pup?  Is your friend going to pay for the op?  I'd imagine she'd get a hefty bill.  I hope it works out ok for the dog and her x

i have 1st hand experience of this situation in uk and I can tell you that in UK (England anyway) she would have a very good chance of compensation.

Just to say E & L have always settled my insuracne claims no questions asked.

Linda

If the dog whelped in Northern Ireland it would be the UK that the pups would be registered, did the breeder therefore come from Southern Ireland?

Ditto what Linday has said about E&L. My last girl had an ongoing skin problem for 7 years, they regularly paid out with no problem whatsoever. All I had to do was make sure I submitted a claim every 3 months and even then they were quite lenient.

Hello All - I had a problem with a cocker spaniel breeder. His website stated all breeding stock were eye tested. He verbally reinforced this but when I received KC certificates there were no eye tests for dam and sires were 5 years old.  It took him two months to finally eye test the dogs and I had involved trading standard.  Also the pup had undescended testicles at 7 weeks which he assured me was very common and they would be down by 12 weeks. 16 weeks old and no sign!!.  Other male pup in litter had same problem.  Walking round with pup I have spoken to cocker spaniel owners.  One woman also had two dogs from this breeder - one with only one testicle (he is a blue roan cocker 2 years old) and a 6 year old ex stud dog whose testicles had shrivelled???.  She told me her vet wondered had he had ever sired pup as his testes were very small.  This breeder has an paid arrangement with this woman to use the 2 year as a stud dog.  My opinion based on what I have discovered since owning the pup is that he is knowingly breeding dogs with chrytorchidism (unilateral and bilateral retained testicles) and that he deliberately misrepresented the situation to me.   I am therefore interested in the comments that suggested that where a breeder is knowingly selling and breeding dogs with this problem there is a legal recourse. 
I feel extremely angry-  it is not the dog's fault and I adore him (he a beautiful golden cocker sadly without his golden ball!!) but I think the breeder has behaved appallingly.   Any advice appreciated!!

Has the dog been sold for the purpose of breeding?

>Also the pup had undescended testicles at 7 weeks which he assured me was very common and they would be down by 12 weeks. 16 weeks old and no sign!!.

The more you look for a dog puppies testes the less likely you are to find them, as dog puppies can & do become very tense & the testes cannot descend if this happens. Are you wanting the dog solely for breeding purposes ? I would have expected you to have the breeder have the dog puppy vet checked before purchase if this is the case. I check any dog puppy very gently the day I get him & don't bother again, as they become visible before the puppy is 6 months & even if the puppy has only 1 i wouldn't keep checking & leave it until at least 12 months before getting the vet to have a look. Male dogs are more than just a pair of testes

I told the breeder I would want to leave the dog intact.  My personal view is that other than in the situation of having an unmanageable dog or due to health issues where the only solution was castration I would never choose to castrate a dog. I had checked with the breeder that the KC papers would not be endorsed as although I did not have concrete plans to breed or show it was something I did not wish to rule out.  I paid a full price for the pup and am very attached to him.   If the testicles do not descend according to my research there is a greater  chance of cancer (sertoli tumours).  I will then have to make a decision whether to cross my fingers and hope my dog will be OK or have him neutured. The operation will be more expensive if the testicles are retained in the abdomen circa £200.  As I did not wish to neuter the dog either from personal preference (it also is not great for a golden cocker's coat) and given the additional unanticipated financial cost on top of paying the full pedigree price I am angry with the breeder's misrepresentation - the more so as it is clear he has prior knowledge of this problem in his lines.

> I had checked with the breeder that the KC papers would not be endorsed

This for me would be a reason not to buy.  Breeders who care about their bloodlines and the breed tend to endorse so that only litters from dogs suitable for breeding are registered.

Most would want to see how the dog matures and also that it passes all relevant health tests and that the owner will be the kind of person that will breed responsibly, not something anyone without a crystal ball can tell at 8 weeks, even with the best pedigree.

Only a small proportion of dogs are going to be suitable for breeding, and even fewer owners suitable to be breeders in it for the long haul.

Most good breeders sell a puppy as suitable to be a companion, and the descent or otherwise of testicles should not impact on this.  The fact that there is a higher risk of tumours is really only the same as there being a higher risk of tumours in intact bitches (doesn't mean either needs to be neutered), or more prostate cancer in neuters etc, yet neutering is still waht many choose to do.

I know no breeder that would sell a pup as a breeding animal, or for that matter show or working, only that a pup shows potential.

If the breeder is as described i don't believe they are a true breed enthusiast.

Do they belong and take part in breed club activities?

I paid a full price What is a full price. A pet price.

If the testicles do not descend according to my research there is a greater  chance of cancer (sertoli tumours). A very very very very small chance. This theory has been blown well out of proportion.

Testicles in the tummy can be generally brought down with routine neutering.

You seem to almost been looking for issues with her , loads of people buy a " pet" at a " pet" price and have to have it neutered.

Bit of a forceful response

Key points
Full price means just that - retained testicles are a breed/ genetic fault.  Not sure how the logic of pet price is applicable??   Even if I paid a pet price it is still incumbent on the breeder not to misrepresent the characteristics of the dog
I'd be delighted if it was indeed a very very ..... small chance that that retained testicles do not increased the risk of cancer.  If you have scientific evidence please reference it.  I have researched articles and whilst I am willing to look at all evidence the balance of what I am reading indicates it is an issue.

Not looking for issues as I said in my opinion the breeder has behaved appallingly

Bit of a forceful response Not really just replying to the facts as I see them

Full price means just that  Means what?   In a lot of breeds a show potential puppy "may" cost more, in a lot of breeds, breeding potential " may " cost more.  

retained testicles are a breed/ genetic fault.  Not in all cases. It is a very common thing , not always genetic I can assure you and it certainly in no way affects the enjoyment you get from a pet dog which you bought.

I'd be delighted if it was indeed a very very ..... small chance that that retained testicles do not increased the risk of cancer.  If you have scientific evidence please reference it.   likewise please supply the scientific evidence statistically per % that it will cause cancer.    My vet has never seen a dog develop cancer from a retained testicle.

Not looking for issues as I said in my opinion the breeder has behaved appallingly You base this on what?? what you have said in this thread? 

My advise would be if your that unhappy take the dog back   I am sure IF the breed is a good breeder she will be glad of it's return.

Your post just sounds like sweeping generalising to be honest to me. Unless you have some other founding facts.. If there is more to it let it be a BIG lesson to search out ethical breeders sorry if it sounds blunt. 

OK - we all have a different perspective on things that'swhat makes the world interesting but your post seem a bit over forceful. 
If you read all the posts made
Breeder misrepresented eye status on website (this was addressed after speaking to trading standards)
Breeder told me retained testicles were common in cocker spaniels and would drop by 12 weeks.  I agree it is not an uncommon problem and they can drop later but this is the exception rather than the rule.
It was never implied  that my enjoyment of the dog would be diminished - he is great. 

Hindsight is great I wish I had used a more ethical breeder unfortunately at the time he represented as ethical.  The difficulties were uncovered later.

As I qualified it is my OPINION (which you are entitled to disagree with but not diminish) that the breeder has behaved appallingly - trading standards told me that misrepresentation re the eye test was a criminal act and based on the evidence re breeding line issues on retained testicles.  Chryptorchidism is linked with genetics. 

Here is some of the evidence on chryptorchidism (I have read a great deal more but don't want to blind you with science)  Now in return I would be delighted to see evidence to the contrary - one vet's statement is not a scientific survey it clearly depends on how long he has been in practice. I am aware that there is an article which gives a less worrying viewpoint on the cancer risk of chryporchidism and would really appreciate if anyone could reference this for me as I have not been able to find it.
http://www.dogchannel.com/dog-breeds/dog-breeding/article_21658.aspx
http://www.labbies.com/reproduction5.htm

Based on this I would take the dog back.

The eye status would be on the KC docs which you should have recieved when picking up the puppy unless they were not available at that time.   If they eye testing was promised that is your angle for redress BUT the fact the puppy has one testicle and was purchased as a pet only would hold no weight whatsoever.