This topic gets more unbelievable! I have just heard that the KC Ab scheme now has an "Accolade of Excellence" and honary membership within their Accredited Breeder Scheme which is awarded by the general commitee to "outstanding members" of the scheme. This is laughable!! The person in question who has been awarded this does the minimum regarding health testing and when I questioned said person, they replied that it would cost FAR too much money to test all the puppies they produce!!! This makes me so angry!!
I know AB scheme has been discussed before on here but thought others might be interested to know...! Rolls eyes!

I have always thought the scheme laughable. In my breed we have breeders regularly breeding from stock with all sorts of health problems but as long as they hip score their breeding stock (and even then it doesn't matter how high the result is),they can become accredited breeders.
IMO not worth the fancy paper it is printed on.

I just find it amazing that you can become an acreddited breeder without having ever breed a dog , nor do you need to have much knowledge about dogs generally. i believe it leads unsuspecting buyers up the garden path

I feel so angered by this I am going to write to the dog paper....something I have not done before and also write to the KC also although I doubt I would even get a reply!

The Kennel club can only police it properly if they have the information. If you know for certain that someone is not following the rules to the letter then write to the KC and tell them. It will do no good just getting cross, I know it is frustrating but like anything to police it properly we need to complain to the right places and not just on here!
I am a member of the ABS and believe me it makes me very cross to know that I bend over backwards to ensure I follow it to the letter but others don't and I would love to see it working properly. I believe it will if we stop moaning about those who do not conform to one another, but put our money where our mouths are and do something about it.
There are many ways the KC can improve on it and I think it is up to us to "squeel" on those who abuse it.
Aileen

But my point Aileen is that the only test required of my breed is hip scoring. Accredited breeders can still use a dog/bitch for breeding if it is well over the breed average as long as it is scored. What is the point? How does that make them a better breeder than, for example, someone with a bitch who is not an AB but decides that as their bitch has a slight heart murmur they will not breed from her.
You can get the situation on the KC website where they could direct new puppy buyers to an AB's litter with a joint hipscore of 100 against a non-AB whose litters parents have a joint score of 12. I know which litter I would prefer to go for but that would be against the advice of the KC.

<< You can get the situation on the KC website where they could direct new puppy buyers to an AB's litter with a joint hipscore of 100 against a non-AB whose litters parents have a joint score of 12. I know which litter I would prefer to go for but that would be against the advice of the KC.  >>

But if the non-AB joined the scheme, which could direct people to them, the choice then would be between a 100 score and a 12 score litter.

My piont exactly, From within we can influence things but if we dismiss the scheme out of hand we do not give it any sort of chance. By all means pick up on every little piont with the KC only then will they be able to police it properly.
Aileen

But why should people pay to join a pointless scheme ? There is nothing exclusive about the 'membership'. It is a very misleading scheme which would appear to indicate that AB's breed better, possibly healthier puppies, which of course is nonsense.
IMO the only way this scheme would gain the credibility is could deserve is if stricter measures were in place, ie, not just hip-scoring but not breeding from stock over a certain scoreand having to sign to say that you would never breed from stock with known health problems would be a step in the right direction.
I agree with the concept but unfortunately the only measures in place at the moment are about as much use as a chocolate teapot with nothing in the immediate pipeline to suggest otherwise.

Although I have not bought from an AB before I knew otherwise I was under the impression that it was an accolade given to a breeder who had jumped through certain hoops therefore as a buyer that would be someone I would head for and think someone without it would be a lesser breeder. How wrong I would be. Surley one point of it is for the general public to help them select a good breeder and good pup.

> This topic gets more unbelievable! I have just heard that the KC Ab scheme now has an "Accolade of Excellence" and honary membership within their Accredited Breeder Scheme which is awarded by the general commitee to "outstanding members" of the scheme. This is laughable!! The person in question who has been awarded this does the minimum regarding health testing and when I questioned said person, they replied that it would cost FAR too much money to test all the puppies they produce!!! This makes me so angry!!
> I know AB scheme has been discussed before on here but thought others might be interested to know...! Rolls eyes!

I agree with you.  It really is a total farce!!!  It also makes me wonder if its a matter of 'not what you do BUT who you know'!!!!!

hmmmm and can someone tell me how one gets this accolade? Does one apply or does someone at the kc go scouting for suitable members? Very curious now! (yes i am a scheme member    )

> The Kennel club can only police it properly if they have the information. If you know for certain that someone is not following the rules to the letter then write to the KC and tell them. It will do no good just getting cross, I know it is frustrating but like anything to police it properly we need to complain to the right places and not just on here!
> I am a member of the ABS and believe me it makes me very cross to know that I bend over backwards to ensure I follow it to the letter but others don't and I would love to see it working properly. I believe it will if we stop moaning about those who do not conform to one another, but put our money where our mouths are and do something about it.
> There are many ways the KC can improve on it and I think it is up to us to "squeel" on those who abuse it.
> Aileen

I really wish to god that the KC DID police it properly!  An ABS breeder was breeding her girls 'back to back' by falsely registering extra puppies, and of course this also meant that some of the litters were registered with incorrect parentage.  This was reported to the KC, and absolutely nothing was done!  After several years she has now been struck off BUT this was only because a breed club gathered evidence by using a 'helper' to prove this was happening.  Sorry, but i think this should be done by the KC. They are quite happy to take the money for the registrations, and the AB scheme, so surely it is their responsibility.  It is just a complete joke!!

<<How does one apply?

Quote: ""I have today received a communication from the Kennel Club to tell me that the General Committee have awarded me an "Accolade of Excellence" and honary membership within their Accredited Breeder Scheme. This accolade is only awarded to breeders within the scheme who they consider has a record of outstanding achievement in their breed. This is the highest honour available  within the scheme and has only been awarded to twelve breeders (all breeds) to date. ""

record of outstanding achievement     Ie Breeds many litters rather! Has used dogs/bitches with much higher than average hip scores and poo poos anyone who hearing tests their puppies.
As someone above has said, the scheme needs policing, spot checks on kennels/premises. As I see it, its just another money making venture of the KC.

> As I see it, its just another money making venture of the KC

As i see it, i think your right.  From what i have gathered, why would the KC pick up on someone registering extra puppies.  At the end of the day, they are being paid by the said person to register, against what, someone complaining!  Is it a licence to print money? 

Deluded by the whole thing, every time i go on websites to look for a new dog, every one advertises th.ey are an accredited breeder, yet non seems to do any health tests whatsoever.... Minefield

crincklecut

Within any scheme there are going to be people who abuse it. The principles of it are fine and I agree some measures could be stronger, but do we really want to be dictated to as to who we can use for breeding? By having a dog hip-scored (if that is one of the requirements), the potential buyer can make their own choice because they will know the litter are from hip-scored parents.

Your "hip-scoring" example would rule out some dogs being used by breeders because their score is above the "certain score". And who would determine what the "certain score" would be? This dog may have other attributes making him/her an important dog within a breed. A good hip score is only one element and not the be all and end all, other things need taking into consideration.

Obviously one wouldn't use a clinical dysplastic for breeding (in USA a dog is borderline up to our score of 25), but a higher hip score can be a one off with excellent scores in ancestors and siblings etc, result of injury to one hip (with uneven scores)etc, and there may be very good reasons to use the dog or more likely the bitch for it's other virtues.

Also what is a higher than average score in one breed will be good or average in another, and the scheme needs to have broad basic requirements that fit all breeds.

> Obviously one wouldn't use a clinical dysplastic for breeding (in USA a dog is borderline up to our score of 25), but a higher hip score can be a one off with excellent scores in ancestors and siblings etc, result of injury to one hip (with uneven scores)etc, and there may be very good reasons to use the dog or more likely the bitch for it's other virtues.

Rather than eradicating the problem isn't this just continuing the fault and breeding it back into the lines????

I realise a dog may have a great confirmation etc etc but bad hip score.... but thats ok because she looks good??? I thought since we are all dog lovers here that you would work towards eradication a problem within breeds, surely you could use a dog for its other attributes and breed the perfect puppy and wow another poor hip score, thus causing the pup much pain and distress in later life.

>Rather than eradicating the problem isn't this just continuing the fault and breeding it back into the lines????

Only if the high score is due to genes, rather than environmental. Even so, if a dog with genetically not-perfect hips is genetically clear of another possibly life-threatening condition, the benefit to the breed of his good genes might outweigh the downside of his/her poor hips. As Malcolm Willis has said many times "A dog is more than a pair of hips", and we don't want to narrow the gene pool too far.

I only used hip-scoring as an example as it is the only test required in my breed, but an AB can breed from a dog with epilepsy for example, without any repercussions as long as the dog has been hip scored. How does that make them a better breeder? Answer - Clearly it doesn't but the KC will still direct puppy buyers to the AB over the non AB who maybe does not have epilepsy in their lines.

> As Malcolm Willis has said many times "A dog is more than a pair of hips", and we don't want to narrow the gene pool too far.

So if you find a dog with genetically a good hip score and also free from other genetic conditions within the breed, would it then narrow the gene pool?  and narrow it to what, inbreeding?  Or is it that a said sound dog (male/female) might not have the correct teeth, head, conformation?  I can see where it comes from, but surely within every breed there are sound examples of the breed.  Or do all lines carry some genetic problem or another? Therefore, wouldn't it be the breeders responsibility to breed to eradicate a problem totally, or am i being to idealistic here lol (no offence i am trying to understand this concept)

On a different note re;KCAB, I've just found out that a puppy seen in the village recently, who's new owners at the time said was unregistered, has come from a KCAB .....and with the recent BRS dropping on the door mat this morning, I note that it definitely was not registered by the Kennel Club Accerdited Breeder......GRrrrrr.......

> I thought since we are all dog lovers here that you would work towards eradication a problem within breeds,

Your not distinguishing between clinical cases and perfection, which a 0/0 score denotes, a dog with a 20 total score is never going to have hip problems and be u healthy in that regard.  Also an animal that has sustained an injury or been affected by environmental, nutritional forces is not going to pass these onto the offspring. 

If you have many generations of scores for ancestors and they re good the animal is most likely to produce what it's breeding has than it's own score.  On the other hand a dog with a perfect score from generations of untested stock is a riskier option and may not produce as well.  On this instance we are dealing with a condition deemed to be about 30% heritable, the rest is outside the genes.

There is no perfect animal, average hips and great temperament, ability breed type are worth a lot more than superior hips with nothing else worth having.

well my phone has been red hot today with people i know in other breeds incensed at what they read in the breed notes today.....and i have to agree its a disgraceful attitude. Thankfully some of us care enough to hip and elbow score!!!!

>So if you find a dog with genetically a good hip score and also free from other genetic conditions within the breed, would it then narrow the gene pool?

If that dog was used on many bitches (overuse of popular stud dogs is always a problem) then yes, the gene pool would be narrowed.

>Or do all lines carry some genetic problem or another? Therefore, wouldn't it be the breeders responsibility to breed to eradicate a problem totally, or am i being to idealistic here lol

When a condition is a simple dominant/recessive genetic condition then it's sometimes possible to breed it out of a line, but then if you outcrossed to another line (as you'd need to if you were to avoid close inbreeding) then you run the risk of reintroducing it. However so many conditions aren't as straightforward as that, and for many there's no test for them anyway.

The perfect dog doesn't exist, and probably never will.

The fact is that one does the best one can with the maximum knowledge one can get about the lines behind the parents of any proposed litter, and then hope that this is enough, which fortunately it is more likely to be than not doing any research or health screening.

If one was to apply such selection to human partnership most of us would not be deemed fit to pass on our genes

>If one was to apply such selection to human partnership most of us would not be deemed fit to pass on our genes

Absolutely true.

the problem is that from the outside it all looks very easy - " good breeders do all the health tests and only breed from those with good results " - but the realities are very different - in my breed we test for hips and eyes and yet our biggest problem is Epilepsy - so as a breeder I may well be faced with the choice of using a dogs that are from epilepsy clear lines but with less than perfect eye tests for example- throw temperament, construction and type into the equation and a small gene pool from which to choose  and you can see the dilemma - with every health test introduced we run the risk of limiting the genes available even further and thus allowing other problems to surface

here's what the APGAW report had to say (section 2.4.5)

" as mandatory screening and subsequent removal of dogs from the breeding population reduces the number of dogs allowed to be bred, the population goes through a bottle neck. This could lead to the increased expression of other, currently very rare diseases, hence one heritable diseaese could be exchanged for another. Geneticists have made it clear that simplistic avoidance of breeding from animals scoring positive for particular disorders at test is not the stand alone solution. This would be likley to make  already small gene pools even smaller and result in worsening the problem or creating new ones "

Yvonne

This is exactly why you should not stop using carriers if there is a DNA test available for a condition, the aim should be not to produce affected offspring.  Carriers should only be dispensed with once they form an almost irrelevantly small proportion of the gene pool so their removal will have little or no effect, in other words after some years after the DNA test starts to be sued, longer in breeds with small gene pools and shorter in those with larger ones.

Things are rarely black and white when making these decisions, but should always be well informed.