The Kennel Club Wants "avoiding Action"

[jayp]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

I hate that new phrase 'step up to the plate' where did it come from?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Does this really matter as Cathy has put a very interesting post which i feel sure breeders will wish to consider rather than irrelevancies Jan

 

[Zephyr]

I hate that new phrase 'step up to the plate' where did it come from?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

It is a baseball term - this is from the Free Dictionary

step up to the plate

to take responsibility for doing something. eg It is time companies stepped up to the plate and made sure the meat they sell is safe to eat.

Related vocabulary: step in

Etymology: based on the baseball meaning of step up to the plate (= move into position to hit the ball)

 

[bertha]

Thank you I guessed it had to be something from the States! I was not decrying anything Cathy said, I just wanted to know.

So don't jump down my throat. :huh:

 

[jayp]

Thank you I guessed it had to be something from the States! I was not decrying anything Cathy said, I just wanted to know.
So don't jump down my throat. :huh:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Sorry anne, i know you are really interested in the topic so didnt mean to jump jan

 

[jayp]

A great thread, and some very interesting posts so far.
It does seem an excellent and forward thinking idea to have all COI's on pedigrees, and this is something that only the Kennel Club can practically do.  If this was something that all breeders were looking at when planning their matings, it would be very obvious from the start whether this was a safe mating or not.

And if it were well publicised, and the general public were kept informed on what the COI is (and I think with all the interest in pedigree dog breeding in the press recently, this is an excellent time to start), they will start to ask for this information from breeders, and turn down inbred pups as being potentially unhealthy.

The KC must act, firmly and intelligently, to enable conscientious breeders to safeguard the health and welfare of all our beloved pedigree dogs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

good post

 

[quintessence]

A great thread, and some very interesting posts so far.
It does seem an excellent and forward thinking idea to have all COI's on pedigrees, and this is something that only the Kennel Club can practically do.  If this was something that all breeders were looking at when planning their matings, it would be very obvious from the start whether this was a safe mating or not.

And if it were well publicised, and the general public were kept informed on what the COI is (and I think with all the interest in pedigree dog breeding in the press recently, this is an excellent time to start), they will start to ask for this information from breeders, and turn down inbred pups as being potentially unhealthy.

The KC must act, firmly and intelligently, to enable conscientious breeders to safeguard the health and welfare of all our beloved pedigree dogs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I agree totally with you Beth. The first time I looked at genetics, I though s*d this I'm taking the dogs out, I just did not think I could get my head round it. I then thought I was wimping out and ought to try and understand it, I read an article by Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at UCL, and thought long and hard about it. My next step was to obtain Natalia's notes from The Whippet Congress and have progressed from there. I don't profess to understand it all but I do understand enough to be very concerned.

I am not a breeder and never will be now, but I am probably one of the most important people as far as any breeder is concerned and that is a potential puppy buyer, so I have decided that my input is valuable.

I watched Pedigree Dogs Exposed and it broke my heart and I have continued to be saddened at the way the CKCS breed is tearing itself apart. The Kennel Club can get through this and come out stronger but they are going to have to take firm action. They are hurting at present but I believe they will do the right thing, it makes no sense whatsoever not to.

I have probably read every article on this subject in Our Dogs and Dog World and time after time in the many articles in support of The Kennel Club come across the word however, many of the writers , whilst being incensed by the programme, have to agree that there are problems which need addressing and there is certainly no smoke without fire. I would like to see every breed put under the spotlight, we have nothing to lose by it and everything to gain.

Jenny

 

[alfie]

Doesn't it just show how many people would prefer to just bury their heads in the sand and ignore health problems- the members of the CKCS committee have called a SGM to get Margaret Carter expelled- she was the lady on the programme insisting that Cavalier breeders needed to recognise how serious the health problems were...

Liz and the Monellis

 

[Natalia]

The Kennel Club is not my kennel club, so I can only speak about some general ideas. I do believe in action which go step by step, slowly but constantly, and are driven from the bottom, not from the top.

I think that too many "no" and "must" regulations are counterproductive, as breeders will want to avoid them, probably hiding uncomfortable info, which is the worst thing that can happen. Because of that I think banning affected dogs from shows would result in hiding their diseases, and/or cheating at vet examinations, if they were obligatory (in fact I believe it is impossible to make all health test obligatory).

Some ideas which come into my head, some of them already given by Cathie and Seraphina:

- creating a database with all pedigrees and possibilities to check different test mating and calculate COI for any given dog or test litter, and make it warn the breeders, if any combination they try has higher COI than considered safe

- running a detailed health survey to reveal what are the most important, and which of them should be addressed first (especially in breeds with almost 100% population of carriers)

- when needed, creating a strict plan for eliminating certain disorder from the breed

- creating an open registry for health results

- permanent identification of all dogs

- DNA parentage tests in any doubtful case + every now and then in randomly chosen litters, better inspection of what is being registered (there are for example some black dogs registered with two blue parents, which is obviously impossible)

- a lot of education, lectures, seminars, employing veterinary and genetic consultants available by phone or e-mail for any breeder (I do not think it would ruin the Kennel Club)

- employing certified veterinarians to run health clinics at the most important specialties, to make a few most important health check available at better prices and more convenient for an average show dog owner, the same about biggest event for working dogs

- co-operation with Universities running research programs on dogs, discounts for breeders that do the most important tests

- I think (probably impossible) that COI of every dog should be written on a pedigree, accompanied with a table with some numbers, stating what are approximate safe, risky and very risky levels of this numbers, and what is the average number for the breed. I am sure many dog buyers would check this and ask questions - most uncomfortable for breeders who do not know what they want to achieve with an inbred mating (I am sure some of them would rather choose an unrelated dog to avoid this, and I am also sure quite many people who have litters do it without good knowledge and sometimes maybe even without thinking about that)

- My observation is that people (including me) like titles. If there is anything a dog can achieve and it is within reach, many people would go for it, to put it on the website, in an advertisement or just to feel satisfied. There is such a system in France, I know it from another breed and do not know exactly how it works in whippets, but it could be something like that:

A dog receives points

- for any show success, coursing, racing etc

- for sport activities like agility or obedience

- for being mental tested (in other breeds for example - passing the test of herding instinct)

- for being health tested (any test available could be worth a certain amount of points, for breeds where DNA tests are available they should be worth the most)

- perhaps for contributing to an overall diversity of the breed (having COI below a certain level, and/or having more than X% unique ancestors, or more than Y different names in the pedigree)

In France dogs with certain achievements can be "recommended", or "very recommended" and it is a title hard to achieve. I think 2 or even 3 categories of dogs who have required number of points would be a nice tool for buyers and could be fun to achieve for breeders. I believe wise distribution of points would make health test much more desirable than they are today. In several years such a system would be known and buyers would start to look for the most pointed dogs, making the system even more effective. Such a system could be a breed club action.

- banning the closest matings and setting the maximum number of litters for any dog I think would show a direction, but not have direct, long-term effect (however, it would be impossible to breed a dog like that one: http://thewhippetarchives.net/details.php?id=53542&gens=4 )

 

[Seraphina]

The Kennel Club is not my kennel club, so I can only speak about some general ideas. I do believe in action which go step by step, slowly but constantly, and are driven from the bottom, not from the top.
I think that too many "no" and "must" regulations are counterproductive, as breeders will want to avoid them, probably hiding uncomfortable info, which is the worst thing that can happen. Because of that I think banning affected dogs from shows would result in hiding their diseases, and/or cheating at vet examinations, if they were obligatory (in fact I believe it is impossible to make all health test obligatory).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Many breeders will not admit to problems in their dogs. The problem with showing dog with serious inherited disease is that if the dog is successful in the ring he will be used at stud. As the Cavalier was. Our KC rules already states that all dogs have to be entire = suitable for breeding, to be eligible for show. While you may not be able to force people to do tests, you can have regulation that no progeny will be registered or championship title ratified without tests prescribed for particular breed.

- permanent identification of all dogs

That is already the law here

- banning the closest matings and setting the maximum number of litters for any dog I think would show a direction, but not have direct, long-term effect (however, it would be impossible to breed a dog like that one: http://thewhippetarchives.net/details.php?id=53542&gens=4 )

Would not stopping such inbred matings have direct and long term effect?

 

[Natalia]

Many breeders will not admit to problems in their dogs. The problem with showing dog with serious inherited disease is that if the dog is successful in the ring he will be used at stud. As the Cavalier was. Our KC rules already states that all dogs have to be entire = suitable for breeding, to be eligible for show. While you may not be able to force people to do tests, you can have regulation that no progeny will be registered or championship title ratified without tests prescribed for particular breed.

I agree that many breeders will not admit they have any problems. But I am afraid that closing shows for dogs with disease is not the solution, in my opinion it may even increase the problem. People who like showing can be more motivated to hide problems than they are now. Banning from shows would be a kind of punishment for the disease of the dog, which I do not think is good. It would make talking about health problem more, not less risky than it is today.

The regulations not allowing registration of progeny unless the parents are tested are already working for some breeds, as far as I know in UK as well. I am not sure if we are at the point such regulations should have place in whippets. Personally I think the first step should be encouraging people to do test more, run detailed health survey, start co-operation with researchers. Unfortunately we do not have good knowledge about the mode of inheritance of any problem occuring in the breed so far.

permanent identification of all dogs

That is already the law here

Here where I leave as well, but Cathie says it is not in UK.

Would not stopping such inbred matings have direct and long term effect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Yes it would, and I think it should be done. What I was trying to say was that I think that extreme situations like the litter I linked to are (I hope) rare, and most breeders' plans would not be affected by this kind of regulations. At the same time, such technical regulations alone are not able to change the situation in the breed in general. I believe in education and small changes in attitude. I think the Swedish model is very well prepared.

 

[Hillrunner]

msg deleted

 

[Judy]

Here is what I would like to see them do before it is too late
~Only allow the registration of  litters with an inbreeding co-efficient of 3% or lower. (Other KC s are doing this, why not ours?)

~ Set up their database so that breeders can go and look at the co-efficients to help them plan matings.

~Ban sibling matings, parent x offspring matings  and grandparent x grandchild matings.

~Insist that all breeding stock should be micro chipped and tested for any disease, for which there is a test available, that is present in the breed. Institute a passport system & web site showing the test results for all breeders to see.

~Roll out  the existing education programme for breeders of pedigree dogs. Make genetics seminars readily available  to all breeders.

~Tackle the problem of Popular Sire Syndrome by setting a limit on the number of bitches they can cover.

~Set a minimum age for  the use of breeding animals at stud.

~Insist that breeders obtain  a certificate of health from a vet within a month before a  mating

~Implement a  strategy to ensure that registrations are accurate, by DNA if necessary. At the moment there are NO checks that the sire and dam  named on litter registration forms are correct.

Cathie

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

All good ideas Cathy :thumbsup: Of course if you had a limit of 3% COI you wouldn't need to ban sibling matings etc. Can I just ask where you got 3% from as opposed to any other number? Just wondering if there's a particular reason.

 

[moonlake]

I really don't think you can breed dogs by numbers. Of the 51 UK Champions since 2000, only 11 have a COI lower than 10 - for most of the big kennels it is in the 20s and 30s. Of course we should be mindful of the genetic diversity - or lack of it - in the breed but don't let's throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What we could - and should IMHO do is what is immediately possible - start eye-testing our dogs. I think most UK people were shocked and astonished by the report from the Dutch Whippet Club about pra in the breed but I was told privately that quite a few English dogs in Europe had proved to have eye problems. I think our whippets are pretty healthy and they obviously don't have the conditions that many breeds have to test for but I would prefer to know that we don't have eye problems because they are not obvious to a casual observer and there is an easy way to find out. I have four whippets under the age of 10, two have been tested and I am taking the other two next week. If we start testing now and keep a record, if we do get a problem further down the line, we'll be able to see where it came in and where we can safely go.

I do have a database of all whippet registrations and could easily add eye test results if they were made known to me - and publish the "clear"s here or anywhere else thought suitable if people wanted that.

I can also, if required, give anyone the COI of a proposed mating - just send me the KC names of the dogs concerned (to Info@moonlake.co.uk) and I'll email you back.

Gay

www.moonlake.co.uk

 

[quintessence]

Gay

Is the test carried out by your vet?

Jenny

 

[Natalia]

If I was to choose just one thing to test in whippets, I would choose heart.

British health survey presented by Cathie at the Congress shows that cardio issues are the first cause of death in whippets despite old age, as many as 13,8% die because of heart problem, and the average age of diagnosis is below 7 years, which is far to early to say "one must die of something". It means statistically you have a good chance to find affected puppy in each litter.

Whippets are also at the very high 8. rank in OFA ranking for heart diseases, above boxers, dobermanns and other breeds, considered being at risk.

 

[jok]

The 3% COI suggested - are you basing this on 5 generations or 10? Just wondered as obviously makes a bid difference to the figures depending on how many generations it is based upon.

Thanks

 

[dragonfly]

The 3% COI suggested - are you basing this on 5 generations or 10?  Just wondered as obviously makes a bid difference to the figures depending on how many generations it is based upon.
Thanks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Sorry everyone ...thanks for pointing out my mistake...clumsy fingers!

3% is a mistype. I meant to put 6% which is what the Swedish KC ask for. I know that it is not practical for everyone to get down there straight away but it would be something to aim for. If we can reduce the coefficients across the population by using a wider range of sires and bring in tested stock from abroad it would all help.

I think we should calculate the COI over 10 generations and as the Swedish do publish them along with other litter data.

Many whippets in the UK have COI's over 25%.

I feel that it is very important to consider the population as a whole, rather than individual litters and if everyone bred to increase diversity for a few generations the whippet would have an increased chance of remaining reasonably healthy.

Cathie

 

[~JO~]

The 3% COI suggested - are you basing this on 5 generations or 10?  Just wondered as obviously makes a bid difference to the figures depending on how many generations it is based upon.
Thanks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Sorry everyone ...thanks for pointing out my mistake...clumsy fingers!

3% is a mistype. I meant to put 6% which is what the Swedish KC ask for. I know that it is not practical for everyone to get down there straight away but it would be something to aim for. If we can reduce the coefficients across the population by using a wider range of sires and bring in tested stock from abroad it would all help.

I think we should calculate the COI over 10 generations and as the Swedish do publish them along with other litter data.

Many whippets in the UK have COI's over 25%.

I feel that it is very important to consider the population as a whole, rather than individual litters and if everyone bred to increase diversity for a few generations the whippet would have an increased chance of remaining reasonably healthy.

Cathie

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I believe the Swedish calculate it over 5 generations.

I agree with eye and heart testing being undertaken more regularly. Gaye could you give some more info about the eye testing please?

 

[wilfred]

Gay
Is the test  carried out by your vet?

Jenny

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Eye tests are carried out by BVA/KC panel vets. The kennel club pages give info on where to find a vet who is qualified to carry out the tests.

 

[jayp]

I really don't think you can breed dogs by numbers.  Of the 51 UK Champions since 2000, only 11 have a COI lower than 10 - for most of the big kennels it is in the 20s and 30s.  Of course we should be mindful of the genetic diversity - or lack of it - in the breed but don't let's throw the baby out with the bathwater.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I agree, but breeding for a low COI is a good way of increasing diversity. It is also something tangible for individual breeders to aim for which benefits the population as a whole. Also if we keep mating back to champions with high COIs it is just going to further reduce diversity to the eventual detriment of the genetic stability of the breed.

Also totally agree about eye and heart testing.

Jan