Hip Dysplasia (in Beagles) - A KC Cover Up or Not? Controversial

You've told me this before - and then if I remember correctly you went on to tell me of two or three cases of health problems. Assuming you are telling the truth (and how am I to know whether you're just bitching because you hate pedigree breeders) that's hardly 'evidence' of health problems in an entire breed. Or maybe you've got it in for breeders of breeds deemed 'healthy' by the BVA and KC because your preferred breed has big health problems? I have no way of knowing but I'd be crazy not to consider these things as a possibility for your determination to convince me that the Beagle breed is unhealthy when official sources and my experience state otherwise.

I take advice regarding HD in the beagle from numerous people that have bred for 30 or 40 years. From the BVA who have stacks of statistical information about the breed at their disposal. And from my vet that see's lots of beagles and receives updates on health problems seen in the breed throughout the country.

I acknowledge that you (and others) think 'knowing a couple of beagles' or 'doing a quick google search' leaves you better placed to advice than these people. But you must also be intelligent enough to accept that others might see things differently. It's silly to get upset because people choose to take the advice of qualified, informed experts over you. No one in their right mind would follow the advice of unknown strangers on the internet with no experience of the breed over the KC, vets, Beagle breeders, Beagle breed clubs, BVA. Not without evidence or strong arguments - none of which have been presented here.

I'll repeat again - if anyone has information that will show that the KC, Breed club, vets, BVA etc are lying, incompetent or covering up then lets hear it.

The problem with quoting this '3 most frequently reported health issues' business is how frequent is frequent?

The KC wanted three 'problems'. In my breed we had one obvious health issue - cancer. Then we were completely stuck. In the end we went with urinary calculi (3 cases reported) and sebaceous cysts (2 cases reported - but do 2 or 3 cases really constitute a 'health problem'?

As I said my dear, you know it all, an expert, well done you!!!

Oh if you'd like me to put you in touch with the owners of the made up dogs I am imagining just to annoy, feel free to contact me. Ill get in touch with them and ask them to share their stories with you, it must be thrilling for them to be told their dog could drop dead at any minute, and watch another fitting on the floor, whilst another owner prepares a cat litter tray because the dogs mouth is so deformed it cant eat out of a bowl!! Lucky you!!!!

I board several Beagles, 3 I can quote off hand as having SERIOUS health issues. One has Epilepsy, one has a genetic heart defect and was not expected to see 2yrs, and another is so overshot he cant use his bottom jaw to pick up food. They have all come from TOP breeders and exhibitors of Beagles. Do problems exist or not?????

I know I sound like a broken record, but I do wonder about the future. I agree with what Scarter is saying: that small breeds with abnormal hips are less likely to show symptoms of HD, and so can effectively tolerate higher scores. However, if hip scores are increasing in the breed (as someone indicated earlier on), how long will it be before hips are so abnormal, that beagles do start showing symptoms, as potentially, small breeds can suffer from symptomatic HD?

I certainly don't know whether this could be the case, but it seems that not a whole lot is known about some aspects of HD. There's one guy whos name keeps cropping up in HD research, and although most of it is geared to applying conclusions to humans, I'd love to know more about the disease - wonder if we could arrange a meeting?!

I'm not trying to say the breed clubs, KC and BVA are wrong, it's just I don't believe that there is a whole lot of research into HD aimed at protecting future generations of dogs - it's blooming expensive, and I don't think a lot of it is feasible, unfortunately. And also, the KC did try and brush some not-too-pleasant research under the carpet, so I wouldn't trust them to bring something like this to the fore, if indeed HD in beagles could become problematic. I'm not trying to say they have a problem, but just being devil's advocate really!

i am a lot confused here
these experts saying there is no HD in your breed
are they also the ones recomending gentle restricted exercise for growing pups, building up muscle slowly to protect the joints

these experts that you have ignored pushing your baby girl into racing, agility, flyball and canix before she is 2 years old?

so is it not possible that these dogs dont show symtoms because of these conditions?

also are these not the experts who you totaly ignored when they said your girl was underweight?
you cant pick and choose which expert advice you listen to based on what you want to hear

it is a running theme in your threads, you know the answers you want to hear and just ignore anything that dosent fit in with that

and answers from a quick google search seemed to be good enough for you when a load of agility experts gave you lots of reasons why it wasnt a good idea to take your then under six month old pup to 'fun' agility classes

This is exactly what the vet adviser to the KC for the beagle breed says in the latest issue of Full Cry:

I think you talk sense.

In the case of HD in the beagle breed ALL the experts that I have referred to (breeders, breed club, BVA, KC, individual vets) are saying it is not a problem in the breed in this country. There is NO recommended action to minimise the symptoms of HD in affected Beagles because all the experts agree that the condition is extremely rare in Beagles in this country and on the rare occasion that it does occur the disease isn't crippling the way it is with many other breeds.

Here's what the vet advisor for the Beagle breed had to say a few years ago on the subject of HD:

So they claim that they are taking responsible steps to ensure that the Beagle doesn't develop health problems the way that many others have. Whether it's enough only time will tell. But whatever action is taken it should be well researched and well thought out rather than just a silly knee jerk reaction based on half-baked understanding of the facts. That could do more harm than good.

A lot of people think the experts are wrong. That's allowed. The KC have stated that whilst there are health problems with some breeds of dog, 90% of pedigree dogs are healthy. A lot of self-professed experts claim that this isn't true and in fact many of the breeds deemed healthy (such as the beagle) have terrible health problems and that people that claim otherwise are just sticking their heads in the sand. Maybe they are right. If these people are in fact correct I would welcome another TV 'expose' that presents evidence and expert opinion. And if it proves necessary, replacement of the KC with a governing body with teeth that will enforce good breeding practices and make accurate information about the health of a breed readily available to pet owners.

ok..... something to ponder. dog, has CRAP hips as its relatives all had HD but were never scored, he dosent show any "classic" bunny hopping or puppy siting or other symptons because he is lightweight...... leads very active fun life for X years, all the time the hip joints are remoulding, he dosent show discomfort because he is light, & the muscle is doing the job of the joint & in running the adrelin takes away the pain, as he gets older he becomes lame in his back legs, other things are blamed because beagles dont have HD do they?

if dogs arent scored how can you know.

FACT: the average score is rising
Fact: there has NEVER been a beagle in the UK with a 0-0 score

If more dogs were scored perhaps the experts would be worried

HOORAY!! This is what we have been trying to say Mish, lets hope it sinks in THIS time!!!! How can people know the extent of a problem if they dont test for it!! The ones that do X ray obviously see a need and the results speak for themselves, the EXPERTS wrote them too!! The average score is rising significantly in just a few years!!

As an aside, I thought of another Beagle with a worrying problem. Its his breathing, he makes an awful noise and it was starting to bother him. I cant tell you what it was because he was to be referred, Ill report back when we next see him if anyone is interested.

This is a valid point and it's one that I raised earlier in the thread. As I said then, my knee-jerk reaction is "why not perform ALL tests on ALL breeding stock of ALL breeds?". It's one thing to ascertain that there is next to no symptomatic HD (or other testable health conditions) observed in the breed currently, but what about the future?

Why do the KC/BVA only require and recommend hip scoring for certain breeds when the average scores for those breeds are often lower than for breeds where they say testing is not required OR recommended?

We've been told by many on this thread that it's not down to the KC - the BVA make the decision as to which breeds should be required or recommended to screen for HD. The KC merely act upon their advice. The assumption is that the BVA is impartial, concerned about the health of animals and not in any way influenced, coerced or pressurised by breed clubs, breeders or the KC. But is this in fact the case?

I can see valid arguments for and against blanket screening of ALL breeding stock of ALL breeds. If you trust the BVA, vets, breeders, breed clubs and KC then you have to assume that they have made the best decisions for the breed based upon sound research. But lots of people clearly DON'T trust these official bodies - which is understandable given the shocking revelations in the recent BBC documentary about the health issues in pedigree dogs.

We can all make blind guesses, but really we need to ask breeders these questions to understand why they have made the decision not to screen their breeding stock.

Now we don't have any Beagle breeders or many beagle owners on these forums (Beagles aren't a particularly popular breed). However, I believe there are lots of breeders of other breeds that fall into the same category as Beagles in this respect.

I took a look through the list of the 20 most popular breeds in the UK:

Labrador retriever,
Cocker spaniel,
English springer spaniel,
German shepherd,
Staffordshire bull terrier,
King Charles spaniel,
Golden retriever,
West Highland white terrier,
Boxer,
Border terrier,
Rottweiler,
Shih tzu,
Miniature schnauzer,
Lhasa apso,
Yorkshire terrier,
Bulldog,
Doberman,
Bull terrier,
Weimaraner,
Pug.

Of these popular breeds, the KC DOES NOT require hip scoring for the following breeds. For each of these breeds I have listed number of dogs screened, range of scores and average score. :

Staffordshire bull terrier (48 : 6-47 : 13),
King Charles spaniel (266 : 0-92 : 16),
Border terrier (10 : 6-33 : 14),
Bulldog (20 : 10-96 : 45),
Bull terrier (12 : 0 - 12 : 7),
Pug (23 : 8-53 : 21).

The following breeds have had less than 10 dogs screened (despite being among the 20 most popular breeds) so no results are published:

West Highland white terrier
Shih tzu
Miniature schnauzer
Lhasa apso
Yorkshire terrier

Are there any owners/breeders of any of these breeds that can provide answers as to why their breeding stock isn't routinely hip scored?

(Actually, it's probably best I start a new thread on this in a general section as only those interested in hounds will look here - I'll do that later).

the answer to your last question is the same reason people in your breed dont routinely score either!

In fact...what point are you trying to prove???? Are you trying to defend the reason your breed arent regularly scored?

Imo. every breed should be scored so as to continue to produce hd free dogs

Well lets just wait and see if that's the case. If there are knowledgeable breeders of the breeds in question on these forums they may be in a position to provide us with more detailed information than we already have.

I'm not a breeder so I have no reason to defend breeding practices - good or bad. I do however think it's very important to get accurate information about the health of breeds that we have as pets. The need for routine health screening is an area where lots of people seem to dispute what the KC/BVA/Breed Clubs/Breeders tell pet owners so it's an area worth exploring in an attempt to get a more accurate picture of what's going on.

As I've said, I don't think there's enough information available to know whether failure to routinely screen ALL breeding stock is something to be condemned or defended. The KC, BVA, Many breed clubs and many breeders all seem to find it acceptable. Very many people have disagreed with them. It'd be nice to hear directly from some breeders on this. I don't think anything will ever be proven - just ideas and information exchanged.

So come on, there must be breeders of some of the following breeds out there that are willing to explain why so few dogs are screened:

Staffordshire bull terrier (48 : 6-47 : 13),
King Charles spaniel (266 : 0-92 : 16),
Border terrier (10 : 6-33 : 14),
Bulldog (20 : 10-96 : 45),
Bull terrier (12 : 0 - 12 : 7),
Pug (23 : 8-53 : 21).

The following breeds have had less than 10 dogs screened (despite being among the 20 most popular breeds) so no results are published:

West Highland white terrier
Shih tzu
Miniature schnauzer
Lhasa apso
Yorkshire terrier

Is it because you're concerned that your best breeding stock will be deemed unsuitable?

Or maybe you think that research indicates that routine screening WILL NOT improve or maintain the health of your breed?

Something else?

Or maybe you're able to shed some light on the BVA/KC/Breed Club's decision not to recommend that you screen your breeding stock?

Sadly I think that many dog people have their heads in the sand and from all walks of life from show people, gundog people, working people etc. Many say that because my dog can do such and such it can't have HD. There's only one way to find out and that's by hipscoring.

I believe that all pedigree's/ crossbreeds etc would all be very similiar in their scores. You just have to look at the results on the BVA website to see that many of the new "designer breeds" have awful scores.

Its not the KC or the BVA responsibility, it is the breeders responsiblity to look after the future of their breed, they are the "guardians of the the breed"

You seem to think that the KC is responsible for all ills in dogs but the truth is that a) they only provide a registry based on trust b) breeds are responsible for their breed standards (up until the KC did the changes!) c) breeders are responsible for what they produce and d) judges are responsible for the types of the dog they put up at shows and e) each individual interprets their standard differently. Most of which is out of the KC's remit!
In fact it is only recently that the KC has decided to take a more direct role. I just wish they'd make a few things compulsory for registration to be allowed.
Becky

You jut dont get it do you? Its NOT the KC its the BREEDERS!! If breeders hip scored, then there would be a mider margin to work from. How can the KC recommend scoring if people dont score to give them something to gauge? The breeders that DO score are the ones that care, that goes for ANY breed.

good point becky and the reason for the kc taking a more direct role being, breeders clearly not always doing what is best,

scarter you must give some consideration to the fact the breed experts whos expert advice you hold so high, may in fact be wrong.

This thread is making my brain hurt.

Scarter, I still can't figure out why you have such big issues with the KC, especially when you own two KC registered pedigree dogs? hypocritical much?

Everso slightly!!