Facebook

[Judy]

I don't have a Cocker but as the main accusations seem to have been levelled at a trialler/breeder also deeply involved with Springers, I've just taken the view that all pedigree information depends on the honesty of the breeder. Accepting that what is past is past, all I can do as an honest breeder is to ensure that pups from me can be traced to sire, dam and grandparents (the latter wherewhere possible) by DNA profiling. If The Kennel Club would require DNA Profiling before Registration, as clubs more concerned with the intergrity of their Registry have done so, then at least the recent breedings would be transparent and people could move on from there, whatever their persuasion on 'Cockergate'. DNA Profiling is £30 from Animal Health Trust, it is for determining parentage, not breed. Just as a note, the Wisdom Test has been used recently in a UK court to help convict a breeder making false claims about pups breeding.

As I understand it that Court case was about a litter of pups that couldn't possibly be from the quoted parents because of the colours produced, Wisdom would therefore be the icing on the cake rather than conclusive proof? Might have put two and two together and made five of course, this has been the problem all along - lack of clarity, lots of rumours and half truths.

[Sgurr]

Lack of clarity with KC Reg could be sorted with DNA profiling - Embark has said they will testify in court and basically the rate of progress with DNA and the reduction in costs for SNP tests is incredible over the last couple of years. But the UK KC are still with the dinosaurs - as Trekmoor said about vested interested. When the AKC did their Registry 'clean up' with DNA profiling, as my memory serves, they found about 10% of mis registrations, mainly of studs not being the sire on the pedigree.

[Judy]

I imagine that would be the case here too and not only in Cockers also not just one line in Cockers. I have repeated the DNA profiling mantra numerous times but nobody seems to want to campaign for that. Start from where we are as we can't turn the clock back but carry on with parents DNA profiled so that future accusations can be refuted or proven. An internet lead witch hunt without any transparency helps no-one and leads to bad feeling all round.

[westcountry]

I imagine that would be the case here too and not only in Cockers also not just one line in Cockers. I have repeated the DNA profiling mantra numerous times but nobody seems to want to campaign for that. Start from where we are as we can't turn the clock back but carry on with parents DNA profiled so that future accusations can be refuted or proven. An internet lead witch hunt without any transparency helps no-one and leads to bad feeling all round.

My own thoughts entirely. What has gone before has to be pushed aside and a new era of DNA profiling for actual parentage put in place. Without any real proof or evidence of malpractice all we have is playground accusations which will never bring anything but ill feeling and division.

[Blackjaw]

For those who need another genetics tutorial.

Delicious Genetics.jpg

[Judy]

I like your thinking BJ but you are presupposing that nobody will eat one nor whether one or the other has the dominant genes. Nor even whether the dominant Gummibear will be eaten first as it must have the better taste.

[Dawnrazor]

The problem arises when a gummy was actually a jelly baby 3 generations back and the sires side and 2 generations back on the dams side :whistling:

[Judy]

The problem arises when a gummy was actually a jelly baby 3 generations back and the sires side and 2 generations back on the dams side :whistling:

I can't bear it.

[ips]

My head hurts

[crackerd]

I like your thinking BJ but you are presupposing that nobody will eat one nor whether one or the other has the dominant genes. Nor even whether the dominant Gummibear will be eaten first as it must have the better taste.

And prithee, blackjaw, what about consumption of them with non-gummi genes?

100_2429.jpg

MG