I'm afraid I think the assured breeders thing is just another way for the KC to make money, as I've also heard it's not fit for purpose and isn't being inspected and enforced. Unfortunately people are constantly being led to believe it's the only safe way to find a healthy, well bred pup and they are often paying more for these pups, because the breeder has assured status. Obviously that isn't the case for all assured breeders, but with no rigorous control and inspection scheme in place it's open to abuse by less scrupulous breeders.
The KC is a cash rich organisation that sells it's purpose as:
"We are the UK’s largest organisation dedicated to protecting and promoting the health and welfare of all dogs." www.thekennelclub.org.uk/
In my opinion they don't do much or at least not enough to ensure the health and welfare of pedigree breeds.
I do believe there are some schemes cropping up here and there to try and resolve health issues in certain breeds, but as I understand it, the impetus has come from the breed organisations, rather than the KC.
One of the biggest things they could do to improve the health and welfare of 'all dogs' is to stop registering any litters from breeders who cannot provide current and relevant evidence of health checks for every single dog they breed from and their litters. This would eliminate KC registered, pedigree pups being sold by backyard breeders, puppy farms and anyone else more into breeding for the money, than love and dedication to their breed. It would probably have a side effect of making KC registered dogs more expensive, but that could be a good thing, judging by the numbers of poorly bred registered dogs that are ending up in rescue every year.
Enforcement of rigid health and genetic testing would go a long way to helping eliminate a lot of the health problems, but on it's own wouldn't go far enough. It would need to also enforce that any dog that does not meet the required health standards on tests could not have their progeny registered or be shown on the KC circuit. They should also refuse to allow progeny of dogs with known dominant genetic issues to be registered and not allow registration of pups bred from a bitch and dog combination that would produce strong likelihood of producing pups with inherited problems. The guy on the TV said the DNA testing company is already doing risk assessments for HD, I presume similar risk can be calculated for other genetic conditions?
I read upthread about one scheme stating dogs having to have health checks before going in the ring, but I think it should go further and state that all dogs have to have passed the relevant health checks for their breed in order to be shown and exhibited as a prime example of type.
As for the EB. I have seen some stuff about a handful of breeders that have been working hard in the background for tens of years now to breed a type that can give birth naturally and has a much longer muzzle. The dogs they produce are fitter, healthier and look very much like the old drawings of how EBs used to look in years gone by - although I believe some lines still have issues such as entropion that need addressing. The problem has been, in order to rectify the extreme conformation issues they have had to outcross to other breeds and this had meant other people in the EB breed will not accept them as true EBs. So, you then have a choice about whether or not to allow a breed to die out in preference to creating a 'modern version' of the breed that is identified in some way though a slightly different name or something (as with Olde Englishe Bulldogges). The final choice is to do nothing and allow the dogs to continue suffering at the very least while breeders very slowly select for conformation that will, eventually, a very long time into the future lead to healthier dogs.
Whatever the answer is, it's going to take a lot of money and commitment from the KC and there simply is no quick fix. It's taken a hundred years or so to get our poor dogs into this mess and it's going to take at least that long, if not longer - even with strict measures in place - to undo it.
