# The ABS shambles



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Yet another instance where the kennel club scheme has fallen short, an *accidental* litter registered, despite the sire being assumed to be a particular dog when more than one stud dog is owned at the premises, and technically, the third back to back litter from a bitch as she has irregular seasons. Also, I'm guessing, not her last litter. 

Not sure what can be done to *mend* or replace the scheme, but seeing instances like this really shows the holes in the scheme where the KC take the word of a breeder when in this instance they should at least have asked for confirmation of parentage via dna testing.


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

A lot of good breeders have left the scheme as they don't want to be associated with the poor breeders that have been happily accepted onto the scheme.
Many of them now rely on Champdogs and the breed club when advertising litters. 
As it happened I did find out about Isla's litter via the KC listings as the breeder had problems when advertising on Champdogs, not from Champdogs itself, but by drunken phone calls at weird o clock.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yet another instance where the kennel club scheme has fallen short, an *accidental* litter registered, despite the sire being assumed to be a particular dog when more than one stud dog is owned at the premises, and technically, the third back to back litter from a bitch as she has irregular seasons. Also, I'm guessing, not her last litter.
> 
> Not sure what can be done to *mend* or replace the scheme, but seeing instances like this really shows the holes in the scheme where the KC take the word of a breeder when in this instance they should at least have asked for confirmation of parentage via dna testing.


I don't understand why the KC would want to DNA test the puppies?

Don't a lot of people keep both dogs and bitches and the KC take their word on which is the stud dog used, like they do for anyone who mates a bitch in reality.

If the litters were a year apart it doesn't matter if they are back to back seasons, ABS breeders can't register if there is more than one litter in a 12 month period from the same bitch. It doesn't actually quote seasons in their ABS rules.

Then again maybe your post didn't explain the situation correctly?

Perhaps you're trying to say the breeder is assuming which stud they own is the sire of the litter and they have asked the KC to register litters from this bitch closer than 12 months apart?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yet another instance where the kennel club scheme has fallen short, an *accidental* litter registered, despite the sire being assumed to be a particular dog when more than one stud dog is owned at the premises, and technically, the third back to back litter from a bitch as she has irregular seasons. Also, I'm guessing, not her last litter.
> 
> Not sure what can be done to *mend* or replace the scheme, but seeing instances like this really shows the holes in the scheme where the KC take the word of a breeder when in this instance they should at least have asked for confirmation of parentage via dna testing.


I hear many people complaining about the ABS scheme, but no real reasons. A lot of innuendo and rumour.
I'm not saying this is a rumour, but I actually think it's quite a good scheme. It's not perfect- no system can be- but surely it's better than nothing?


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> I hear many people complaining about the ABS scheme, but no real reasons. A lot of innuendo and rumour.
> I'm not saying this is a rumour, but I actually think it's quite a good scheme. It's not perfect- no system can be- but surely it's better than nothing?


The fact that most of them still haven't been inspected which is supposed to be part of the scheme for starters, there are ones that have been accepted as members for 5, 6 years and quite a lot more and still haven't been inspected, some have but only recently this year one breed and area I checked at random for example joined 2005 and had the inspection July this year. There is another that was a member since 2010 and still not visited and inspected.
Just pick a few breeds at random and check for yourself.

Another is that Assured breeders should carry out health tests to be part of the scheme. Yet some are only requirements to be in the scheme where others are only recommendations which don't have to actually be carried out.
Take the French Bulldog as an example There are BVA/KC tests for hips and eyes and DNA testing for Hereditary cataracts, Degenerative spinal Myelopathy, There is also the French Bulldog club of England Bronze silver and gold tests that also include things like Microchip identification, veterinary examination, patella testing, cardiologist heart testing, spine xray and evaluation. 
If you check on the Assured breeders scheme for July 2014 so the updated version all that's on there is Requirements None, recommendations Eye testing annual, and a DNA test for hereditary cataracts.

Another example the English Bulldog, everyone knows the list of health problems they can have. In fact they are supposed to be one of the designated 15 high profile breeds on health watch by the kennel club.
There are BVA/KC schemes for Hip dysplasia breed mean score for them is a high 43 to start with, there is also elbow scores, There are also DNA tests for 
Hyper Uricosuria stone formation. There is also the breed club certificate for breeding. There is a Bronze, silver scheme where there is a pass of fail implemented and covers things like weight, measurement, breathing structure,
eyes. Again if you check on the Assured Breeders Scheme breed specific health tests and requirements and recommendations listing for July 2014 again, it lists requirements none,
Recommendations Breed council Health testing for breeding stock.

Seems it may be a good scheme in theory but still isn't cutting it as regards to actual practices. That's without the example SL gave as the thread opener.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Darth said:


> I don't understand why the KC would want to DNA test the puppies?
> 
> Don't a lot of people keep both dogs and bitches and the KC take their word on which is the stud dog used, like they do for anyone who mates a bitch in reality.
> 
> ...


The litters are not a year apart, and if it's an accidental litter that they had no idea she was even in whelp, that means they didn't see the mating. They have at least three dogs that could have produced the colou combination, and are assuming it's one of them. I've no said the ABS quotes seasons in their rules, but the simple fact is this bitch has had three litters from her last three seasons, I'd hardly call that ethics to aspire to!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The litters are not a year apart, and if it's an accidental litter that they had no idea she was even in whelp, that means they didn't see the mating. They have at least three dogs that could have produced the colou combination, and are assuming it's one of them. I've no said the ABS quotes seasons in their rules, but the simple fact is this bitch has had three litters from her last three seasons, I'd hardly call that ethics to aspire to!


How do you know this? I find it very strange that people doing such unethical stuff are so open about it all? I mean if they are saying they don't know who the sire is it is fraud? And that is something the KC investigate! Take it you've made a complaint to the KC with your first hand evidence?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

The Kennel Club can only record and regulate, they can't control.

There will always be those who will break or bend the rules in any walk of life.

I find it odd too that anyone who has bred a litter with anyone of three potential sires would admit that. If they were unscrupulous or uncaring, they would surely have named one of their dogs and called it a planned mating?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> The Kennel Club can only record and regulate, they can't control.
> 
> There will always be those who will break or bend the rules in any walk of life.
> 
> I find it odd too that anyone who has bred a litter with anyone of three potential sires would admit that. If they were unscrupulous or uncaring, they would surely have named one of their dogs and called it a planned mating?


They are a registration body only, I know, but if they set criteria, they should stick by it. Their own criteria for the ABS says they won't record litters from bitches within 12 months of each other, yet this isn't the only one I've heard of.

Roll on dna profiling, then there's no room for bending or breaking the rules!


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've no said the ABS quotes seasons in their rules, but the simple fact is this bitch has had three litters from her last three seasons, I'd hardly call that ethics to aspire to!


It doesn't mean anything that they are consecutive seasons as long as there is 12 months between litters.

Some bitches are very irregular and only have a season every 12 months or so.

Are you sure this isn't just rumours about someone and there isn't any hard evidence?

If you have that hard evidence you should present it to the KC.

If it's only rumour its best not to spread it and keep it to yourself. :hand:


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Darth said:


> It doesn't mean anything that they are consecutive seasons as long as there is 12 months between litters.
> 
> Some bitches are very irregular and only have a season every 12 months or so.
> 
> ...


Thanks for this forgot she had me blocked lol I love that people condemn the KC on a rumour yet never put their money where their mouth is and report it. Not sure how the KC are meant to improve when certain people just like to find stuff to yap about! Quality of other people's dogs ( theirs of course are perfect) other people's litters ( one litter seems to make you the world leading authority on breedings) yet all they seem to do it slag the KC and other people's dogs and practice's! Put up or shut up! Don't complain about something and then do nothing about it and even worse use something you seemingly despise so much when it suits your needs!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Sounds like a headline that would appeal to readers of the Daily Mail and other such drivel.

Speculation and rumour mongering is as distasteful as the "alleged" misdemeanour.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Darth said:


> It doesn't mean anything that they are consecutive seasons as long as there is 12 months between litters.
> 
> Some bitches are very irregular and only have a season every 12 months or so.
> 
> ...


Um, no, this is a litter, registered, to an ABS member, and the last litter from this bitch was born less than 12 months previous. I'm not sure how difficult that concept is to grasp!

I don't do rumours, I do facts.

The point is, if the KC are willing to register litters less than 12 months apart for an ABS member, what on earth is the point of it?

Another issue that came up recently, according to the KC the BVA eye cert should be renewed annually, yet they will accept eye certs up to 18 months so contradict themselves there as well.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> I hear many people complaining about the ABS scheme, but no real reasons. A lot of innuendo and rumour.
> I'm not saying this is a rumour, but I actually think it's quite a good scheme. It's not perfect- no system can be- but surely it's better than nothing?


Maybe you can enlighten us all to the good of the scheme? I really struggle to see any good or beneifit in it, we passed our inspection in 2010 and when I became sole affix holder and the other partner left the breed, the first thing I done was cancal my membership of the scheme.

It does not help new owners figure out the bad from the good because both are on the scheme, the inspection is easy to pass, we all have our own ideas of what a good breeder is and to be honest the idea the KC sometimes portray as good breeders are often differing from my own opinions.

The scheme is a money making scheme and little else, you pay to be a on the scheme, theres no beneifts for you and just like being off the scheme you are surronded by those that do things in a less ethical manner.

A good breeder does not need to pay someone to prove their eithcis are valuable.

The KC need to spend more time promoting what are good ethics, instead of charging quite obviously ANYONE to use a logo claiming they are something, when quite often they are very far from it.

To many flaws in it, it really had the potential to work but sadly, greed took over.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Maybe you can enlighten us all to the good of the scheme? I really struggle to see any good or beneifit in it, we passed our inspection in 2010 and when I became sole affix holder and the other partner left the breed, the first thing I done was cancal my membership of the scheme.
> 
> It does not help new owners figure out the bad from the good because both are on the scheme, the inspection is easy to pass, we all have our own ideas of what a good breeder is and to be honest the idea the KC sometimes portray as good breeders are often differing from my own opinions.
> 
> ...


Hello
How are you and the dogs?

Karma and sorry, can't remember the name of your collie


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Maybe you can enlighten us all to the good of the scheme? I really struggle to see any good or beneifit in it, we passed our inspection in 2010 and when I became sole affix holder and the other partner left the breed, the first thing I done was cancal my membership of the scheme.
> 
> It does not help new owners figure out the bad from the good because both are on the scheme, the inspection is easy to pass, we all have our own ideas of what a good breeder is and to be honest the idea the KC sometimes portray as good breeders are often differing from my own opinions.
> 
> ...


No need to get your knickers I a twist! I merely said I thought it was better than nothing. No system is perfect. As I said, I hear a lot of innuendo and rumour and don real factual instances of bad practice- though ther will be some I. Any system. Surely it's better to have some thing, to start somewhere to improve dog breeding in the UK?

I am not, and will never be a breeder. I bought my current dog from an assured breeder. I have only positive things to say about the breeder and all the help and guidance they have given me.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Um, no, this is a litter, registered, to an ABS member, and the last litter from this bitch was born less than 12 months previous. I'm not sure how difficult that concept is to grasp!
> 
> I don't do rumours, I do facts.
> 
> ...


Do you have to be so rude in your replies?

Have you reported your facts to the KC?

Somehow I doubt you have.....it's more than likely something you've picked up from another forum and posted as if you actually know for sure and know the breeders involved.

I've seen it all before from you.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Darth said:


> Do you have to be so rude in your replies?
> 
> Have you reported your facts to the KC?
> 
> ...


Um, yeah right, so far off the mark!

Let me post one obvious difference between me and you, I openly let people know who I am, enough said.


----------



## GertrudeJekyll (Sep 4, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I don't do rumours, I do facts.


Of course.....


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

GertrudeJekyll said:


> Of course.....


Oh that's what everyone who doesn't like me posting facts posts, I mean, come on, at least prove me wrong?


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Um, yeah right, so far off the mark!
> 
> Let me post one obvious difference between me and you, I openly let people know who I am, enough said.


And why should it matter that you don't know who I am?

Even if I told you it doesn't prove you haven't picked this snippet of news elsewhere!


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Oh that's what everyone who doesn't like me posting facts posts, I mean, come on, at least prove me wrong?


I'd be inclined to say you posted the rant, you prove you're right!


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I still have only heard grumbles of innuendo and rumour.

Where are the facts of the matter? Surely if the scheme was that bad, there would be loads of evidence?


----------



## crazylablady (Apr 25, 2014)

It's no rumour that the bitch in question has had 2 litters registered in less than 12 months, it's a fact and there for anyone to see who has a MyKC account. One litter was born in Feb 2014 and the other in Dec 2014. The ABS member referred to openly admitted that it was an oops litter (and that she didn't witness a mating) and speculated beforehand as to which dog was the sire. She then went on to register the litter as being sired by one of her stud dogs, based on the colour produced, even though she has other stud dogs that could have produced pups of that colour. 

I've rung the KC, on a number of occasions, regarding things that have come to my attention and never got anywhere with them. The ABS leaves a lot to be desired. They contradict themselves over the eye tests, saying they should be done annually, yet will register a litter provided an eye test has been carried out within 18 months of the birth - and it doesn't even have to be a pass 
Until they raise their standards to my level, I won't be joining.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

crazylablady said:


> It's no rumour that the bitch in question has had 2 litters registered in less than 12 months, it's a fact and there for anyone to see who has a MyKC account. One litter was born in Feb 2014 and the other in Dec 2014. The ABS member referred to openly admitted that it was an oops litter (and that she didn't witness a mating) and speculated beforehand as to which dog was the sire. She then went on to register the litter as being sired by one of her stud dogs, based on the colour produced, even though she has other stud dogs that could have produced pups of that colour.
> 
> I've rung the KC, on a number of occasions, regarding things that have come to my attention and never got anywhere with them. The ABS leaves a lot to be desired. They contradict themselves over the eye tests, saying they should be done annually, yet will register a litter provided an eye test has been carried out within 18 months of the birth - and it doesn't even have to be a pass
> Until they raise their standards to my level, I won't be joining.


So you are saying the KC are ignoring fraud? What's the dogs KC name?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

crazylablady said:


> It's no rumour that the bitch in question has had 2 litters registered in less than 12 months, it's a fact and there for anyone to see who has a MyKC account. One litter was born in Feb 2014 and the other in Dec 2014. The ABS member referred to openly admitted that it was an oops litter (and that she didn't witness a mating) and speculated beforehand as to which dog was the sire. She then went on to register the litter as being sired by one of her stud dogs, based on the colour produced, even though she has other stud dogs that could have produced pups of that colour.
> 
> *I've rung the KC, on a number of occasions, regarding things that have come to my attention and never got anywhere with them.* The ABS leaves a lot to be desired. They contradict themselves over the eye tests, saying they should be done annually, yet will register a litter provided an eye test has been carried out within 18 months of the birth - and it doesn't even have to be a pass
> Until they raise their standards to my level, I won't be joining.


Are you saying you phoned them and pointed out that the breeder had admitted that she didn't know which of her dogs sired the litter and they didn't want to know?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Not those same Labradors again?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Goodness, what a lot of arguing over nothing!

Every scheme has ways round it and it is so difficult to prove any misdemeanors it is often thought best to ignore them, much to the annoyance of those that think everyone should stick to the letter of the law.

It will happen in everything - why would dog breeding be any different from horse breeding, cattle breeding , sheep breeding. If there is an advantage to be had people will find a way round the rules or just blatantly break them. Those in the know will be fully aware of what is going on but the powers that be often opt for the quiet life.

Even strictly regulated things like cattle traceability is rife with fraud and that is a criminal offence, and though many do get done for it I am sure far more escape and make a mockery of the whole thing.

By the way I am not saying anything against the kennel club, they do the job they are supposed to.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this.

Are you saying that the KC know that there have been 2 litters within 12 months and, without any mitigating circumstances, have registered the litter?

Are you also saying that the KC knew the mating was unwitnessed and the owner guessed who the sire was?

If so, then you are accusing the KC of, in the first instance, falsely recording a litter, and in the second instance, of being complicit I a possible fraud. 

Ypu are actually saying that?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

To a very large degree, the Kennel Club have to believe that the Parentage of any litter of pups, as decreed by the Breeder/Stud Dog Owner, is true and correct.

What else are they supposed to do? Send someone to witness every mating?

I, at one time, had three Parson Russell males, all standing and being used at stud.

If a bitch came here, to be mated to one of my dogs, what would be the point of me lying about which dog was used and how would the Kennel Club be expected to know one way or the other?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I love the way people post things make more accusations but never give evidence! Yep have MyKC and yep it can all be seen on there, if you know the dogs KC names  what it doesn't show is correspondence between the accused and the KC! What it doesn't show is what really went on! One thing I have learnt is the dog world is full of bitching and back stabbing and what I've also learnt is people who publicly bitch and back stab may hope they are whiter than white because the people who bitch back stab and point the finger with you now will be the ones who will aid your fall from grace the minute you put a foot wrong and will take same pleasure out of back stabbing you as they do other's! No one is perfect even when they like to make out they are!!


----------



## GertrudeJekyll (Sep 4, 2010)

Gracious, this thread really is a window into the devious and manipulative nature of the OP.

The breeder of this litter is, or perhaps was, a friend of Sleeping Lion. This breeder has a tremendous wealth of knowledge of her particular breed, and has gone out of her way to help countless of people in the past, SL personally included.

SL has tried to model herself on this particular person in the style of her posts and her "advisory" knowledge (which is in SL's case is purely anecdotal, based on the ownership of 3 dogs of the breed) - this transformation has been very clear over several years to those of us within this breed's circles...but as they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Since I'm assuming you and the breeder no longer are of an amicable relationship, I strongly would advise that you obtain _*all*_ the details regarding this situation instead of broadcasting potential slander.

I would be very interested to know if the breeder is aware you have started yet another crusade on the internet. For as we all know, Joanne Elrod can do no wrong  .


----------



## GertrudeJekyll (Sep 4, 2010)

crazylablady said:


> Until they raise their standards to my level, I won't be joining.


Isn't it interesting, Lynda, that you've had three litters from a bitch with an elbow score of 1.

You're certainly building up your number of breeding bitches too...!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

If anyone thinks I'm posting rumours for the sake of it, I'm amazed you're actually bothering reading anything I post at all. The simple fact is someone has registered a litter of pups from a bitch who has had this litter less than 12 months on from her last litter, and despite it being an *accidental* litter they've assumed one of their stud dogs is the sire, when they have three dogs in total that could have produced the colour combination in the litter. If that's to hard for anyone to understand I suggest they stick to general dog chat.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

GertrudeJekyll said:


> Gracious, this thread really is a window into the devious and manipulative nature of the OP.
> 
> The breeder of this litter is, or perhaps was, a friend of Sleeping Lion. This breeder has a tremendous wealth of knowledge of her particular breed, and has gone out of her way to help countless of people in the past, SL personally included.
> 
> ...


The breeder of this litter is not a friend of mine, they are more a friend of my ex, which is strange, because he initially couldn't stand her. I've not remotely brought anything to do with who they are into this thread as it was started to show the ABS for what it is, not to bitch about individual people.

So before you accuse me of slander, you're the one posting clues about who they are and trying to turn it into a crusade!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

GertrudeJekyll said:


> Isn't it interesting, Lynda, that you've had three litters from a bitch with an elbow score of 1.
> 
> You're certainly building up your number of breeding bitches too...!


And that really just shows you up for a stirring baggage, I would use stronger language but it is a family forum after all. The KC recommendations regarding elbows has only recently changed, I could post details of dogs producing multiple high elbow grades in their lines, dogs with hip scores over 20 used at stud, but that would make things personal which wasn't the intention of the thread. You, however, have shown your true colours.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

This is supposed to be a forum for like minded people, not a 'discussion, by people who obviously know each other well and do not get on. Everyone should make a bigger effort not to bitch about individuals. Though I have to say I am sometimes shocked by the remarks made about unknown breeders based on their websites - it must affect their businesses as it will come up when googled.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Blitz said:


> This is supposed to be a forum for like minded people, not a 'discussion, by people who obviously know each other well and do not get on. Everyone should make a bigger effort not to bitch about individuals. Though I have to say I am sometimes shocked by the remarks made about unknown breeders based on their websites - it must affect their businesses as it will come up when googled.


To be perfectly honest, I've not missed this aspect of the forum at all, I gave an example to try and illustrate how the ABS is failing, yet some people either just want to accuse me of rumour mongering and making things up, and yet others seem to want to turn it into a personal thread, and give as many clues as possible to who the *culprit* might be. The simple fact is the KC have rules set out which they regularly turn a blind eye to and there is evidence of this in the way they register litters that don't comply to the rules they themselves have set out. The only reason I gave a current example is to *prove* it's actually happening, albeit without naming names, what other breeders get up to is their own business, and if they're happy with how they go about things it's entirely up to them. But if the KC set down guidelines, which they are then willing to ignore, then there is really absolutely no point in paying to be an ABS member, or putting any faith that the scheme is actually doing what it has set out to do.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> And that really just shows you up for a stirring baggage, I would use stronger language but it is a family forum after all. The KC recommendations regarding elbows has only recently changed, I could post details of dogs producing multiple high elbow grades in their lines, dogs with hip scores over 20 used at stud, but that would make things personal which wasn't the intention of the thread. You, however, have shown your true colours.


Sleeping lion you constantly make remarks about peoples lines, and scores, and why people get placed in shows over you, and how bad the KC is, the show world, general dog owners are is blah blah blah blah, you haven't been in the breed 5 seconds, you have one litter yet you slate everyone, and you are the only one who does right. Hardly YOUR place to tell people what part of the forum they can go on you have had ONE litter, there are people on here with more experience of their breed, more experience of breeding, and more experience of working dogs who have just as much right if not more so to be in this section of the forum than you trying to hold court in it... You are not perfect, neither are you dogs neither is everything you do so try not to be so judgemental and high and bloody might and people might not get the hump with you..


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Odd how closing ranks is happening here when breeders have stated time and time again that that doesn't happen.

I don't know who this is, is could be one of 2. If they have admitted that this has happened then they are one up on many and deserve to be applauded for that. However if they have then registered them and selling them off as...............................


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> To be perfectly honest, I've not missed this aspect of the forum at all, I gave an example to try and illustrate how the ABS is failing, yet some people either just want to accuse me of rumour mongering and making things up, and yet others seem to want to turn it into a personal thread, and give as many clues as possible to who the *culprit* might be. The simple fact is the KC have rules set out which they regularly turn a blind eye to and there is evidence of this in the way they register litters that don't comply to the rules they themselves have set out. The only reason I gave a current example is to *prove* it's actually happening, albeit without naming names, what other breeders get up to is their own business, and if they're happy with how they go about things it's entirely up to them. But if the KC set down guidelines, which they are then willing to ignore, then there is really absolutely no point in paying to be an ABS member, or putting any faith that the scheme is actually doing what it has set out to do.


Quite ..........


----------



## crazylablady (Apr 25, 2014)

GertrudeJekyll said:


> Isn't it interesting, Lynda, that you've had three litters from a bitch with an elbow score of 1.
> 
> You're certainly building up your number of breeding bitches too...!


At the time I bred from my bitch the KC recommendation was to breed from scores of 1 or 0 - that changed about a year ago and long after I had my last litter from my bitch. Her daughter has 0 elbows as have the 2 of her 'grandchildren' that have been health tested.

As for the 2nd comment, I only have 2 bitches that I'm considering breeding from in the future.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

crazylablady said:


> At the time I bred from my bitch the KC recommendation was to breed from scores of 1 or 0 - that changed about a year ago and long after I had my last litter from my bitch. Her daughter has 0 elbows as have the 2 of her 'grandchildren' that have been health tested.
> 
> As for the 2nd comment, I only have 2 bitches that I'm considering breeding from in the future.


Great isn't it........... Love the dog world, people come on and take pops at other breeders and then wonder why people come on to take pops at them, what goes around comes around. Surely being part of the dog world you should know the score, and also you should know that others involved in it are well aware the amount of bitching and back stabbing that goes on.... Coming on to a PET forum to slat someone isn't the best thing, and considering that OP is ONLY just back after months of being off the site, you might maybe might just question if there reason for coming back is to broadcast this? Of course anyone who has anything to do with their ex seems to be spawn of Satan from OP's previous posts, but of course that would have no baring, because the OP post are always done with no malice ......... Yeah right...

So did you tell the KC that the breeder doesn't know who the sire is? So you are accusing the KC of fraud? Yes I do have MyKC but given I don't know the name of the dog it's a bit hard to find, so if you want to PM please do.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Geez.... now I know why I don't get involved in these bitch fests that occur in dogdom!

However, going back to the original post, I think there are a couple of points. Firstly, does the ABS require at least a year between registering a litter? I know this is the case for COMMERCIAL breeders (ie those that have a commercial licence) but is not a requirement of hobby breeders. I think there is good reason for this. What if the gap is 11 months and 29 days? should the kC still not register? What about 10/11 months? I can see no reasonable reason why a bitch should not have a litter with that gap. People take things as black and white, but they aren't. It is recommended to leave a season between litters and not have more than one a year, but in the US, the opposite is recommended. They believe (based on evidence) that having litters on consecutive seasons is better as the uterus deteriorates with each season so leaving it will increase the chance of complications. If a bitch only has one season a year, should you really wait two years before having a second litter? What benefit would there be in that? The reason for waiting between litters is to ensure the bitch has recovered back to normal health before having another litter. If it was a small litter of say 2, that could be a few months, a litter of 14 will obviously take a lot more out of the bitch so is much more likely to take longer. A lot will also depend on the individual bitch and their level of fitness. We have to be realistic, nothing is black and white, and so does the KC. For all it's faults, its rules have to encompass the widest possible scenarios otherwise, we risk not registering dogs and narrowing gene pools.

As for not being sure who the sire is, that is a problem, as the KC takes all registrations on trust, but I don't think this is an ABS problem, as this can happen with any registration. 
There are many unscrupulous breeders (and I'm not for one minute suggesting the breeder in this situation is - they are not) who register more puppies than are born so they can later use the registration on an unregistered bitch or dog! Yes, these things go on... and the only way to avoid this is compulsory DNA testing. I can see that may come in the future, however, bear in mind that DNA testing is a relatively recent thing and has cost implications to breeders too.

Overall, I think the ABS is a genuine attempt to improve things even if there are those who slip through the net. We see so many threads on this forum about people who have bought puppies from poor breeders because they know no better - surely having the ABS is a step in the right direction. All the pups I have bought in have come from good breeders but non ABS members - however, I know what to look for. Your average pet breeder doesn't have a clue so better they go to ABS even if it isn't to the standards I may want than go to a byb or puppy farmer.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Not entering into the whys and circumstances and who, but if any breeder who has several stud dogs on the premises, and finds they are in the position of an unplanned/ accidental litter, and if they unsure who the sire is, then its easily sorted with a DNA test prior to registration. That would be an 100% way to check that the pedigree and registration would be correct.

If I were a breeder I would certainly want to know without a shadow of a doubt especially if any of the resulting pups were going to be bred on in my breeding programme, or any one elses. How else would you be able to match pedigrees and plan matings otherwise. 

Still doesn't solve the problem of 2 litters from the same female in under 12 months, or why they KC would register them against the usual criteria, but it would at least be a good way there.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Not entering into the whys and circumstances and who, but if any breeder who has several stud dogs on the premises, and finds they are in the position of an unplanned/ accidental litter, and if they unsure who the sire is, then its easily sorted with a DNA test prior to registration. That would be an 100% way to check that the pedigree and registration would be correct.
> 
> If I were a breeder I would certainly want to know without a shadow of a doubt especially if any of the resulting pups were going to be bred on in my breeding programme, or any one elses. How else would you be able to match pedigrees and plan matings otherwise.
> 
> *Still doesn't solve the problem of 2 litters from the same female in under 12 months, or why they KC would register them against the usual criteria*, but it would at least be a good way there.


This used to only apply to commercial breeders (ie those with a breeder's licence from the council), does this now apply to ALL ABS members as well. It certainly still doesn't apply to non ABS litters.


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

I'm only going from what I have read on a forum which is mainly used by breeders, that there are sometimes special circumstances arising where they allow bitches to have two litters in a year. If you have a bitch that cycles every five months rather then the six months or more, and could have three seasons per year, then if you ask for special permission, from what I understand, it could be granted. So the bitch would have had at least one season between litters. It's not ideal as I think a bitch needs a good rest between litters, but the KC is trying to prevent back to back litters with this ruling.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> My bitch has had 2 litters within a 12 month period, can I register the litter? The Kennel Club does not endorse this and would recommend at least a year is given between litters, however we do understand that in situations of accidents or if a bitch has irregular seasons, a second application will be accepted. Breeders who breed four or more litters per year must be licensed by their local authority. Breeders with fewer litters must also be licensed if they are carrying out a business of breeding dogs for sale. - See more at: Litter Registration FAQs â¢ The Kennel Club


Found this which literally translates as it is recommended but not forbidden. In the case of Licensed Breeders they must adhere to the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 which is more specific and does NOT allow more than one a year, so the KC are simply following the legal position by not registering commercial litters. But nothing specifically for ABS.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> Found this which literally translates as it is recommended but not forbidden. In the case of Licensed Breeders they must adhere to the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 which is more specific and does NOT allow more than one a year, so the KC are simply following the legal position by not registering commercial litters. But nothing specifically for ABS.


See this is my argument with the KC on one hand they will make a stand and issue criteria, but on the other there is always a grey area and loop hole open to abuse.

The Kennel Club does not endorse this and would recommend at least a year is given between litters,* however we do understand that in situations of accidents or if a bitch has irregular seasons, a second application will be accepted.* - See more at: Litter Registration FAQs â¢ The Kennel Club

Its basically sanction that should a bitch produce two litters in a year then as long as its "accidental", then that's all right then, not you can apply and we will consider the circumstances, Oh no, a second application will be accepted.
What sort of message, honestly, does that convey to anyone wanting to abuse it? We can claim it was accidental (how convenient) and pop out two litters from one bitch in a year and as long as we say its accidental then its not going to be questioned anyway and I can register them.

Yes accidental litters do happen, having said that I know people who have had lots of dogs, bitches and stud dogs and they still manage for it not to happen over years, and are kept together in packs for the majority, and then seasons are managed accordingly, so your not talking kennel and run situations with dogs separately either so no accidentals matings could ever take place because of how they are kept.

This one caught my eye too.
The dam has already reached the age of 8 years at the date of whelping, *(relief from this restriction may be considered normally provided an application is made prior to the mating, the proposed dam has previously whelped at least one other registered litter, and the application is supported by veterinary evidence as to the suitability of the bitch involved in the proposed whelping), or - See more at: Litter Registration FAQs â¢ The Kennel Club

On one hand they are saying if the dam is 8 or more when she whelps then you cant register the litter. Then in the next sentence they are saying that as long as you make prior application to the mating then relief from the exemption may be considered. Sorry but in my opinion, if you know your bitch is going to be 8 years old when they whelp then why mate a bitch of that age. Its not that hard to subtract 62/63 days from their 8th birthday off the calendar.

Or why we are at it this one.
The offspring are the result of any mating between father and daughter, mother and son or brother and sister, save in exceptional circumstances or for scientifically proven welfare reasons, or - See more at: Litter Registration FAQs â¢ The Kennel Club

what exceptional circumstances or for scientifically welfare reasons, because I cant think of any.

Unquestionably inbreeding can lead to a loss of
biological fitness. The animals in the inbred lineage
are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce
than animals in more outbred lineages. This has been
demonstrated many times in well-studied, naturally
outbreeding species. Inbreeding can result in reduced
fertility both in litter size and sperm viability, developmental

disruption, lower birth rate, higher infant
mortality, shorter life span, increased expression of
inherited disorders and reduction of immune system
function.

The
immune
system
is

closely linked
to the removal of cancer cells from a healthy body
(Smyth et al., 2006), so reduction of immune system
function increases the risk of full-blown tumours. 
Many of the effects of inbreeding have been found
in isolated populations of wolves, the wild ancestors
of domestic dogs, with detrimental effects (Laikre
& Ryman, 1991). Severe inbreeding depression
has been documented in Scandinavian wolves that
had passed through an extreme bottleneck (Liberg
et al., 2005). During their first winter after birth the
number of surviving pups per litter was strongly and
inversely correlated with how inbred were the pups. 
The more inbred they were, the less likely were they
to survive. Given what happens in wolves, domestic
dogs should be no exception to the rule that breeders
should avoid close inbreeding as much as possible.

The above is from a whole chapter on genetics and inbreeding as you know, which is a part of the Bateson report, funded actually by the Kennel club and dogs trust but an independent report.

http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/special/final-dog-inquiry-120110.pdf

Only my humble opinion of course, but whats the use of talking the talk if you wont walk the walk.*


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

It's a good point to raise. Potential buyers should know that they can't just rely on ABS to find a well and ethically bred pup, they still have to do their own research. :yesnod:

It's really by the by why the point is being raised, it's still valid from that stance at least.


----------



## crazylablady (Apr 25, 2014)

Elles said:


> It's a good point to raise. Potential buyers should know that they can't just rely on ABS to find a well and ethically bred pup, they still have to do their own research. :yesnod:
> 
> It's really by the by why the point is being raised, it's still valid from that stance at least.


Exactly. Puppy buyers are being led to believe that the ABS is a safe way to buy a puppy when, in fact, it just lulls them into a false sense of security


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

crazylablady said:


> Exactly. Puppy buyers are being led to believe that the ABS is a safe way to buy a puppy when, in fact, it just lulls them into a false sense of security


While I agree that a puppy buyer needs to research and have always said that, in what way has the ABS failed? That they register two litters within a year? That there may be some discrepancy in registration due to dishonest registration? (It has always been the case that registration is reliant on trust)

What do you propose?


----------



## crazylablady (Apr 25, 2014)

rocco33 said:


> While I agree that a puppy buyer needs to research and have always said that, in what way has the ABS failed? That they register two litters within a year? That there may be some discrepancy in registration due to dishonest registration? (It has always been the case that registration is reliant on trust)
> 
> What do you propose?


The following comments aren't related specifically to the current thread, but to the ABS in general. For a start off I'd like them not make ambiguous rules. For example, for the eye test is says annually, but then goes on to say elsewhere that they will register a litter from a parent that has had an eye test within 18 months of the date of birth. It doesn't even stipulate it has to be a pass either. With Labradors, elbow scoring is a recommendation when, in my opinion, it should be a requirement. So far as the current thread is concerned, I'm sure I read that there was a 1 litter a year per bitch rule but I'm damned if I can find it right now  Unfortunately very little, if anything, can be done about a breeder stating a litter is sired by one dog when it could be another


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

crazylablady said:


> The following comments aren't related specifically to the current thread, but to the ABS in general. For a start off I'd like them not make ambiguous rules. For example, for the eye test is says annually, but then goes on to say elsewhere that they will register a litter from a parent that has had an eye test within 18 months of the date of birth. It doesn't even stipulate it has to be a pass either. With Labradors, elbow scoring is a recommendation when, in my opinion, it should be a requirement. So far as the current thread is concerned, I'm sure I read that there was a 1 litter a year per bitch rule but I'm damned if I can find it right now  Unfortunately very little, if anything, can be done about a breeder stating a litter is sired by one dog when it could be another


Have you forwarded your concerns to the KC or informed them of their ambiguous wording?


----------



## crazylablady (Apr 25, 2014)

Old Shep said:


> Have you forwarded your concerns to the KC or informed them of their ambiguous wording?


I've spoken to them on the phone on various occasions, when I've had concerns, but got nowhere, so I've given up trying. Maybe I should try an email instead.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

crazylablady said:


> The following comments aren't related specifically to the current thread, but to the ABS in general. For a start off I'd like them not make ambiguous rules. For example, for the eye test is says annually, but then goes on to say elsewhere that they will register a litter from a parent that has had an eye test within 18 months of the date of birth. It doesn't even stipulate it has to be a pass either. With Labradors, elbow scoring is a recommendation when, in my opinion, it should be a requirement. So far as the current thread is concerned, I'm sure I read that there was a 1 litter a year per bitch rule but I'm damned if I can find it right now  Unfortunately very little, if anything, can be done about a breeder stating a litter is sired by one dog when it could be another


I don't think they are ambiguous but they are recommendations rather than rules.

I've always thought the 1 litter per year rule applied only to licenced breeders because it is a legal requirement. It never used to apply to hobby (non licenced) breeders so I can't imagine that it would apply to ABS hobby breeders either. I think the danger of having absolutes for everything and no grey areas where there are recommendations rather than absolutes is that it will restrict the gene pool far more and that is not a good thing. I've had a quick look today and nothing that it printed on the website is ambiguous to me. They make it clear where it is a recommendation and explain why and when it is mandatory.

I think we can all pick holes and I'm sure there are improvements that can be made, nothing is going to be perfect. Bearing in mind that it is a voluntary register it is better than anything we have now, I sometimes despair at the pathetic 'guide to buying a puppy' that is given by the likes of the RSPCA / Blue Cross etc. where there is no mention of a health test and the 'make sure you see both parents' doesn't take into account that it's not commonplace for a breeder of quality pups to keep their own stud dogs.

So, all in all, it's the best we have at the moment and while it's not perfect I don't think it deserves the knocking it gets.

If people really do have a problem though, they should write to the KC with their concerns.


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

Interesting point, rocco33, re restricting a gene pool.
In breeds where there is only a small number, not breeding from dogs with, say, a higher then average hip score, can restrict the gene pool so severely that other problems occur due to lack of genetic diversity. HD does seem to be inherited, but there is more to it then inheriting a set of bad hips. Hip problems can arise if a puppy is over exercised, allowed to jump off high things and so on. 
It's easy to discount a dog because it has for instance an elbow score of 1 which could have occurred in a fall or a knock rather then an inherited disposition. I've been guilty of that, not wanting a pup from a dam because of a elbow score of 1 which was due to damage at the time of the scoring, perhaps if left a few months the score would have been zero. 
It's one thing in a numerically high breed where there is plenty of choice to be picky, another in a breed few in number. To a degree there has to be a bit of leniency without having to blindly stick to the rules everytime.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Siskin said:


> Interesting point, rocco33, re restricting a gene pool.
> In breeds where there is only a small number, not breeding from dogs with, say, a higher then average hip score, can restrict the gene pool so severely that other problems occur due to lack of genetic diversity. HD does seem to be inherited, but there is more to it then inheriting a set of bad hips. Hip problems can arise if a puppy is over exercised, allowed to jump off high things and so on.
> It's easy to discount a dog because it has for instance an elbow score of 1 which could have occurred in a fall or a knock rather then an inherited disposition. I've been guilty of that, not wanting a pup from a dam because of a elbow score of 1 which was due to damage at the time of the scoring, perhaps if left a few months the score would have been zero.
> *It's one thing in a numerically high breed where there is plenty of choice to be picky, another in a breed few in number*. To a degree there has to be a bit of leniency without having to blindly stick to the rules everytime.


Absolutely, although even then there are dangers. I have a breed with a very large gene pool, but several European countries KC only register litters from health tested dogs. Now, I know many that want that here too, and I too want all puppies to be born from health tested dogs however, there are real dangers in doing that and the KC is aware of it - it is notable that those European breeders come to the UK to use stud dogs here, in part, because there own gene pools have become so small - and that is for labradors!

We have to be very careful we don't bring even more problems in by being too restrictive.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

hopefully i wont get shot from this, but jax's mum had a litter Jan 2014 and jax was born Dec 2014. His mums season was early.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

MrRustyRead said:


> hopefully i wont get shot from this, but jax's mum had a litter Jan 2014 and jax was born Dec 2014. His mums season was early.


But this is the very reason that you can't have hard and fast rules. 10 months between seasons is not unreasonable IMO. The one litter a year is based on the average bitch that comes into season twice a year (every six months) well, that is an average and not all bitches do. What about the bitch that comes into season once every 11 months - are you supposed to leave nearly two years between litters? There is absolutely no benefit in doing so, so why should it be a rule.

As said in another post, there is research that shows there are benefits in having back to back litters and this is commonplace in the US. Three litters back to back and then the bitch is retired from breeding. There is plenty of evidence in favour of this so who says what is right?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

But then this bitch has had a litter from all three previous seasons, which, while she may be fit and active, is there really any need for that amount of breeding? I personally couldn't do it. 

Indie and Tau were only 12 months apart, at the time the breeder had her reasons for it, and I still think they were one of the best *pet* breeders going, but an oops litter, under the circumstances, I just don't think is something you would expect of an ABS breeder, if the ABS is meant to be a cut above the rest as it were.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But then this bitch has had a litter from all three previous seasons, which, while she may be fit and active, is there really any need for that amount of breeding? I personally couldn't do it.
> 
> Indie and Tau were only 12 months apart, at the time the breeder had her reasons for it, and I still think they were one of the best *pet* breeders going, but an oops litter, under the circumstances, I just don't think is something you would expect of an ABS breeder, if the ABS is meant to be a cut above the rest as it were.


If her seasons are a year (or nearly) apart, then I can't see anything wrong with it. As I said, in the US they breed back to back litters as the norm and there is plenty of evidence to support this practice as the uterus deteriorates after each season so leaving a season in between litters may not be in the bitch's best interest.

The main reason for the once a year guideline is twofold. Firstly, it is to stop people breeding back to back litters year in year out. Three IMO is not excessive. It is only recently that the KC reduced the number of litters per bitch to four, it was six. Secondly, to allow the bitch time to recover from raising a litter which will have taken its toll physically. If a bitch only has one season a year, none of that is affected.

As to what I would do personally, not I wouldn't take three litters from a bitch, but that's me. It doesn't mean that it is wrong to. I think three is enough for any bitch even though the KC says four, but then what if a bitch's first couple of litters only had 1 or 2 pups each and the next litter didn't have a bitch the breeder wanted .... etc.... a fourth litter should not be out of the question.

Etc... there are just so many different scenarios, and so many different breeds that these 'rules' have to cover. As an example, a bitch cannot have a litter after 8, for some toy breeds 8 is not that old, but for a great dane it is well into old age. This makes it almost impossible to have absolute rules about everything to do with breeding.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> If her seasons are a year (or nearly) apart, then I can't see anything wrong with it. As I said, in the US they breed back to back litters as the norm and there is plenty of evidence to support this practice as the uterus deteriorates after each season so leaving a season in between litters may not be in the bitch's best interest.
> 
> The main reason for the once a year guideline is twofold. Firstly, it is to stop people breeding back to back litters year in year out. Three IMO is not excessive. It is only recently that the KC reduced the number of litters per bitch to four, it was six. Secondly, to allow the bitch time to recover from raising a litter which will have taken its toll physically. If a bitch only has one season a year, none of that is affected.
> 
> ...


I get where you are coming from, but to me, the ABS is meant to represent the *top* breeders. So it still leaves the question of an accidental litter, with an assumed sire, as a bit of a question mark. Seasons and 12 month issues apart, is it ever acceptable to have an accidental litter, and if you didn't witness the mating, how do you know it's one particular dog that sired the litter?

If it had been a breeder with other breeds, this could have resulted in an interesting mix, which may not have initially been obvious. You'll probably have heard of people being sold pure bred pups only to have them develop into something a bit different.


----------



## Margelli (Jun 23, 2014)

So, how do we know it was a 'oops' litter? Mind you, I'd much prefer an 'oops' litter where both the stud and bitch are health tested and have most likely proven their good breeding via previous litters.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Margelli said:


> So, how do we know it was a 'oops' litter? Mind you, I'd much prefer an 'oops' litter where both the stud and bitch are health tested and have most likely proven their good breeding via previous litters.


Because they said it was an oops litter


----------



## Margelli (Jun 23, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because they said it was an oops litter


Who to? The KC? To you? The internets?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Margelli said:


> Who to? The KC? To you? The internets?


To everybody, not sure why it's of particular relevance, as I said, it's not about picking on an individual person, but the *circumstances* aren't really something that live up the ABS ideal


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I knew someone who bred her Lab but her spaniel got to it shortly after the stud dog had had his way. Ended up with a split litter but she still registered those she thought were pure


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> I knew someone who bred her Lab but her spaniel got to it shortly after the stud dog had had his way. Ended up with a split litter but she still registered those she thought were pure


Oh there are breeders galore who make a mockery of the system, using unregistered dogs and registering a different sire, registering extra pups and then switching them, it's why I think the DNA profiling is really the only way to stop anyone from fiddling the system. I'd extend it to every dog bred as well, to stop breeders from using their dogs indiscriminately full stop.


----------



## Margelli (Jun 23, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> To everybody, not sure why it's of particular relevance, as I said, it's not about picking on an individual person, but the *circumstances* aren't really something that live up the ABS ideal


It is of particular relevance as the breeder referred to, is used as an example of the 'circumstances', so it would probably be better if evidence was presented rather than what comes across as hear say, or not at all?

Either way, I do think your concerns would probably be better aimed at the KC, they can probably do more than a forum. 

EDIT: That sounds like I am being overly harsh towards the forum, I do not mean offence. But do let us know how any future correspondence between you and the relevant organisation goes, it would be interesting to know.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I get where you are coming from, *but to me, the ABS is meant to represent the *top* breeders.* So it still leaves the question of an accidental litter, with an assumed sire, as a bit of a question mark. Seasons and 12 month issues apart, is it ever acceptable to have an accidental litter, and if you didn't witness the mating, how do you know it's one particular dog that sired the litter?
> 
> If it had been a breeder with other breeds, this could have resulted in an interesting mix, which may not have initially been obvious. You'll probably have heard of people being sold pure bred pups only to have them develop into something a bit different.


You see, that is where I see the problem. _You_ see it as representing the 'top' breeders. But the KC makes no such claim.



> _The Kennel Club Assured Breeder Scheme promotes good breeding practice and, as a breeder, you may wish to consider joining. There are set requirements that Assured Breeders must agree to follow, which encourage the breeding of healthy, well-adjusted puppies_


The KC sees it as promoting good breeding practice which encourages the breeding of healthy, well-adjusted puppies. Which, ultimately, is all a pet owner wants - a healthy, well-adjusted puppy.

As for not knowing who the sire is, then of course, I would DNA test. However, I don't know how they came to the conclusion who the sire is. It could have been the only dog that had got over the baby gate? It could have been obvious if they only just returned. Was the bitch in with all the dogs? I don't know, although yes, if there was doubt a DNA test should have been done. If you know for a fact, then of course, contact the KC, but you do need to have facts, not just hearsay.

That said, this applies to all registrations as ALL registrations are based on trust. The only way to avoid this is to bring in DNA testing for ALL litters so every single dog will be DNA tested. It's possible but is it workable given the extra cost?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Margelli said:


> It is of particular relevance as the breeder referred to, is used as an example of the 'circumstances', so it would probably be better if evidence was presented rather than what comes across as hear say, or not at all?
> 
> Either way, I do think your concerns would probably be better aimed at the KC, they can probably do more than a forum.


The breeder I'm referring to isn't used as an example at all, just their circumstances, they'd only be an example if I'd actually named them and everyone agreed they were an example. The simple fact is, I don't agree with what they've done, I am not a 100 per cent example of everyone on this forum, and not everyone will think this is unacceptable, I personally do.

I've reported suspect practices to the KC before, and in my experience, very little is done.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> You see, that is where I see the problem. _You_ see it as representing the 'top' breeders. But the KC makes no such claim.
> 
> The KC sees it as promoting good breeding practice which encourages the breeding of healthy, well-adjusted puppies. Which, ultimately, is all a pet owner wants - a healthy, well-adjusted puppy.
> 
> ...


To me, the *top* breeders are those who aspire to have the best ethics, the best practices. An oops litter is not a good practice in my books, and being in dogs for oodles of years and only having had a minimum of ooops litters is not an excuse for it being ok.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The breeder I'm referring to isn't used as an example at all, just their circumstances, they'd only be an example if I'd actually named them and everyone agreed they were an example. The simple fact is, I don't agree with what they've done, I am not a 100 per cent example of everyone on this forum, and not everyone will think this is unacceptable, I personally do.
> 
> I've reported suspect practices to the KC before, and in my experience, very little is done.


So have you reported this set of circumstances to the KC?

If they don't know about it how can they address it?

If you have a genuine grievance about the ABS scheme with proof of something against their code of ethics you really should speak to them. 
Nothing will change by you posting on a forum and creating a debate about you, the breeder and the scheme.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Darth said:


> So have you reported this set of circumstances to the KC?
> 
> If they don't know about it how can they address it?
> 
> ...




Surely the point being made is that the registering of a litter to a bitch, less than 12 months after another litter should have been picked up upon by the KC already


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Oh there are breeders galore who make a mockery of the system, using unregistered dogs and registering a different sire, registering extra pups and then switching them, it's why I think the DNA profiling is really the only way to stop anyone from fiddling the system. I'd extend it to every dog bred as well, to stop breeders from using their dogs indiscriminately full stop.


Where are you getting all this information from? All of these accusations?

What, in your opinion, as a breeder of one litter, makes a "top" breeder?

Two of my PRT stud dogs were full brothers, so would DNA testing which, apparently, you would demand after every mating have proved anything, even if it were feasible, which it isn't?

It's very easy to preach infallibility and unworkable standards to others.

You're very good at criticising, but not offering the solution.


----------



## GertrudeJekyll (Sep 4, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But then this bitch has had a litter from all three previous seasons, which, while she may be fit and active, is there really any need for that amount of breeding? I personally couldn't do it.


As you've said, that's your opinion - not entirely sure why you feel the need to voice this on a public forum. There are health benefits to breeding back-to-back litters, and in some countries this is the norm (as it is in the wild, of course). That some breeders/owners find this practice unacceptable is another manifestation of the anthropomorphism of our dogs in this country.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I get where you are coming from, but to me, the ABS is meant to represent the *top* breeders.


Again, your opinion. Where in the literature does the ABS claim to represent "top" breeders? I'd rather point potential puppy buyers towards an ABS breeder rather than Mr Jones down the road who's just had a litter.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because they said it was an oops litter


Yes, on FB...but as you're no longer _friends_ you have no idea what the details of the situation were, and why the breeder knows which one of her stud dogs did the deed. You seem to thrive on conjecture in order to cause sensationalism. Not everyone finds it necessary to announce every detail to the public  .

If you have cause for discontent with what the ABS is offering, or indeed, what you believe it stands for, then why don't you write to them instead of soapboxing on an internet pet forum in the style of a Daily Fail headliner.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

So............from this I understand that the breeders on here don't think the general public have a right to info about the failings of the ABS!!!

Seems nothing changes


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

rona said:


> So............from this I understand that the breeders on here don't think the general public have a right to info about the failings of the ABS!!!
> 
> Seems nothing changes


So from this I understand that it is perfectly understandable for people to infer what they like from posts about a societal group and jump to unwarranted conclusions!!!

Seems nothing changes.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> So from this I understand that it is perfectly understandable for people to infer what they like from posts about a societal group and jump to unwarranted conclusions!!!
> 
> Seems nothing changes.


Personal experience too I'm afraid 

It shouldn't be that way


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

rona said:


> Surely the point being made is that the registering of a litter to a bitch, less than 12 months after another litter should have been picked up upon by the KC already


Surely the point of the post is sensationalism about a breeder the OP appears to want to degenerate?


----------



## crazylablady (Apr 25, 2014)

Taken from the KC website quote
*"UKAS accreditation
The Kennel Club is the only organisation accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) to certify dog breeders, under the Kennel Club Assured Breeder Scheme. This means that puppy buyers can have confidence that Assured Breeders meet and maintain the standards set by the Kennel Club, which are in place to ensure that their puppies have the best chance of leading healthy, happy lives."
*

The point that some of are trying to make is that, while in theory the ABS should be a good thing, there are far too many flaws in the system. That, unfortunately, means that far from puppy buyers having confidence in the scheme, they should be just as careful with their choice of breeder as they would with non ABS members.

Let me give you an example. I'm not going to name names. A local vet had a litter of Labrador puppies about a month ago. He posted details on both their Facebook page and in the column they regularly have on the local paper. In a previous post in the both FB and the paper he made a big deal of being an ABS member. He has 2 bitches, the one with the current litter isn't even elbow scored and her last (and only) eye test was 17 months before the litter was born. A couple of years ago, when he had a litter from the same bitch, he again posted in the local paper and FB. The FB thread caught my attention after someone, hoping to eventually get a puppy the next year and asking for advice, asked whether the parents of a litter should have an eye test even when they've been tested DNA clear for PRA. The simple answer was yes, they should, but he waffled on an on, avoiding giving her straight answer, saying there were very few ophthalmic vets in the country (there's one only a couple of miles from one of the their surgeries) and eventually when she persisted he said no, they didn't need an eye test! It became obvious to me why he said that, he'd had a litter from each of his 2 bitches and not bothered to eye test. I pointed someone more qualified than me in the direction of the thread and they challenged him. The following year he eye tested both bitches before going on to have 2 more litters and joining the ABS. However, he obviously hasn't bother to test again  A puppy buyer looking at his ad on Champdogs could easily assume that because he's a vet and an ABS member the litter is a good bet.

Yes, I know, the ABS only 'recommend' elbow scoring and will register a litter where there was an eye test within 18 months of the birth of the litter. That's my point though, shouldn't the standards be higher? If an eye test should be done annually then to me it should mean that there is a clear eye test carried out within, at the very least, a year of the mating. It's one of the most basic tests. I've contacted the KC ABS section a number of times in the past but got nowhere.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I am still lost as to why Sleeping Lion is being attacked over her OP. After all there are constant threads about breeders on here, even huge assumptions just made on the strength of adverts and web pages. At least SL is stating some facts - and has not named the breeder, as so often does happen on here.

If the breeder has put the facts on FB it hardly matters whether SL knows her personally or not.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I am still lost as to why Sleeping Lion is being attacked over her OP. After all there are constant threads about breeders on here, even huge assumptions just made on the strength of adverts and web pages. At least SL is stating some facts - and has not named the breeder, as so often does happen on here.
> 
> If the breeder has put the facts on FB it hardly matters whether SL knows her personally or not.


Because as per usually it a post of fake concern and disgust at the KC when there is more of a personal agenda of a half ass second hand story off FB of someone the OP doesn't like. The innocence of naming no names I was just pointing out the fails of the ABS when of course strangely anyone involved in the breed knows  and lets take a pop at the KC and other peoples dogs and lines and breeding when I an owner of the breed for 5 mins having one litter am now the world expert in breeding practices and the breed! Then you get the usual suspects crying in their cornflakes about how breeders hide things from the general public, nope most people like to deal with fact, no little snippets of rumours taken from FB, learnt a long time ago the dog world to not broker the Chinese whispers because they become so far removed from fact a litter of pups could turn in to a flock of one eyed hippogriffs with elves of their back who plan to wage a war on mankind....

So my facts are yes the litter is 10 months from the last one, not a huge issue with it not ideal but not firing squad material, the bitch had a litter in Feb 2013, Feb 2014 and Dec 2014, great health scores on hips and elbows, eyes had been tested but none to cover this litter, sire the same yep opps litter but both parents health tested neither under or over age? Where is the need to post about ABS failings? Cian was a product of a oops litter, his breeders is wonderful a top breeder in my eyes open honest and transparent she didn't hide the mistake, yet even though people KNOW I am friends with her and she made it public and explained why she went a head people still speculated! Oh and most did so with an adgenda!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Blitz said:


> At least SL is stating some *hearsay *- and has not named the breeder, as so often does happen on here.
> 
> If the breeder has put the facts on FB it hardly matters whether SL knows her personally or not.


Fixed the bolded for you..There are no facts in this thread, just lots of accusations.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

rona said:


> So............from this I understand that the breeders on here don't think the general public have a right to info about the failings of the ABS!!!
> 
> Seems nothing changes


Hmmm .......

It appears to me that this thread is not so much about the failings of the ABS as a direct attack on the alleged misdemeanours of another Breeder.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> Fixed the bolded for you..There are no facts in this thread, just lots of accusations.


Please do not change what you have quoted, it looks as though I said that


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Darth said:


> Surely the point of the post is sensationalism about a breeder the OP appears to want to degenerate?


It's not the OP that's made a fuss or even hinted at who it might be 

If the breeders hadn't jumped in, this would have been the thread that SL intended. A thread about the failings of the ABS failure


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Hmmm .......
> 
> It appears to me that this thread is not so much about the failings of the ABS as a direct attack on the alleged misdemeanours of another Breeder.


Dunno what you've been reading but it ain't the same as me


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

rona said:


> Dunno what you've been reading but it ain't the same as me


Obviously not or you'd see it how it is!

I think it's turned out exactly how it was intended .....


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Darth said:


> Obviously not or you'd see it how it is!
> 
> I think it's turned out exactly how it was intended .....


But still no one that isn't covering this up has any idea who it is  

As I said before the actual breeder has to be applauded for even admitting to it, more than most would have done!!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

rona said:


> But still no one that isn't covering this up has any idea who it is
> 
> As I said before the actual breeder has to be applauded for even admitting to it, more than most would have done!!


No one has any proof that anything has actually happened to be fair.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> No one has any proof that anything has actually happened to be fair.


I thought the breeder had said that there was an accidental mating?

Seems most seem to know that 

It's also easy to check if there's 12 months in between litters


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Just to get back to the scheme in general and how it could be improved (I'm of the opinion that ANY scheme is better than no scheme at all!)

The ISDS refuse to register the progeny of dogs if they fail their eye tests. Tis way they have all but eliminated PRA and CEA from their dogs. Tis is not true of KC collies.


AFAIK the KC do not refuse to register any progeny from parents failing any health test. 

I may be wrong- and I'd welcome correction as I'm far from greatly knowledgable on the subject of breeding.

So it seems to me that refusing to register progeny of dogs who have failed certain tests would show a real commitment to improving the breed health. Obviously, there would have to be exceptions in some instances, such as small gene pools.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Also why aren't the breed clubs and breeders up in arms about this?

All that seems to be happening is that good breeders are leaving the scheme

..................................................................................................................
Seems the breeders are concerned and have tried to get the KC to look into this

Okay, we got it wrong! | The Canine Alliance


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

rona said:


> I thought the breeder had said that there was an accidental mating?
> 
> Seems most seem to know that
> 
> It's also easy to check if there's 12 months in between litters


Apparently they have...the key word being apparently.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Darth said:


> Surely the point of the post is sensationalism about a breeder the OP appears to want to degenerate?


Um, no, you are completely wrong, but you, and others have assumed that was the case. The title of the thread kind of gives a clue, I don't agree with a scheme that sets an *ethical* standard so that people buying pups think, oh, it's ok, it's an ABS member, and yet there are so many skimping on health tests, and registering pups when they themselves have admitted it's an ooops litter.

The thread was not about one breeder, or any individual breeder, it was about the ABS not living up to what it set out to be, but there we go, people do like to make things up as they go along, particularly when they can't dig up anything interesting.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> and registering pups when they themselves have admitted it's an ooops litter.


So what's wrong with registering an "Ooops" litter?

There's nothing wrong with that for goodness sake!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Even if it were an accidental mating, if both Parents are health tested, of appropriate age and not closely related, why should the litter not be registered?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Even if it were an accidental mating, if both Parents are health tested, of appropriate age and not closely related, why should the litter not be registered?


Because the parentage is *assumed*, the breeder owns three stud dogs that could produce this colour combination. Surely at the very least the pups should be DNA tested?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

This is what I find odd.

I have never heard of the Kennel Club registering a litter where the sire was unknown.

If the Breeder has declared one dog as Sire, knowing that could be false, the Kennel Club would have no way of knowing that and why on Earth would the Breeder then 'tell all' on Facebook or some other forum?

Something just is not right about all of this, that's what I'm asking.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> This is what I find odd.
> 
> I have never heard of the Kennel Club registering a litter where the sire was unknown.
> 
> ...


It's pretty simple, the breeder has *assumed* that one dog is the sire, despite the fact that a mating wasn't witnessed. They own three stud dogs that could have produced this colour combination. The KC accept what they're told. But when you are an ABS member, surely, you should at least prove or be able to provide provenance for pups?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It's pretty simple, the breeder has *assumed* that one dog is the sire, despite the fact that a mating wasn't witnessed. They own three stud dogs that could have produced this colour combination. The KC accept what they're told. But when you are an ABS member, surely, you should at least prove or be able to provide provenance for pups?


I agree, as a Breeder, you should, but I thought this thread was about the shortcomings of the ABS?

How can they be expected to know how many stud dogs one Breeder has standing at any given time? They can't visit every home and take a head count.

To a large degree, they have to rely upon the information given to them as truthful and reliable. If the Breeder has lied, the ABS have no way of knowing, unless someone tells them, and even then, they would have to prove it.

No system is 100% foolproof.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> I agree, as a Breeder, you should, but I thought this thread was about the shortcomings of the ABS?
> 
> How can they be expected to know how many stud dogs one Breeder has standing at any given time? They can't visit every home and take a head count.
> 
> ...


It is about the short falls of the ABS, and perhaps they should require a better system of proof of parentage?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

This makes no sense.

What is being alleged is that a litter was registered by the KC when the sire was not known.

Now.

1. Either the KC knew this to be the case and said it was in order

Or

2. The KC didn't know and the breeder lied to them.

Logic would dictate that the first is surprising, but if the KC has approved the registration they must have made a public statement of the fact

And if the second is true, how the f*uck would anyone know this? No breeder is going to advertise the fact that they lied to the KC!


It's either one or the other. If it's the first there must be some sort of statement from the KC which can be checked out

And the second makes no sense whatsoever.

Alternatively, of course, it could just be speculation and bitching.


This has been repeatedly asked, by a number of different people on this thread and has yet to be answered.

So. Which is it?


----------



## GertrudeJekyll (Sep 4, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It's pretty simple, the breeder has *assumed* that one dog is the sire, despite the fact that a mating wasn't witnessed.


This is now beyond ludicrous. You have no idea what the circumstances were, and how she knew which dog sired the litter!

*You* are the one making assumptions here, and making a mockery of an institution that is working towards bettering breeding practices. Can you name a single governing/registration body that is fool proof? What have _you_ done to better either of your breeds? Bred highly mediocre quality dogs in an already overflowing market? Hardly laudable ethics, seeing as breeding to some unattainable standard seems to be your moral cornerstone!

Have you ever personally owned a stud dog amongst entire bitches (and I'm not including your ex partner's dogs here )? Have you any idea how quickly an unexpected mating can occur? You've mated one difficult bitch and you believe you're the authority on all things breeding.

You seem to think you're completely infallible, and you can scarcely deny it. You have such embarrassingly minimal experience of breeding and dog ownership that you have no idea how unfortunately "easy" (for want of a better word) accidents can happen, despite maintaining a canine Fort Knox of a kennel. Anyone saying otherwise is either lying or equally inexperienced/naive.

Why is it such an awful crime to register a litter from an "oops" mating between two health tested dogs of the same breed when the sire was known? It is only your assumption that the sire was unknown :hand: .


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> Just to get back to the scheme in general and how it could be improved (I'm of the opinion that ANY scheme is better than no scheme at all!)
> 
> The ISDS refuse to register the progeny of dogs if they fail their eye tests. Tis way they have all but eliminated PRA and CEA from their dogs. Tis is not true of KC collies.
> 
> ...


The KC already does this with one breed, however, it is not a popular breed and has the support of the vast majority of the breeders so it has worked well.

Imagine though, a popular breed where dogs were refused registration if not health tested - in labs this would account for around 50% of labradors registered. Immediately you have halved the gene pool'

As I said in a previous thread, this already happens in some European countries but they now have such small gene pools they regularly come over here to use our stud dogs.

While I would like to see ALL breeding bitches and dogs health tested, I can see the KC stance on this that they would prefer to keep gene pools open.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

A long post so bear with me .....

The ABS is not perfect and neither can it guarantee that it's members will produce perfect pups. But all those who sign up have at least agreed to work within a set criteria including good husbandry, health, record keeping etc. 

It gives the puppy buying public a simple easily recognised 'kitemark ' of quality helping them avoid the kind of feckless and unethical breeders who flood the internet with imported pups from Eastern Europe or the Welsh puppy farms - or indeed those who simply jump on the latest fashionable breed bandwagon.

It's inspections under the new UKAS protocol are very rigorous , i had mine last October . They looked at where my pups are whelped and reared, the food preparation area, checked all the paperwork including registration, health test results, micro chip details for all the dogs, whelping records, records of seasons, and vets details. They asked about the dogs daily routine, how often and where they were exercised, what they were fed, where they slept and their bedding. They needed to see all the dogs ( I have 7 ) to scan their microchips and assess their sociability and physical condition. They asked for details of my emergency contact and how the dogs could be evacuated quickly in case of a fire or other emergency 

They looked at my contracts of sale to check i would take back any dog of my breeding and my stud contract. They took away copies of my puppy advice booklet to check i had included sections on feeding, worming, vaccinations, socialising, training and grooming. They also needed to see a separate breed specific sheet outlining the main characteristics of my particular breed. They took photographs for evidence and took into account feedback from previous puppy buyer. 

Questions about the scheme from me were welcomed and after three weeks I received a detailed report which my puppy buyers are able to read with my permission. 


There are many 'urban myths' about the ABS and what sometimes feels like a wish for it to fail but I'm convinced it's the single most effective weapon we have in steering puppy buyers away from puppy farmers and I believe ALL responsible breeders should support it and join the scheme.


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

Bijou said:


> A long post so bear with me .....
> 
> The ABS is not perfect and neither can it guarantee that it's members will produce perfect pups. But all those who sign up have at least agreed to work within a set criteria including good husbandry, health, record keeping etc.
> 
> ...


I've read a lot recently about the KC checking procedure for ABS and, from what I have read, it seems very good and helpful. There are always those that resent the intrusion, but I personally think that it's all for the good. My only comment is that I feel there should be more checkers as it does need to be done regularly so that good standards are maintained and prevent those awful stories you get to see from time to time, of dozens of dogs being kept in terrible conditions by somebody who once was a renowned breeder.
You are quite right in saying that the general public, particularly those who are not well informed, need to have a 'kitemark' in order to know where to get a healthy puppy. After all, what do we do when we go to buy something? I know what I do, check reviews online and make sure the item is safe by checking the kitemark.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I completely agree that it needs more rigorous inspections, but it should also in my view include a fool proof method to identify dogs, rather than rely on the word of a breeder. There have been too many over the years who either don't know, and make assumptions, or just outright lie about the dogs they register. 

The KC places too much faith in the honesty of breeders, and I'm afraid I lack much trust at all with some of the practices I've seen, I'd never have believed any of it before I owned dogs. Maybe I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but until the KC have a way of confirming a dog is who the breeder says it is, I won't place my trust in any system they come up with to identify *good* breeders from the rest of *us*.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I completely agree that it needs more rigorous inspections, but it should also in my view include a fool proof method to identify dogs, rather than rely on the word of a breeder. There have been too many over the years who either don't know, and make assumptions, or just outright lie about the dogs they register.
> 
> The KC places too much faith in the honesty of breeders, and I'm afraid I lack much trust at all with some of the practices I've seen, I'd never have believed any of it before I owned dogs. Maybe I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but until the KC have a way of confirming a dog is who the breeder says it is, I won't place my trust in any system they come up with to identify *good* breeders from the rest of *us*.


OK. So how can they do this, if checking microchips is not sufficient for you to identify dogs?

There has to be perspective. We can't have the KC Gestapo! It has to be proportionate. We're not talking standards for car brakes, here. No one who breeds for a hobby (ie. The vast majority of ethical breeders) would bother joining a scheme where the standards were so rigorously applied and attaining them so difficult that the cost, in both monetary term and in time and effort was prohibitive.

So, SL. What do you think they could do regarding the identification of dogs?


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2014)

Sleeping Lion, have you bred a litter? Did you DNA test?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

DNA testing is compulsory with some cattle and horse breeds. As is stallion inspection with some breeds. It would not be difficult to have the same rules for KC reg pups.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

No I didn't but I would happily DNA test my dogs to prove parentage. And I'd be incredibly happy if it's something the KC required. 

As an aside, I do wonder how the new rules regarding microchips is going to be implemented, as you will need the microchip number to register pups (as I understand it); that would mean either keeping pups until they are ten weeks old, or longer, because they're not big enough to microchip earlier than 7 weeks of age; or having to forward KC registration documents on to new owners, which I wouldn't feel comfortable doing. I'm not sure they've really thought about how it will work.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No I didn't but I would happily DNA test my dogs to prove parentage. And I'd be incredibly happy if it's something the KC required.


But you didnt as a matter of course. Why not? 
Perhaps this breeder in question had equally legitimate reasons for not DNA testing.
Perhaps this breeder in question DID DNA test and you just dont know about it.

DNA testing is not difficult as far as I know, nor is it prohibitively expensive. It happens a good bit here in the US for various reasons, and the AKC requires it in certain situations. It doesnt seem to be much of a problem...


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Seems to me that it is very likely that the breeder in fact DID DNA test the puppies in question.

Otherwise, why did she publicise the fact she was unsure who he sire is?

She's not going to broadcast that she did an "eeny-meeny-miny-mo now, is she?

That's the most logical scenario. She had an oops mating. Told the KC. Then DNA tested the pups to establish the sire.

What's wrong with that?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I'm sure some will post but please do let SL know most good breeders have micro chipped their puppy's before leaving and have done for some considerable time and they are done at 6 weeks. Hardly too small when kittens are routinely chipped before leaving and are generally smaller than the toy breed puppies. Most good breeders also DNA Profile are enter them in their their breed register and have done for years!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> But you didnt as a matter of course. Why not?
> Perhaps this breeder in question had equally legitimate reasons for not DNA testing.
> Perhaps this breeder in question DID DNA test and you just dont know about it.
> 
> DNA testing is not difficult as far as I know, nor is it prohibitively expensive. It happens a good bit here in the US for various reasons, and the AKC requires it in certain situations. It doesnt seem to be much of a problem...


I hadn't really thought about it in as much depth when Tau's litter was planned, a lot of what has caused me to become so cynical happened after her litter. The likelihood is that I will probably start to use DNA profiling for my dogs.

As far as the example given with the ooops litter, no mention of DNA testing has been made as far as I'm aware, to ensure the dog *thought* to be the sire is actually the sire of all the pups. I'm not going to keep dwelling on *the* example I gave, because I'm quite honestly fed up with the assumptions people have made about me using it as an example of how the ABS isn't working, and can be misused in my books, even if it's not the intention of a breeder at the time.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> As far as the example given with the ooops litter, no mention of DNA testing has been made as far as I'm aware, to ensure the dog *thought* to be the sire is actually the sire of all the pups. I'm not going to keep dwelling on *the* example I gave, because I'm quite honestly fed up with the assumptions people have made about me using it as an example of how the ABS isn't working, and can be misused in my books, even if it's not the intention of a breeder at the time.


This reads very differently to what you have written earlier in this thread:


Sleeping_Lion said:


> If anyone thinks I'm posting rumours for the sake of it, I'm amazed you're actually bothering reading anything I post at all. The simple fact is someone has registered a litter of pups from a bitch who has had this litter less than 12 months on from her last litter, and *despite it being an *accidental* litter they've assumed one of their stud dogs is the sire,* when they have three dogs in total that could have produced the colour combination in the litter. If that's to hard for anyone to understand I suggest they stick to general dog chat.


Basically you dont know if they DNA tested or not.
Im FB friends with quite a few reputable breeders, not once have I seen mention from any of them about DNA testing online, yet I know from personal conversations that many of them do.

Obviously I have no clue about your personal intentions with this thread, but as a total outsider with no agenda, I have to say that it does read at least a little bit like you set out to malign a certain breeder. 
As small as the dog world is in the US, I imagine its even smaller in the UK, and someone was bound to recognize the breeder you used as an anonymous example. I find it hard to believe you are so naive to not know that.

For all I know the breeder in question really does have crap ethics and should absolutely be brought to the attention of the KC. If thats the case, bring it up with the KC and leave it off a public forum. 
Even if the outing is well intentioned, its not going to be viewed that way when done publicly, and frankly this thread is making several posters look petty, and very unprofessional. :thumbdown:


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

Meezey said:


> I'm sure some will post but please do let SL know most good breeders have micro chipped their puppy's before leaving and have done for some considerable time and they are done at 6 weeks. Hardly too small when kittens are routinely chipped before leaving and are generally smaller than the toy breed puppies. Most good breeders also DNA Profile are enter them in their their breed register and have done for years!


Isla was microchipped by the breeder when she was 7.5 weeks, they were given a few days to make sure they were all ok, then released to their new owners at 8 weeks as normal. Many smaller dogs such as the toys are routinely kept by the breeder until they are older anyway, up to 10 to 12 weeks if not longer for the real tiddlers, plenty of time to microchip I would think.
I know there can be a bit of an issue with thin skinned dogs such as whippets or the hairless breeds, but microchips used on small breeds, will work well with them too.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Siskin said:


> Isla was microchipped by the breeder when she was 7.5 weeks, they were given a few days to make sure they were all ok, then released to their new owners at 8 weeks as normal. Many smaller dogs such as the toys are routinely kept by the breeder until they are older anyway, up to 10 to 12 weeks if not longer for the real tiddlers, plenty of time to microchip I would think.
> I know there can be a bit of an issue with thin skinned dogs such as whippets or the hairless breeds, but microchips used on small breeds, will work well with them too.


Both KT & Cian were chipped by their breeders Cian's breeders also DNA profiles, the sire of the next litter by Cian's breeder is DNA profiled as are all their dogs as standard, and all pups from them are chipped pretty standard practice! Even the breed I am interested in are DNA profiled and pups leave chipped @ 8 weeks.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> This reads very differently to what you have written earlier in this thread:
> 
> Basically you dont know if they DNA tested or not.
> Im FB friends with quite a few reputable breeders, not once have I seen mention from any of them about DNA testing online, yet I know from personal conversations that many of them do.
> ...


I think you've missed the point entirely, yes, I used an example of someone who has had a litter that I think could have been *managed* better, but yet again, it's the way things have happened, not who it's happened to that's a concern to me. The ABS is meant to be a flagship scheme of a high standard of ethical breeding. Not a registry for ooops litters of unknown parentage. If the breeder managed to get DNA results within two days, then yep, they might have gone ahead with DNA profiling, given the date of registration, however, I'm doubting any company within the UK will give results that quickly.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think you've missed the point entirely, yes, I used an example of someone who has had a litter that I think could have been *managed* better, but yet again, it's the way things have happened, not who it's happened to that's a concern to me. The ABS is meant to be a flagship scheme of a high standard of ethical breeding. *Not a registry for ooops litters of unknown parentage. If the breeder managed to get DNA results within two days, then yep, they might have gone ahead with DNA profiling, given the date of registration, however, I'm doubting any company within the UK will give results that quickly.*


Hrm... in looking at the requirements, it seems like several checks are done at the time a breeder applies to register a litter. IOW, I dont think any litters are being registered in 2 days. 
Perhaps the breeder is an ABS breeder in good standing and applied to register the litter and doesnt expect any issues with registration, however realistically all the checks have to go through first before the litter is actually registered.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/8866/abs_application_form_2014.pdf


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Hrm... in looking at the requirements, it seems like several checks are done at the time a breeder applies to register a litter. IOW, I dont think any litters are being registered in 2 days.
> Perhaps the breeder is an ABS breeder in good standing and applied to register the litter and doesnt expect any issues with registration, however realistically all the checks have to go through first before the litter is actually registered.
> 
> http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/8866/abs_application_form_2014.pdf


You will just have to take my word for it, the litter was registered two days after pups were born, now if you hadn't witnessed a mating, and the only thing between you bitch, and other dog(s) was a baby gate, how would you know which dog had sired the litter? Would you not want to DNA test if you owned more than one stud dog, and wanted to register pups?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You will just have to take my word for it, the litter was registered two days after pups were born, now if you hadn't witnessed a mating, and the only thing between you bitch, and other dog(s) was a baby gate, how would you know which dog had sired the litter? Would you not want to DNA test if you owned more than one stud dog, and wanted to register pups?


To be fair, you don't know whether or not this Breeder did DNA test with this particular litter.

The litter cannot have been registered as an 'Unknown Sire' litter, a sire must have been named.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> To be fair, you don't know whether or not this Breeder did DNA test with this particular litter.
> 
> The litter cannot have been registered as an 'Unknown Sire' litter, a sire must have been named.


Gawd, well maybe the breeder does know a company who can turn around results within 48 hours, rather than the normal 7-10 days, but the premise remains, the KC will accept registration from breeders who may or may not know which dog did the deed!


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You will just have to take my word for it, the litter was registered two days after pups were born, now if you hadn't witnessed a mating, and the only thing between you bitch, and other dog(s) was a baby gate, how would you know which dog had sired the litter? Would you not want to DNA test if you owned more than one stud dog, and wanted to register pups?


Take your word for it? Off information you have obtained solely off of FB with no personal conversations with the breeder?



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Gawd, well maybe the breeder does know a company who can turn around results within 48 hours, rather than the normal 7-10 days, but the premise remains, the KC will accept registration from breeders who may or may not know which dog did the deed!


Not according to the link I posted...

So either this breeder is lying to the KC which if you have proof of, you should report to the KC. 
Or the KC is worthless and you should avoid them and not give a flying fig about those who do bother with the worthless organization right?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Take your word for it? Off information you have obtained solely off of FB with no personal conversations with the breeder?
> 
> Not according to the link I posted...


Well if you don't want to take my word for it, that's your problem.

Not sure entirely what point you wanted to bring across with your link.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Gawd, well maybe the breeder does know a company who can turn around results within 48 hours, rather than the normal 7-10 days, but the premise remains, the KC will accept registration from breeders who may or may not know which dog did the deed!


So, you're clearly saying that the Kennel Club will register litters where the Sire is declared as Unknown?

I once made a spelling mistake in the name of the Sire of one of my litters and they rejected it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> So, you're clearly saying that the Kennel Club will register litters where the Sire is declared as Unknown?
> 
> I once made a spelling mistake in the name of the Sire of one of my litters and they rejected it.


No, I'm saying the KC is too willing to trust breeders, and perhaps they need to set the bar higher where the ABS is concerned particularly, after all, these are supposed to be the cream of the crop type of breeder. So when someone admits they've had an ooops litter, unwitnessed mating, how on earth can they assume one of their many stud dogs is the culprit?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sweety said:


> So, you're clearly saying that the Kennel Club will register litters where the Sire is declared as Unknown?
> 
> I once made a spelling mistake in the name of the Sire of one of my litters and they rejected it.


Why doesn't someone just ask the breeder?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, I'm saying the KC is too willing to trust breeders, and perhaps they need to set the bar higher where the ABS is concerned particularly, after all, these are supposed to be the cream of the crop type of breeder. So when someone admits they've had an ooops litter, unwitnessed mating, how on earth can they assume one of their many stud dogs is the culprit?


But where has this Breeder admitted it?

That's what I'm questioning.

I simply cannot believe they've submitted their registration form for the litter, stating the sire as Unknown.

The litter wouldn't have been registered.

Is it on Facebook, this admission, or to you personally?


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Well if you don't want to take my word for it, that's your problem.
> 
> Not sure entirely what point you wanted to bring across with your link.


Um... I dont have any problem. I dont know you, the breeder in question, nor do I have any agenda as far as the KCs ABS is concerned.

I was simply pointing out that regardless of what your motives truly are, to me, as an outsider, your OP looks like an attempt to malign a certain breeder, thinly disguised as having an issue with how the KCs assured breeder scheme is run.

The truth is, you dont know what this breeder has or has not done when it comes to registering this litter, nor does it appear that you now how an ABS litter gets registered - which is why I posted the link which explains the process.

If you have an issue with the ABS address it with them, or ignore them, dont join, dont use their services.
If you have an issue with this particular breeder, report them, and leave it to others to make their own decisions.

Anything else makes you look unprofessional. Just as those attacking your breeding knowledge and experience also simply make themselves look petty and unprofessional.

A friend of mine is a very well known breeder in great danes and over the last nearly 10 years, I have seen just about every sort of accusation thrown at her that you can imagine. Every single time she ignores it. Every time. 100% does not get involved in the drama. She minds her own business, keeps breeding winning dogs, keeps getting stellar health scores on her dogs, racking up CHIC numbers, and building an amazing program.
And you know what? Her actions and her accomplishments speak for themselves.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> But where has this Breeder admitted it?
> 
> That's what I'm questioning.
> 
> ...


They haven't submitted a registration with an *unknown* sire, they've registered the pups to one of their stud dogs. They own three dogs that could have produced this colour combination, and the only thing between the bitch and stud dog, was a baby gate; no mating was witnessed, so how on earth do they know one dog was the sire?

If they know the mating took place, that raises a whole different set of questions.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> They haven't submitted a registration with an *unknown* sire, they've registered the pups to one of their stud dogs. They own three dogs that could have produced this colour combination, and *the only thing between the bitch and stud dog, was a baby gate; no mating was witnessed*, so how on earth do they know one dog was the sire?
> 
> If they know the mating took place, that raises a whole different set of questions.


How do you know this?
They posted this on FB?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Um... I dont have any problem. I dont know you, the breeder in question, nor do I have any agenda as far as the KCs ABS is concerned.
> 
> I was simply pointing out that regardless of what your motives truly are, to me, as an outsider, your OP looks like an attempt to malign a certain breeder, thinly disguised as having an issue with how the KCs assured breeder scheme is run.
> 
> ...


Quite the opposite, I was an ABS member, and let my membership lapse because I don't agree with how the scheme has been administered.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> How do you know this?
> They posted this on FB?


Because they said as much themselves!


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Quite the opposite, I was an ABS member, and let my membership lapse because I don't agree with how the scheme has been administered.


Then you have already made your point by allowing your membership to lapse. Why continue to belabor it?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Then you have already made your point by allowing your membership to lapse. Why continue to belabor it?


Because I feel the scheme still has a lot of room for improvement, and puppy owners shouldn't rely on it solely to find a good breeder.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> They haven't submitted a registration with an *unknown* sire, they've registered the pups to one of their stud dogs. They own three dogs that could have produced this colour combination, and the only thing between the bitch and stud dog, was a baby gate; no mating was witnessed, so how on earth do they know one dog was the sire?
> 
> If they know the mating took place, that raises a whole different set of questions.


This thread is called 'The ABS Shambles'.

If this Breeder has named one dog as the sire of the litter, how on Earth are the Kennel Club to blame? They don't have a crystal ball.

It does beg the question as to whether this thread is about the ABS or really about one particular breeder.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> This thread is called 'The ABS Shambles'.
> 
> If this Breeder has named one dog as the sire of the litter, how on Earth are the Kennel Club to blame? They don't have a crystal ball.
> 
> It does beg the question as to whether this thread is about the ABS or really about one particular breeder.


Gawd!!!! It's not about one breeder for goodness sakes! It's about higlighting, as you have said, the KC don't have a crystal ball, but should they accept the word of *all* breeders, or should we have a more robust way of proving parentage?


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because I feel the scheme still has a lot of room for improvement, and puppy owners shouldn't rely on it solely to find a good breeder.


Yeah, thats not how your OP read to me at all...

Why didnt you just say in your OP, 
Hey, the ABS sure has a lot of room for improvement, for example, note that on their website they actually say:
_It is accepted that under exceptional circumstances (such as an accidental mating) a litter may not meet all of the requirements of the Assured Breeder Scheme._ 
So, if you are a puppy buyer, dont rely on this as a sole measure of a good breeder.

That gets your point across and no need to bring anyone in as an example. Which again, the dog world is so small of course someone would recognize who you were talking about.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because they said as much themselves!


To you? I thought you said you werent friends with them? Why would they share that information with someone they dont even know?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Well, I'm happy to discuss the merits and deficits of the ABS scheme, however, this thread is now getting distasteful and I will play no further part to it, except to say that I have no doubt that these are lovely, quality pups and they will make excellent pets - if all pups were bred like these there would be far fewer problems.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Yeah, thats not how your OP read to me at all...
> 
> Why didnt you just say in your OP,
> Hey, the ABS sure has a lot of room for improvement, for example, note that on their website they actually say:
> ...


I never said they shared anything with me directly. There are over 50,000 Labrador puppies registered with the UK KC annually, as a rule, and there are God knows how many ooops litters, so no, I didn't think in a month of Sundays it would be obvious who the breeder is, although I am aware a few members do know who it is.

I do think the ABS has a lot of room for improvement, but driving home the point with an example of how it needs to be improved is usually more effective with this sort of post, albeit without wanting to actually name the dogs/breeder involved.

To be honest, those who don't know me who think I've posted this out of malice really are going to end up on my ignore list, they've no idea of who I am, or my beliefs, or my passion for my dogs.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I never said they shared anything with me directly.


Then there you have it. Any information you share about their breeding practices is hearsay and sorry, but pretty unprofessional of you whether it turns out to be true or not.

Sometimes its best to keep your mouth shut and let people figure things out for themselves. The truth really does always come out.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2014)

rocco33 said:


> Well, I'm happy to discuss the merits and deficits of the ABS scheme, however, this thread is now getting distasteful and I will play no further part to it, except to say that I have no doubt that these are lovely, quality pups and they will make excellent pets - if all pups were bred like these there would be far fewer problems.


To be fair, I dont know that anyone who knows what theyre talking about relies on a registry as a litmus test of good breeders.
Good, quality, ethical breeding is a complex combination of factors of which breed registry is just a small part. IMO/E at least...


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because they said as much themselves!


And how are the KC failing if no one reports them?

You seem to have all the info
You can locate the proof that something is amiss
You have the issue

So instead of using them as an "example" and bitching about a scheme why not report them to the actual organisation that can do something about it?

And don't come back with "well the KC haven't helped before" because that isn't now, nor was it this issue...

No one can report them without the relevant info, you infer that you have seen said info - report them and THEN if the KC do nothing about it you can run them down..

Until you actually do something about it you just look like you have an agenda -sorry :sosp:


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> And how are the KC failing if no one reports them?
> 
> You seem to have all the info
> You can locate the proof that something is amiss
> ...


I agree.

Take a screenshot of the 'admission' and forward it to the Kennel Club.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I never said they shared anything with me directly.


Then you shouldn't have used them as an example.

Plain and simple....


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> And how are the KC failing if no one reports them?
> 
> You seem to have all the info
> You can locate the proof that something is amiss
> ...


I totally agree.
Its time for the OP to either shut up or do something about it, but to do that you need proof not just hearsay. Because reading this thread through IMO its looks like SL has just come back to this forum to make some one who for some reason she does not like look bad, using the K.C. as an excuse.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I never said they shared anything with me directly. .


The very definition of a rumour.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> And how are the KC failing if no one reports them?
> 
> You seem to have all the info
> You can locate the proof that something is amiss
> ...


You can think what you like, it makes not one iota of difference to me. I've used an anonymous example, not a known example, so how on earth people can think I've done it as a personal thing is beyond me, but there you go, bite me!


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

You have not anonymised something if you leave information which will allow the subject to be identified. 
Just leaving out the name is not "anonymising".


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You can think what you like, it makes not one iota of difference to me. I've used an anonymous example, not a known example, so how on earth people can think I've done it as a personal thing is beyond me, but there you go, bite me!


I don't think anything about this thread, it means nothing to me.
I have not accused you of making anything personal.

I merely offered a solution to the issue that you were discussing...if no one wants to report this to the relevant organisation then they can't moan about that very organisation of not doing anything about it :rolleyes5:

I will refrain from your offer to bite you :yesnod:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> I don't think anything about this thread, it means nothing to me.
> I have not accused you of making anything personal.
> 
> I merely offered a solution to the issue that you were discussing...if no one wants to report this to the relevant organisation then they can't moan about that very organisation of not doing anything about it :rolleyes5:
> ...


I've had discussions with the people in charge of the ABS previously, and it is like banging your head against a brick wall. It is perceived as long as breeders do the minimum health tests, and they are generally *good* breeders, then what's the harm.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've had discussions with the people in charge of the ABS previously, and it is like banging your head against a brick wall. It is perceived as long as breeders do the minimum health tests, and they are generally *good* breeders, then what's the harm.


If that's the case, then why bother to start this thread in the first place. Because both you and this topic are starting to become a bit boring.
Its obvious you have no intention of contacting the K.C., so what precisely are you trying to prove other than discredit someone.


----------

