# Why KC??



## Guest (Dec 23, 2009)

Hi all, I am a bit puzzled and wonder if some of you could offer your opinion.

A lot of breeders on this forum seem to hold a lot of importance in the fact that one of the many factors needed for breeding your dog is that it must be KC registered, which is fine, but from reading a lot of other posts on different subjects many are not impressed with the way the KC run things, ie..Accredited breeder program, and personally that its not compulsory to have at least the basic health tests for breeding dogs if you want to register the litter. 

So why do some feel that other registration clubs such as DLR are so terrible and if your a breeder and your dog/s is registered with them that its such a bad thing and you are looked down on.

All my dogs are KC, but I orded an information pack from DLR out of interest and I am very impressed with it, they have the same standards and requirements that the KC have, with one exception, you can only register one litter of pups a year from the same bitch, something that I have been lead to believe has now change with the KCand the beautiful pedigree certificates that they offer is stunning. I don't show my dogs so don't really need them to be KC reg for that, but it had got me thinking, would it be such a bad thing to support another registration organization???

Merry Xmas everyone.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

merry Christmas to you too (and to all)

i don;t show either and breed mutts...i see no real gain in registering a litter unless one wants/wishes to show (or to get a bit more money for the pups), i don't sell the pups either so for me is not a great deal...

dl is a registration company, it's got its standards but don;t do shows etc...
so you practically pay for the nice piece of paper and the keeping of the register, fair enough i'd say, the kc all the same, has its standards...but does shows (amongst other things..) so i guess if one wants to belong to the big KC family there's nothing wrong with that...though i find extremely patronising the monopoly position held by the kc and pushed by many kc breeders...though they have a closed studbook (with the rare exception, or the one that i know of - see sticky thread)

but i am out of the equation so i'm not really entitled to discuss...just expressing a passing opinion.

best
D


----------



## Lycaeus (Dec 20, 2009)

KC registrations guarantees the dogs history and its breed. Id personally feel very dubious buying from unregistered parents and puppies. It raises to many questions with not very good answers!

Not have KC reg puppies/parents means one of a few things... especially about the parents. The most likely is that endorsements for the parents has not been lifted. This could be due to health implications, lack of experience breeding - which can result in very unhealthy puppies, and/or the parents do not conform to the breed standard.


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

i like the idea that a dog is recorded and you can keep a track of it. also prevents inbreeding by ACCIDENT as parentage is known.

got to be very careful how i tread here as i am likely to upset a few people. i will always register a litter and only breed from registered leos. thats about the gist of it.

also i like the idea of preserving the breeds, again, not something up for debate, just my opinion

xx


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

I am breeder of for bloodlines, the KC is just something I have always done.. most people refuse to buy pups without been KC registered.  All my dogs are online, on my KC account. I can keep track of progress with my litter registrations, i own my own Kennel Name and my dogs microchip numbers are stored on there own 'dogs in my ownership' bit. I just like it


----------



## Lycaeus (Dec 20, 2009)

RachyBobs said:


> I am breeder of for bloodlines, the KC is just something I have always done.. most people refuse to buy pups without been KC registered.  All my dogs are online, on my KC account. I can keep track of progress with my litter registrations, i own my own Kennel Name and my dogs microchip numbers are stored on there own 'dogs in my ownership' bit. I just like it





Tanya1989 said:


> i like the idea that a dog is recorded and you can keep a track of it. also prevents inbreeding by ACCIDENT as parentage is known.
> 
> got to be very careful how i tread here as i am likely to upset a few people. i will always register a litter and only breed from registered leos. thats about the gist of it.
> 
> ...


Excellent points. We spent six years looking into bloodlines and types. We wanted something in particular from the dog we were after, so the lines of the puppy were VERY important to us. Having that history available allows us to make an educated choice on which breeder we chose. We will also have an excellent idea on how our puppy will turn out - not only in looks and size but also personality and capabilities x


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Lycaeus said:


> KC registrations guarantees the dogs history and its breed. Id personally feel very dubious buying from unregistered parents and puppies. It raises to many questions with not very good answers!
> 
> Not have KC reg puppies/parents means one of a few things... especially about the parents. The most likely is that endorsements for the parents has not been lifted. This could be due to health implications, lack of experience breeding - which can result in very unhealthy puppies, and/or the parents do not conform to the breed standard.


no, it doesnt guarantee anything..... 
unless u have met all dogs from the pedigree and unless they are all dna profiled u basicly dont know if thats the actuall history of the dog and its only a piece of paper with alot of names ....


----------



## alaun (Jul 21, 2009)

I want to know that when I put my girl to stud, that I am in fact getting a pedigree boy. If they are KC reg then I know this to be true and a breed history has been recorded. I also know that endorsements will be upheld. Most people ask if the pups are KC reg, so I guess it is important to joe public too - *some, not all.*

This point is probably illogical, but I feel that breeders who don't register have something to hide - I'm not saying that is true - it just makes me sceptical.


----------



## red dogues (Nov 27, 2009)

Lycaeus said:


> KC registrations guarantees the dogs history and its breed. Id personally feel very dubious buying from unregistered parents and puppies. It raises to many questions with not very good answers!
> 
> Not have KC reg puppies/parents means one of a few things... especially about the parents. The most likely is that endorsements for the parents has not been lifted. This could be due to health implications, lack of experience breeding - which can result in very unhealthy puppies, and/or the parents do not conform to the breed standard.


my bitch has endorsments on her paper and it is only to protect the blood line .she is breed standard and free from any health issues.


----------



## kristy (May 30, 2009)

also, with kc you know what your getting and can check back through your dogs lines, the problem with dlr is you can register an adult dog and can do it online so its lines could just be made up, which means although you have it down on paper in nice looking certificates it doesnt really mean thats what your getting.
have know a few people who have bought pups and been told they were registered and full pedegree only to find they were dlr registered, which in all honesty is only worth the paper its printed on they will even let you register an adult dog when you fill in saying its parents are a elephant and frog....lol


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

alaun said:


> I want to know that when I put my girl to stud, that I am in fact getting a pedigree boy. If they are KC reg then I know this to be true and a breed history has been recorded. I also know that endorsements will be upheld. Most people ask if the pups are KC reg, so I guess it is important to joe public too - *some, not all.*
> 
> This point is probably illogical, but I feel that breeders who don't register have something to hide - I'm not saying that is true - it just makes me sceptical.


I totally 100% agree. I have just been on Pets4Homes and searched puppies in my area, there all not KC reg and there was 7 different adverts for 7 different breeds of pups by the same person! She had cocker spaniels, bedlington terriers, shipoms (shi-tzu x pom) mini snauzer, beagles and collies.. all pprc reg because she is basically puppy farming several breeds :nonod: now if she KC reg, she couldnt do this..


----------



## Lycaeus (Dec 20, 2009)

Natik said:


> no, it doesnt guarantee anything.....
> unless u have met all dogs from the pedigree and unless they are all dna profiled u basicly dont know if thats the actuall history of the dog and its only a piece of paper with alot of names ....


The chances of this are very slim - especially if you ask to see the parents pedigrees - which have copies of. All good breeders can provide this. And of course you will be meeting the dam anyway - and its easy to see if shes had a litter or not x


----------



## red dogues (Nov 27, 2009)

Natik said:


> no, it doesnt guarantee anything.....
> unless u have met all dogs from the pedigree and unless they are all dna profiled u basicly dont know if thats the actuall history of the dog and its only a piece of paper with alot of names ....


i totally agree with you . i have been told of some breeders that use other bitches kc papers, so you dont really know what you are getting .


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Lycaeus said:


> The chances of this are very slim - especially if you ask to see the parents pedigrees - which have copies of. All good breeders can provide this. And of course you will be meeting the dam anyway - and its easy to see if shes had a litter or not x


they aint that slim as u would think.... u wouldnt believe how many times a breeder i know found her dogs in other peoples pedigrees even though they have nothing to do with those lines....


----------



## Lycaeus (Dec 20, 2009)

Would i e right in thinking this would be NI lines?...


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Lycaeus said:


> Would i e right in thinking this would be NI lines?...


no, im talking here about the kennel club.... thats what the thread is about, isnt it....


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Natik said:


> no, it doesnt guarantee anything.....
> unless u have met all dogs from the pedigree and unless they are all dna profiled u basicly dont know if thats the actuall history of the dog and its only a piece of paper with alot of names ....


thank you for saying it...i have been biting my fingers...


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

RachyBobs said:


> 7 different adverts for 7 different breeds of pups by the same person! She had cocker spaniels, bedlington terriers, shipoms (shi-tzu x pom) mini snauzer, beagles and collies.. all pprc reg because she is basically puppy farming several breeds :nonod: now if she KC reg, she couldnt do this..


that's not true. i ama afraid...you can breed as many breeds as you want under the same kennel name with the kc and register them all


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I think the ONLY way to be sure of a dogs background is DNA and i don't think many breeders do that.*


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

You may get to meet the dam and she may very well be the mother of the pups you see but unless you are there for the mating then you wouldnt have a clue who the father was - regardless of what a pedigree tells you - there are unscrupulous breeders out there - in all breeds


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

JANICE199 said:


> *I think the ONLY way to be sure of a dogs background is DNA and i don't think many breeders do that.*


My breeder does that x


----------



## muse08 (Dec 21, 2008)

Kennel club might have a huge database, but its a fact that unless each and every dog in a pedigree has been DNA profiled and or chipped or tatto`d you cant be sure that any pedigree is correct/true.
Especially when you consider that the kennel club have no qualms what so ever in regging pedigree pups from puppy farmers, their quite happy as long as they get their money.If puppy farmers breed and raise litters any which way just to sell them im sure they would have no worries in using whatever pedigree docs they can as the parents if they needed to.
It only takes one incorrect/disshonest registration somewhere along the line and the whole pedigree/dogs history is useless.

Until the kennel club make permanent identification/dna profiling and health testing of parents compulsory before anyone can register a litter of pups, then i think their pedigree database cannot be 100% reliable, and their reg service deserves no more respect than any other.


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Issue Statement - Compulsory Identification of Dogs - The Kennel Club

They want it to apply to ALL dogs and I agree why not just KC Reg one and as for DLRC I could register an imaginary litter on there at the moment if I wanted to no Problem Could not do that with KC as you need signature of Stud etc....


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

nancy63 said:


> They want it to apply to ALL dogs and I agree why not just KC Reg one and as for DLRC I could register an imaginary litter on there at the moment if I wanted to no Problem


DLRC, however nice they seem, I would not touch with a bargepole; it was set up by a puppy farmer for heavens sake!


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

MerlinsMum said:


> DLRC, however nice they seem, I would not touch with a bargepole; it was set up by a puppy farmer for heavens sake!


Agree and being used by a lot of other Puppyfarmers probably


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

jaradethan said:


> So why do some feel that other registration clubs such as DLR are so terrible and if your a breeder and your dog/s is registered with them that its such a bad thing and you are looked down on.
> 
> they have the same standards and requirements that the KC have, with one exception, you can only register one litter of pups a year from the same bitch


They do not do anything like the KC and the one exception is soooo easy Change the Bitches name to Jean of Chester instead of Clarabelle from Epsom and you have your other litter No Problem


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2009)

MerlinsMum said:


> DLRC, however nice they seem, I would not touch with a bargepole; it was set up by a puppy farmer for heavens sake!


The KC allow puppy farmers to register there litters! so they are no better on that point.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2009)

nancy63 said:


> They do not do anything like the KC and the one exception is soooo easy Change the Bitches name to Jean of Chester instead of Clarabelle from Epsom and you have your other litter No Problem


But the same can be done with the KC, as people have said get one dishonest breeder somewhere down the line and who knows what the pups true parentage is, there is no guarantee from the KC or the DLR unless they have been DNA tested.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*As i said once before in another thread,if i had 2 studs dogs and they were both kc reg but only 1 was good enough to show,whats to say i couldn't mate that dog with my bitch but use the pedigree lines of the "better" dog"? Unless all breeding dogs are dna tested you will never know their true lineage.*


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> i don;t show either and breed mutts...i see no real gain in registering a litter unless one wants/wishes to show (or to get a bit more money for the pups),
> 
> best
> D


last time i had a litter cost was only £12 to register each with KC................ so no financial gains LOL.......if only


----------



## alaun (Jul 21, 2009)

Some people think that there is nothing to be gained by registering with the KC, fair enough, but on the other hand, what is there to be lost? £12 per pup is not a lot to lose to know that your pup is registered, endorsed, 6 weeks free insurance...


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2009)

alaun said:


> Some people think that there is nothing to be gained by registering with the KC, fair enough, but on the other hand, what is there to be lost? £12 per pup is not a lot to lose to know that your pup is registered, endorsed, 6 weeks free insurance...


I totaly agree and i think the endorsments that the KC have in place are very worth while when you come to registering pups, although not all breeders bother to place any. 
On this point it maybe this is where other registration clubs fail, but thats all i can see at the moment, oh and the fact that you can't show, although this may change in the future, as it has in the cat world as the GCCF (KC of the cat world) is not the only one that now hold shows.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

I would never buy a non-KC registered puppy because it says a lot about the breeders, either they can't be bothered to register the litter or the parents of the litter have endorsements. There's no reason not to to be honest.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

dexter said:


> last time i had a litter cost was only £12 to register each with KC................ so no financial gains LOL.......if only


i was actually referring at the price breeders charge for pups...registration (as you said =£12) what is the extra you can sell each pup only cause they are KC reg respect to an unregistred pup of the same breed?

by what i see just going through websites is between 50 and 100£ on average....for some breeds is over £200...and for fashion breeds the price difference between unreg (£300) and kc pedigree with 5 generations is (£1,200).

doing the math...i guess it's economical advantageous for breeders to register their litter (and as some on this thread have suggested, allegedly fiddle with registration papers...)

my point is not against breeders per se, i know for a fact that there are many exceptional breeders (both with the clubs and outside them)...and their work is made very difficult (and extremely expensive) just because an unscrupulous KC breeder has fiddled with the papers some 3-10 generations down the line... even, to my knowledge, some KC breeders do not have any faith anymore in the database and go on breeding (or retiring their breeding stock) with great pain, uncertainty and at great expenses...



Merry Christmas everyone...
best
d


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

dexter said:


> last time i had a litter cost was only £12 to register each with KC................ so no financial gains LOL.......if only


puppyfarmers and byb register with the kc to catch more money for the sale of the pups ... so yes, there is a financial gain to register or else the puppyfarms would save that extra cost for registration....


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I would never buy a non-KC registered puppy because it says a lot about the breeders, either they can't be bothered to register the litter or the parents of the litter have endorsements. There's no reason not to to be honest.


I agree.

Whilst the KC are far from perfect, they are the only organisation that hold a database for all breed dog pedigrees. I agree the KC does rely on breeders honesty somewhat, but you can't just make up a dog that doesn't exist at least.

DLRC was set up by a puppy farmer, and whatever they say, you could make up any pedigree out of this air and register your puppies in that pedigree, so the 'one litter per year' means nothing whatsoever. Neither does the registration.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I would never buy a non-KC registered puppy because it says a lot about the breeders, either they can't be bothered to register the litter or the parents of the litter have endorsements. There's no reason not to to be honest.


*If people are only out to make money kc reg has nothing to do with it.All papers can be forged if people are that way inclined.*


----------



## casandra (Aug 1, 2008)

jackson said:


> I agree.
> 
> Whilst the KC are far from perfect, they are the only organisation that hold a database for all breed dog pedigrees. I agree the KC does rely on breeders honesty somewhat, but you can't just make up a dog that doesn't exist at least.
> 
> DLRC was set up by a puppy farmer, and whatever they say, you could make up any pedigree out of this air and register your puppies in that pedigree, so the 'one litter per year' means nothing whatsoever. Neither does the registration.


The DLRC was created by a guy who wanted to be able to add "registered" to his advertisements. Apparently, some of the dogs on tha Pedigree Dogs Exposed were DLRC registered (I'm thinking some of the CKCS and the Epileptic boxers maybe?).

If you want something interesting to compare the DLRC to, look up the CKC in North America. The Continental Kennel Club was set up in exactly the same manner as the DLRC, by a guy who wanted to sell his pups for a higher price.

People are often confusing the Continental Kennel Club with the Canadian Kennel Club, so many people have been swindled into getting the wrong sort of CKC.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *As i said once before in another thread,if i had 2 studs dogs and they were both kc reg but only 1 was good enough to show,whats to say i couldn't mate that dog with my bitch but use the pedigree lines of the "better" dog"? Unless all breeding dogs are dna tested you will never know their true lineage.*


Janice I have read, re read and read this again and still cant work out what you mean, sorry being a dimbat today. if they are both stud dogs? and they are both KC reg and I think you mean one dog is closer to standard? I cant see why you would TRY to breed from an inferior dog if you have a superior one there available? what benefits would there be?

I too would only get a dog that is KC registered, we do know that "some" puppy farmers will register with the KC, but on the whole I would say the majority of breeders registering with the KC are pretty honest, if they are involved in the show /working world, and have a reputation to uphold, their peers will know the lines, what to expect from any given litter, and would be pretty damn quick to question if something looks "off" in any particular breeding. so on the whole I dont think the switching of names/dogs in a pedigree is that common, although there obviously is always the chance of such a thing happening. with the DLR you KNOW there is a reason for someone to register with them, be it the dog is not a true pedigree, has been bred outside KC endorsements,is from a PF? is a brother/sister.father/daughter etc mating. is from dogs too young, otherwise if they wernt the breeders could register with the KC so there has got to be a reason IMO and because of this I will NEVER touch a dog that has been registered with them because I am against all the above reasons.

Mo


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

jaradethan said:


> But the same can be done with the KC, as people have said get one dishonest breeder somewhere down the line and who knows what the pups true parentage is, there is no guarantee from the KC or the DLR unless they have been DNA tested.


Unfortunately there is no guarantee with anything you may buy from unscrupulous people. 
A dishonest KC Breeder would still have to register a litter with KC Reg Numbers of both Dam and Sire owner has to sign , you also have to be owner of Dam, so at least the pups would be from the same breed but DLRC can and have registered pups from god knows what parents So imo a big difference

Have a read at this http://www.artig.co.uk/fraudulent_pedigrees.htm


----------



## casandra (Aug 1, 2008)

moboyd said:


> Janice I have read, re read and read this again and still cant work out what you mean, sorry being a dimbat today. if they are both stud dogs? and they are both KC reg and I think you mean one dog is closer to standard? I cant see why you would TRY to breed from an inferior dog if you have a superior one there available? what benefits would there be?
> 
> Mo


I know of several breeders who have an AMAZING example of the breed. This dog has sired LOADS of litters and always throws really good examples. Soooo...

They breed the litter mate who hasn't quite got the stunning looks of Dog #1, but came from the same gene pool so may have something to provide. Usually, this dog performs quite well.

Though I think that if you breed, you should only breed the best you can get your hands on. I'm not too fussed on who owns the best, so long as I'm not settling for what's convenient.

Too many people breed the dogs already in their home, without much consideration as to what will improve the breed or whether you're just setting the breed back a generation.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> i was actually referring at the price breeders charge for pups...registration (as you said =£12) what is the extra you can sell each pup only cause they are KC reg respect to an unregistred pup of the same breed?
> 
> (qUOTE]
> 
> sorry to be thick but i'm not sure what you are implying.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

if a breeder breeds father daughter mating for instance or a bitch too young etc all the breeder needs to put down is just a different sire or bitch in order to register the pups... most breeders own more than one bitch or more than one stud anyway so who knows how many dishonest registrations are out there....

if u think that the kennel club takes about 250.000 registration per year based on trust then im sure there are plenty of dishonest ones ... and it only takes one dishonest registration from one pup to create future false pedigrees if that pup is being bred from etc ....


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

moboyd said:


> Janice I have read, re read and read this again and still cant work out what you mean, sorry being a dimbat today. if they are both stud dogs? and they are both KC reg and I think you mean one dog is closer to standard? I cant see why you would TRY to breed from an inferior dog if you have a superior one there available? what benefits would there be?
> 
> I too would only get a dog that is KC registered, we do know that "some" puppy farmers will register with the KC, but on the whole I would say the majority of breeders registering with the KC are pretty honest, if they are involved in the show /working world, and have a reputation to uphold, their peers will know the lines, what to expect from any given litter, and would be pretty damn quick to question if something looks "off" in any particular breeding. so on the whole I dont think the switching of names/dogs in a pedigree is that common, although there obviously is always the chance of such a thing happening. with the DLR you KNOW there is a reason for someone to register with them, be it the dog is not a true pedigree, has been bred outside KC endorsements,is from a PF? is a brother/sister.father/daughter etc mating. is from dogs too young, otherwise if they wernt the breeders could register with the KC so there has got to be a reason IMO and because of this I will NEVER touch a dog that has been registered with them because I am against all the above reasons.
> 
> Mo


lol i'm as much a dimbat as you ( honest!). my point was i could forge the kc papers very easyly


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

moboyd said:


> Janice I have read, re read and read this again and still cant work out what you mean, sorry being a dimbat today. if they are both stud dogs? and they are both KC reg and I think you mean one dog is closer to standard?


No I know what Janice means.... it has happened in cat breeding.... breeding to a 'Ringer'.

You have two stud cats, one a very popular sire, lets call him a Grand Champion. You have another stud cat who is mediocre. Breeder A rings up when their cat is in season and brings her over, leaves her to be mated to the Gr Ch and pays for the service. But there might be reasons why the stud owner decided to put the queen in with Mediocre instead.... maybe the Gr Ch is unwell, but they don't want to lose the stud fee. Or maybe Breeder B with a much better queen calls the same day. Perhaps Gr Ch has been over-used lately and isn't firing on all 4 cylinders. It could even be down to politics.

One cat breeder I knew sent her queen away to a stud and she forever afterwards suspected her girl was bred to a Ringer... i.e. Mediocre instead of Gr Ch. The kittens were nowhere near what she expected.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

MerlinsMum said:


> DLRC, however nice they seem, I would not touch with a bargepole; it was set up by a puppy farmer for heavens sake!


Absolutely... and if you look at Mr S Shirley's (MP) background........


----------



## Puma (Nov 17, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> merry Christmas to you too (and to all)
> 
> i don;t show either and breed mutts...i see no real gain in registering a litter unless one wants/wishes to show (or to get a bit more money for the pups), i don't sell the pups either so for me is not a great deal...
> 
> ...


I think that is quite an irresponsible statement in todays economic climate, 
And as for the DL registration - are you having a laff?
And it is no business of mine but do you keep all of the dogs that you breed or do you give them away?


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Puma said:


> I think that is quite an irresponsible statement in todays economic climate,
> And as for the DL registration - are you having a laff?
> And it is no business of mine but do you keep all of the dogs that you breed or do you give them away?


Puma,
please explain to me how my statement is irresponsible...
i breed for keeping and giving away (subject to satisfactory application procedure and a very strict contractual agreement)...

i have never asked a penny for my dogs, this time due to a massive overspending i have asked for a voluntary contribution.

it's always been like this for me since when i first started breeding with my father some 20 odd years ago... (and although i haven't been breeding for a while..now that i can afford it...i do it again..)

what sort of climate are you talking about??

my dogs were and are very well looked after, bred to the highest standards without sparing a penny or cutting corners...

i don;t register my dogs (and so do many other breeders) for two reasons: 1) i don;t want to have any association with the clubs as their politics and their greed have disgusted me and continue to do so no matter what they are preaching...
2) i left purebreeds breeding 20 years ago and i don;t what to touch a purebreed with a bargepole, imagine breeding from them...

on the other hand i consider that it's a personal decision that of registering with A or B or not at all... and the motives that are behind the registration should also made known to the customers...as it has been mentioned here registering a pup with KC costs some £12 while KC reg pups have a price tag much higher than the average (+£12).

i would also use caution, if i were you, as sweeping remarks like yours, are a tad close to be rude and offensive (sorry)


best
D


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

> You have two stud cats, one a very popular sire, lets call him a Grand Champion. You have another stud cat who is mediocre. Breeder A rings up when their cat is in season and brings her over, leaves her to be mated to the Gr Ch and pays for the service. But there might be reasons why the stud owner decided to put the queen in with Mediocre instead.... maybe the Gr Ch is unwell, but they don't want to lose the stud fee. Or maybe Breeder B with a much better queen calls the same day. Perhaps Gr Ch has been over-used lately and isn't firing on all 4 cylinders. It could even be down to politics.


This could also happen if the Gr Ch is infertile or has reduced fertility or is extremely aggressive towards or unable to mate queens. People would not pay for Mediocre's services but will pay the stud fee for the Gr. Champion cat. A breeder may not want to admit to the Gr Ch inadequacies, so the charade continues.

There are many reasons for incorrect pedigrees. Accidental or in fact deliberate inbred matings between siblings and other close relatives will now have to be covered up due to the new registration policies, so perhaps now there will be even more falsification of pedigrees. I do not think for one minute that those who have had some very successful careers using inbreeding will now immediately stop due to the new KC policy. They may use other registries but probably more likely to just falsify pedigrees.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> Puma,
> please explain to me how my statement is irresponsible...
> i breed for keeping and giving away (subject to satisfactory application procedure and a very strict contractual agreement)...
> 
> ...


You couldnt register your dogs with anyone then if they are cross breeds. But do you have a positive reason for breeding mongrels when there are so many around looking for homes. I have nothing against breeding, and I am not one of the fanatics that think you shouldnt breed or should only breed the very best once in its lifetime - but I fail to see why you want to breed 'mutts'. Would you like to elaborate.


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

i don;t what to touch a purebreed with a bargepole, imagine breeding from them...
KC reg pups have a price tag much higher than the average (+£12).

to be rude and offensive (sorry)


best
D[/QUOTE]

IMO Your last line " imagine breeding from them..." is rather rude and offensive So imo if the cap fits wear it!!!You obviously bred 2 together to create your Mutts
As for your statement regarding KC have a higher than average pricetag I also tend to disagree Go look at adverts


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

nancy63 said:


> As for your statement regarding KC have a higher than average pricetag I also tend to disagree Go look at adverts


well, i did, see my post #34 on this thread!

a quick check on epupz, the petsfor homes, champdogs, and freeads...gave me those results ...

you can do that yourself and assess the differences on the pricetags...
have fun!

cheers
d


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Cheers d

And your answer to you would never touch them with a bargepole would be????


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Not all KC are more expensive
Three Adorable Toy Poodle Puppies For Sale. in Nottingham, Nottinghamshire ( Dogs For Sale ) only one other on this search and I would not touch any with a bargepole as no health tests etc.. mentioned so to me just the same sort of breeders and roughly same prices


----------



## Puma (Nov 17, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> Puma,
> please explain to me how my statement is irresponsible...
> i breed for keeping and giving away (subject to satisfactory application procedure and a very strict contractual agreement)...
> 
> ...


D
There is nothing either offensive nor rude in my post in my view, Just pure fact.
You only have to take a look at the rescue centres today and the poor dogs that are contained in their to realize that those breeding 'mutts' have to be more then partcially responsble for the plight of many of these poor dogs. Mutts and first crosses are taking up 90% of the places, and every mutt YOU breed is depriving a dog in rescue of a home, So yep! I feel I am justified in making the statement that I did, unlesss of course you have evidence to prove me wrong. Lets take this a little further shall we? with the exception of ManyTears Rescue (which has a high proportion of pedigree dogs due tp their policies) you show me ANY rescue that has a high ratio of pedigree dogs in for rehoming. Many of the pedigree breeds have breed clubs that help with the rehoming. the 'poor' mutts you 'breed' do not have that luxury, unless you know better.


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Another good one I would rather pay this for KC Find puppies in U.K. for free, Find a breeder, Sell puppies for free than this at same price Find puppies in U.K. for free, Find a breeder, Sell puppies for free
You may have found many KC Reg higher in price but there are also many Non KC high in price as well So imo not a very truthful statement you posted
So to conclude It is nothing to do with KC reg but the Breeders producing


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

nancy63 said:


> Another good one I would rather pay this for KC Find puppies in U.K. for free, Find a breeder, Sell puppies for free than this at same price Find puppies in U.K. for free, Find a breeder, Sell puppies for free
> You may have found many KC Reg higher in price but there are also many Non KC high in price as well So imo not a very truthful statement you posted
> So to conclude It is nothing to do with KC reg but the Breeders producing


puppyfarms and byb register their pups with the kc so they can ask for a higher price than an average non kc registered dog would usually cost...

...also kc registration is being used as some sort of "quality proof" to buyers which dont know any better and think the dog is worth the asked price even though its been bred by a byb/puppyfarmer ......


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Did not note KC Registered on here Pedigree Puppies Puppy Sales Manchester Bichon Frise Cocker Spaniel Shih Tzus Dalmatians Border Collies Westies Poodles


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Was it just me or did anyone else get that Average White Band album for Christmas?


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Another Farmer imo that has KC Reg cheaper than Non KC Reg(crossbreeds)http://www.foxislegundogs.co.uk/cgi-bin/fg1.cgi


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Was it just me or did anyone else get that Average White Band album for Christmas?


Was it this album Amazon.com: Pickin' Up the Pieces: The Best of Average White Band (1974-1980): Average White Band: Music


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Nancy I think we get your point  :laugh:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

nancy63 said:


> Another Farmer imo that has KC Reg cheaper than Non KC Reg(crossbreeds)Foxisle Gundogs


So why should KC registered pups be the same price or more expensive ?


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So why should KC registered pups be the same price or more expensive ?


They just are? I dont think theres ever a answer but they are. Ive seen that foxihile before.. they are a bit like puppy farmers BUT they health test there dogs - they are all hip and eye tested and the results shown :huh:


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So why should KC registered pups be the same price or more expensive ?


I am not saying they should or should not Just I thought the statements posted were wrong lol so was posting some info I found to proof same I by no means think the KC are the bees knees lol


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

RachyBobs said:


> They just are? I dont think theres ever a answer but they are. Ive seen that foxihile before.. they are a bit like puppy farmers BUT they health test there dogs - they are all hip and eye tested and the results shown :huh:


But breeders who register with the KC aren't puppy farmers, even though they don't (and aren't required to) health test?


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

RachyBobs said:


> They just are? I dont think theres ever a answer but they are. Ive seen that foxihile before.. they are a bit like puppy farmers BUT they health test there dogs - they are all hip and eye tested and the results shown :huh:


I believe they used to call themselves Little Rascals


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But breeders who register with the KC aren't puppy farmers, even though they don't (and aren't required to) health test?


IMO There is allsorts register with the KC as i mentioned before its not the KC Registered adverts you have to look out for but the actual Breeders


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

RachyBobs said:


> They just are? I dont think theres ever a answer but they are. Ive seen that foxihile before.. they are a bit like puppy farmers BUT they health test there dogs - they are all hip and eye tested and the results shown :huh:


That just raises a new questions :huh:


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

sequeena said:


> That just raises a new questions :huh:


I know lol. God.. ima shut up now hmy:


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

sequeena said:


> That just raises a new questions :huh:


New questions I believe it would open a can of worms and the Average White Band would have to step in again with their album


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So why should KC registered pups be the same price or more expensive ?


So let me get this straight then.

(Breeder Number 1) Someone who breeds dogs, health tests them and shows the results is a puppy farmer...... and

(Breeder Number 2) someone who may breed a father to a daughter with no tests at all, register their puppies with the Kennnel Club, is a bona fide breeder?

And we're saying we should discourage breeder number 1?

Baby, I'm back
And right away I had come to you
To see if the love
that we knew before
Had passed the test of time, ooh


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So let me get this straight then.
> 
> (Breeder Number 1) Someone who breeds dogs, health tests them and shows the results is a puppy farmer...... and
> 
> ...


Number 1 - Its quanity though, a puppy farmer to me is somebody who breeds LOTS of dogs - maybe of 1 breed but most do lots of breeds.

Number 2 - Wether KC or not I wouldnt have this.. I wouldnt buy a dog which is recommended to be health tested, ie. hip scored and wasnt.. some people do see KC and automatically think its all cocsha when it isnt..


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Well if Breeder Number 1 was the one on the link I sent Well yes I would avoid but not discourage as I am not that way inclined
ps Kennel Club Father to Daughter would not be accepted for registration I believe


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

nancy63 said:


> Father to Daughter would not be accepted for registration I believe


.. reading back on earlier posts, if the breeder had several studs how would they know?... do the KC need to get Jeremy Kyle in as a consultant


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> .. reading back on earlier posts, if the breeder had several studs how would they know?... do the KC need to get Jeremy Kyle in as a consultant


I suppose much the same with Non KC Reg so no difference Jeremy Kyle sure would be extremely busy Although from January all KC Breeds have to have permanent identity before BVA Tests are undertaken
and to add I believe most Puppyfarmers who sell several breeds do not even have the Dam to show purchasers let alone the Stud


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

nancy63 said:


> I suppose much the same with Non KC Reg so no difference Jeremy Kyle sure would be extremely busy Although from January all KC Breeds have to have permanent identity before BVA Tests are undertaken
> and to add I believe most Puppyfarmers who sell several breeds do not even have the Dam to show purchasers let alone the Stud


I didn't know you could register non KC dogs so the "snobbery" surrounding who the father / mother is doesn' exist. The advantage I find with crosses is that the paretns can't be related as they're different breeds so that does away with one problme the KC will never rectify (without compulsory health testing and DNA).

The problem with this latter point is that the KC are controlled by the breed clubs (as I've been told quite forceably on here before) so they won't do anything unless the breeders tell them to... the same breeders who can keep making money by breeding over and over again with the "show champion" etc etc... so it will never happen.

all together on the chorus .................


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

nancy63 said:


> I suppose much the same with Non KC Reg so no difference Jeremy Kyle sure would be extremely busy Although from January all KC Breeds have to have permanent identity before BVA Tests are undertaken
> and to add I believe most Puppyfarmers who sell several breeds do not even have the Dam to show purchasers let alone the Stud


a microchip wont change the fact that a breeder still will be able to put down a different stud as the father in a father daughter mating for instance....


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I didn't know you could register non KC dogs so the "snobbery" surrounding who the father / mother is doesn' exist. The advantage I find with crosses is that the paretns can't be related as they're different breeds so that does away with one problme the KC will never rectify (without compulsory health testing and DNA).
> 
> The problem with this latter point is that the KC are controlled by the breed clubs (as I've been told quite forceably on here before) so they won't do anything unless the breeders tell them to... the same breeders who can keep making money by breeding over and over again with the "show champion" etc etc... so it will never happen.
> 
> all together on the chorus .................


Afraid I will not join you in the chorus Elmo as I believe this thread was started about KC or DLRC not crossbreeds or for that fact snobbery. I posted links on behalf of Dim as I believed her post was untrue as I found quite a few Non Kc Pups higher in price than KC Reg ones. Love you an dleave you I am afraid before you get to the next verse Thanks had a great time, hope you enjoyed it as well.
ps Is that a gorgeous Italian Spinone in your avatar


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Natik said:


> a microchip wont change the fact that a breeder still will be able to put down a different stud as the father in a father daughter mating for instance....


Totally agree as I have said I am not for or against KC but definately against DLRC. To me DLRC are and will always be a lot worse than KC in my eyes BUT that is my opinion only of course. Breeders may be able to put down a different Stud with KC but with DLRC they can put down a bloomin cat as Father if they want lol


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

nancy63 said:


> Is that a gorgeous Italian Spinone in your avatar


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

nancy63 said:


> Totally agree as I have said I am not for or against KC but definately against DLRC. To me DLRC are and will always be a lot worse than KC in my eyes BUT that is my opinion only of course. Breeders may be able to put down a different Stud with KC but with DLRC they can put down a bloomin cat as Father if they want lol


to become an accredited breeder with the kennel club u dont even need to own an animal ...soooooo.....

I know the DLRC are disgracefull but tbh both registries register byb and puppyfarmers for only one reason.... and thats money, so both registries swim somehow in the same boat if it comes down to that subject


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Natik said:


> to become an accredited breeder with the kennel club u dont even need to own an animal ...soooooo.....
> 
> I know the DLRC are disgracefull but tbh both registries register byb and puppyfarmers for only one reason.... and thats money, so both registries swim somehow in the same boat if it comes down to that subject


As I have already said I am not argueing that point I agree with you both have their faults but to me DLRC are worse

Elmo the bear-- I do not see the relevance of your post Let me in on the joke please, pretty please


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


>


Okay Sorry I do apologise Looked back your posts Lovely dog though


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

nancy63 said:


> Elmo the bear-- I do not see the relevance of your post Let me in on the joke please, pretty please


sorry... wasn't trying to be facetious. My avatar is one of our dogs, Elmo... he's golden retriever cross poodle (or "mutt" to those on the thread who don't like crosses). He doesn't actually look much like a spinone at all but the avatar picture doesn't really do him justice... here's a better one...


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Aaaaw He looks a Big Boy. Sorry for the insult LOL I thought he was a Spinone as my uncle had one years ago and looked like him in the small picture but nothing like him I agree in the large one. Do n ot know why anyone could not like crosses some are soooo cute


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

nancy63 said:


> Aaaaw He looks a Big Boy. Sorry for the insult LOL I thought he was a Spinone as my uncle had one years ago and looked like him in the small picture but nothing like him I agree in the large one. Do n ot know why anyone could not like crosses some are soooo cute


I love spinone's too but we wanted less hunter and more retriever.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Puma said:


> D
> There is nothing either offensive nor rude in my post in my view, Just pure fact.
> You only have to take a look at the rescue centres today and the poor dogs that are contained in their to realize that those breeding 'mutts' have to be more then partcially responsble for the plight of many of these poor dogs. Mutts and first crosses are taking up 90% of the places, and every mutt YOU breed is depriving a dog in rescue of a home, So yep! I feel I am justified in making the statement that I did, unlesss of course you have evidence to prove me wrong. Lets take this a little further shall we? with the exception of ManyTears Rescue (which has a high proportion of pedigree dogs due tp their policies) you show me ANY rescue that has a high ratio of pedigree dogs in for rehoming. Many of the pedigree breeds have breed clubs that help with the rehoming. the 'poor' mutts you 'breed' do not have that luxury, unless you know better.


i have the strange feeling that you know very little of what you are preaching, sorry to be so blunt...

you would be allowed to patronise me the way you do if, and only if, you have any evidence that any of my dogs ends up in a rescue, suffers of any testable genetic ailment (with uni standards not market-KC tests) or that i didn't care for my dogs throughout their whole life...
i am personally responsible for them wherever they have been homed, with me or otherwise!

whatever the daily mail or other parers led you to believe, the responsibility in this country is personal, at least in principle! and so the choices people make.

the "facts" you quote seem to come out of a one-way vision of the reality,while in fact reality is multifaceted...

i have planned a litter every two years...and did not breed for 20 years (as i did not like the conduct of breeders club i was part of) i haven't sold a dog then and i am not selling now, i take full responsibility of the creatures i put to this world...and like me many other breeders...unfortunately only a handful of them...nonetheless...i would save your preaching to byb, pf, and registered breeders that make bags-loads of money at the detriment of the canines and wash their mouths with "I do it only to better the breed" .

on this thread, you can see a few justifications of why breeders choose a register or another...i gave my view and that of a few other breeders in more or less my same position: *i don;t register because i don;t show and i don't want to show, and i am not concerned that my dogs have a nice piece of paper telling the holders where they come from: they come from me and that, together with the joint care (mine and the holder) is more than enough to promote a fab life for a healthy dog with all the fallback plans should they be necessary! and i don;t need to dirty my hands with ridiculous clubs policies or going hand in hand with glorified BYB and PFarmers*

i thought the point of the OP was to understand that...
please put away your sword or use it for a more sensible cause, alternatively you could start a new thread: why Dimkaz robs poor rescue dogs of a forever family by breeding her bitch?

best
D


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

nancy63 said:


> Cheers d
> 
> And your answer to you would never touch them with a bargepole would be????


well, i think it will be a very long post....
however i have so far written a few posts on here trying to explain my point of view and why i do what i do...and also discussed a lot about breeding practices etc...
if you click on my nick, go to the tab"statistics" and recall all the posts written by Dimkaz in this section, is a fair quicker way to have an overview...

hope you'll have a good reading
best regards
D


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But breeders who register with the KC aren't puppy farmers, even though they don't (and aren't required to) health test?


???
you are saying that KC reg breeders might, even be puppy farmer???

you really really sure?

gosh, the world gone crazy, next thing you'll say is that F1 are unhealthier than their respective breeds of origin.,..

shame on you, i thought you knew better!


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

nancy63 said:


> Afraid I will not join you in the chorus Elmo as I believe this thread was started about KC or DLRC not crossbreeds or for that fact snobbery. I posted links on behalf of Dim as I believed her post was untrue as I found quite a few Non Kc Pups higher in price than KC Reg ones.


Dear Nancy, first of all, thank you for the swift sex change you just gave me...
though i am not that way inclined i would take it just to give a shock to my friends and colleagues after the winter break and see their faces!



second of all, and a bit more seriously, you cannot (really cannot) give me three or four ad hoc examples, to disprove an average that i took counting a few hundreds of ads from several sites in a given day (it is very simple, just put all on a spreadsheet and calculate it... you counter factual argument is really wrong, it's just not how it works...if you need to know why i suggest you start from a key stage 1 school book and look up the meaning of mean/average.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> ???
> you are saying that KC reg breeders might, even be puppy farmer???
> 
> you really really sure?
> ...


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

jackson said:


> I agree.
> 
> Whilst the KC are far from perfect, they are the only organisation that hold a database for all breed dog pedigrees. I agree the KC does rely on breeders honesty somewhat, but you can't just make up a dog that doesn't exist at least.


_All_ breed dog pedigrees? What about the many breeds the KC doesn't recognise?
Not that I want the other breeds recognised by the KC. For dogs bred for their working ability the worst thing that can happen is the KC getting hold of them and turning them into a show dog based on looks.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I am glad that dimkaz is a man. Nice to know that such rudeness and bigotry is not coming from a female mind. I notice HE hasnt replied to my question.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*The way i see this is,if any organisation(sp) is to be worth anything,and its a TRUE data base they want then why don't they say only dna tested dogs can be reg?The kc have been around long enough to have done this but they haven't botherd.*


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

_Quote from Elmo the Bear: "I didn't know you could register non KC dogs so the "snobbery" surrounding who the father / mother is doesn' exist. The advantage I find with crosses is that the paretns can't be related as they're different breeds so that does away with one problme the KC will never rectify (without compulsory health testing and DNA)."_

1. You can only register non KC dogs on the activities register.

2. There's a whole lot more to pedigree dogs than "snobbery" around parentage.

3. You are less likely to know whether the parents are related with breeding mutts than you are with breeding pedigrees as you don't have a pedigree to refer to. The only time that this isn't the case is with first crosses, or with those who do keep accurate "pedigrees" of their "mutts".

4. If you are doing first crosses of breeds that can be affected by the same hereditary conditions, then you are no less likely to end up with the said hereditary conditions than you would do with breeding purebreeds. In my opinion, all breeding stock, whether being used for purebreed breeding, cross breeding or "mutt" breeding, should be tested for any relevant health conditions. Unfortunately, this is where so many "breeders" of both crosses and pedigree dogs fail.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Burrowzig said:


> _All_ breed dog pedigrees? What about the many breeds the KC doesn't recognise?
> Not that I want the other breeds recognised by the KC. For dogs bred for their working ability the worst thing that can happen is the KC getting hold of them and turning them into a show dog based on looks.


Yet again a misinformed post. It is NOT the KC that breeds dogs - breeders breed dogs and they make the decisions about the matings they want to do and their objectives.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

_Quote from Dimkaz: "next thing you'll say is that F1 are unhealthier than their respective breeds of origin ... "_

F1s may very well be unhealthier than their respective breeds of origin if both breeds involved are affected by the same hereditary conditions and if the parents haven't been tested as is often the case ....


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> Yet again a misinformed post. It is NOT the KC that breeds dogs - breeders breed dogs and they make the decisions about the matings they want to do and their objectives.


I think the poster was saying KC *recognised* breeds and inferring that it is the KC that *recognises* a breed for showing thereby starting the cycle of poor breeding to accentuate traits required by the breed standards (set by the breed clubs of course)


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> Yet again a misinformed post. It is NOT the KC that breeds dogs - breeders breed dogs and they make the decisions about the matings they want to do and their objectives.





Ridgielover said:


> _Quote from Dimkaz: "next thing you'll say is that F1 are unhealthier than their respective breeds of origin ... "_
> 
> F1s may very well be unhealthier than their respective breeds of origin if both breeds involved are affected by the same hereditary conditions and if the parents haven't been tested as is often the case ....


I sort of agree with this but it is the parent breeds that have not been health tested... why not ? Why do the KC not insist on health testing?


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

Lycaeus said:


> KC registrations guarantees the dogs history and its breed. Id personally feel very dubious buying from unregistered parents and puppies. It raises to many questions with not very good answers!
> 
> Not have KC reg puppies/parents means one of a few things... especially about the parents. The most likely is that endorsements for the parents has not been lifted. This could be due to health implications, lack of experience breeding - which can result in very unhealthy puppies, and/or the parents do not conform to the breed standard.


Yes right! That is why certain breeds no longer look like they should do or suffer agonising lives due to the KC and breeders changing the breed standards????? You don't have to buy KC registered to guarantee the history/breed of a dog. Many breeders are not KC registered and breed really healthy, wonderful dogs. You have the KC affiliated breeders and then you have the Backyard/Puppy farms.... 2 extremes then some VERY good breeders inbetween. I personally feel that some breeders load the prices because they are KC registered and see their puppies as a commodity.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> _Quote from Elmo the Bear: "I didn't know you could register non KC dogs so the "snobbery" surrounding who the father / mother is doesn' exist. The advantage I find with crosses is that the paretns can't be related as they're different breeds so that does away with one problme the KC will never rectify (without compulsory health testing and DNA)."_
> 
> 1. You can only register non KC dogs on the activities register.
> 
> ...


The snobbery I was referring to (which you misinterpreted) was the fact that buyers of KC recognised breeds want "champion" whoever as the father/mother. Breeders will breed saying that "champion" is the father even if he isn't and if he is, they';ll breed again and again and again narrowing the gene pool. Sorry this is a generalisation but it seems to be quite trendy to generalise on this post.

My "mutt" has five generations (DNA) tested history with complete health checks (not just the off the shelf ones the KC recommend). She has this because we found a very good breeder... an exception (took us two years).


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Burrowzig said:


> _All_ breed dog pedigrees? What about the many breeds the KC doesn't recognise?
> Not that I want the other breeds recognised by the KC. For dogs bred for their working ability the worst thing that can happen is the KC getting hold of them and turning them into a show dog based on looks.


Well, one might argue that dogs 'breeds' that aren't recognised by the KC aren't 'breeds' at all... Labradoodles, for example. (not saying they aren't or can't be nice dogs, just in case anyone gets offended)

The KC doesn't 'turn' dogs into anything. It agrees the breed standard set out by the breed clubs (which are ultimately controlled by the breeders) and shows are judged accordingly. Yes, some breeders have interpreted certain standards in an extreme way, and some judges (most also breeders) have encouraged this and where it affects the health or life of the dog, it is not acceptable.

Like I said, the KC is not perfect, it has along way to go, but currently it is pretty much all we have regarding some sort of decent dog registration body, and it is certainly leaps and bounds ahead of the DLRC.


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

ally said:


> Yes right! That is why certain breeds no longer look like they should do or suffer agonising lives due to the KC and breeders changing the breed standards????? You don't have to buy KC registered to guarantee the history/breed of a dog. Many breeders are not KC registered and breed really healthy, wonderful dogs. You have the KC affiliated breeders and then you have the Backyard/Puppy farms.... 2 extremes then some VERY good breeders inbetween. I personally feel that some breeders load the prices because they are KC registered and see their puppies as a commodity.


If you can show me a hundred breeders who have a KC recognised breed, or breed crossbreeds, that are ethical and doing things properly (eg, health testing, properly rearing puppies on decent food etc) I will happily agree you may have a point.

What breeds do you feel are suffering 'agonising' lives exactly?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jackson said:


> Well, one might argue that dogs 'breeds' that aren't recognised by the KC aren't 'breeds' at all... Labradoodles, for example. (not saying they aren't or can't be nice dogs, just in case anyone gets offended)
> 
> The KC doesn't 'turn' dogs into anything. It agrees the breed standard set out by the breed clubs (which are ultimately controlled by the breeders) and shows are judged accordingly. Yes, some breeders have interpreted certain standards in an extreme way, and some judges (most also breeders) have encouraged this and where it affects the health or life of the dog, it is not acceptable.
> 
> Like I said, the KC is not perfect, it has along way to go, but currently it is pretty much all we have regarding some sort of decent dog registration body, and it is certainly leaps and bounds ahead of the DLRC.


I would say its worse than "not perfect" it is actually dangerous because it legitimises bad practice. The public believe that _"pups are KC registered"_ gives some sort of guarantee when it actually gives nothing verifiable at all.

As you say the breed clubs set the "standards" (although I've seen no mandatory health standards) bu the KC must "recognise" the breed (add it to their books for showing etc).

If you design a car you must have it registered and vigorously tested by the MOT before you can drive it on the road...... yet the KC won't even say _"you must make sure you dogs are a bit healthy, if that's OK with everyone, no offence..."_ because they're scared the breed clubs will take the ball home with them.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jackson said:


> Well, one might argue that dogs 'breeds' that aren't recognised by the KC aren't 'breeds' at all... Labradoodles, for example. (not saying they aren't or can't be nice dogs, just in case anyone gets offended)
> 
> The KC doesn't 'turn' dogs into anything. It agrees the breed standard set out by the breed clubs (which are ultimately controlled by the breeders) and shows are judged accordingly. Yes, some breeders have interpreted certain standards in an extreme way, and some judges (most also breeders) have encouraged this and where it affects the health or life of the dog, it is not acceptable.
> 
> Like I said, the KC is not perfect, it has along way to go, but currently it is pretty much all we have regarding some sort of decent dog registration body, and it is certainly leaps and bounds ahead of the DLRC.


BTW... if you look at the breeding history of ASD Labradoodles, they have a longer history than required by KC (four generations I believe), are more consistent than many recognised breeds yet will never be allowed to be recognised in this country because of the anti movement withint the breed clubs.

I don't have an ASD so I'm really not that worried but I find it a shame that ASD breeders in this country have more extensive health testing programmes that many of the recognised breeds yet they're treated like lepers. Still, the public recognise their high standards and keep buying, perpetuating the breed which can only be a good thing.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I am glad that dimkaz is a man. Nice to know that such rudeness and bigotry is not coming from a female mind. I notice HE hasnt replied to my question.



wow, happy to help your cause
girl's power!


best


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I would say its worse than "not perfect" it is actually dangerous because it legitimises bad practice. The public believe that _"pups are KC registered"_ gives some sort of guarantee when it actually gives nothing verifiable at all.
> 
> As you say the breed clubs set the "standards" (although I've seen no mandatory health standards) bu the KC must "recognise" the breed (add it to their books for showing etc).
> 
> If you design a car you must have it registered and vigorously tested by the MOT before you can drive it on the road...... yet the KC won't even say _"you must make sure you dogs are a bit healthy, if that's OK with everyone, no offence..."_ because they're scared the breed clubs will take the ball home with them.


So, what would you suggest is done? That we improve the KC or that we just ignore it, refuse to register pups, and all use the DLRC?

Do you know of many breeders you could say are responsible and ethical breeders, of any KC recognised breeds, that don't KC register?


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

Some Cavvies, some SBT's; Bulldogs, Boxers, Pekes - obviously that depends on the breeder. Bassets should be taller; Bulldogs too. Then we get the issues as Elmo said about the breeders wanting such quality that they interbreed - the Chairman of the KC stated on a TV programme that he breeds a grandad to granddaughter or a brother to Aunt.... disgraceful and thoughtless to the concern of the resulting dogs that can suffer horrendous lives due to said interbreeding. We got our crossbreed form a very repuable breeder who does health tests many breeders don't in the UK - she did this because she wanted to ensure as a responsible breeder that she did everything possible to ensure good stock... I know several breeders who do likewise; that said many KC affiliated breeders ONLY do what is recommended.... who are the better breeder then?

As for non- registered KC breedes as the Labradoodle; that goes for other ones like Blue Weimenarers. Labradoodle owners wouldn't want them registered because they would lose their attributes if controlled by the KC in breeding.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I would say its worse than "not perfect" it is actually dangerous because it legitimises bad practice. The public believe that _"pups are KC registered"_ gives some sort of guarantee when it actually gives nothing verifiable at all.
> 
> As you say the breed clubs set the "standards" (although I've seen no mandatory health standards) bu the KC must "recognise" the breed (add it to their books for showing etc).
> 
> If you design a car you must have it registered and vigorously tested by the MOT before you can drive it on the road...... yet the KC won't even say _"you must make sure you dogs are a bit healthy, if that's OK with everyone, no offence..."_ because they're scared the breed clubs will take the ball home with them.


i couldn;t have said it better myself!

cheers


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

ally said:


> Some Cavvies, some SBT's; Bulldogs, Boxers, Pekes - obviously that depends on the breeder. Bassets should be taller; Bulldogs too. Then we get the issues as Elmo said about the breeders wanting such quality that they interbreed - the Chairman of the KC stated on a TV programme that he breeds a grandad to granddaughter or a brother to Aunt.... disgraceful and thoughtless to the concern of the resulting dogs that can suffer horrendous lives due to said interbreeding. We got our crossbreed form a very repuable breeder who does health tests many breeders don't in the UK - she did this because she wanted to ensure as a responsible breeder that she did everything possible to ensure good stock... I know several breeders who do likewise; that said many KC affiliated breeders ONLY do what is recommended.... who are the better breeder then?
> 
> As for non- registered KC breedes as the Labradoodle; that goes for other ones like Blue Weimenarers. Labradoodle owners wouldn't want them registered because they would lose their attributes if controlled by the KC in breeding.


I thought you might have got your information from a certain TV programme...

Do you know anything about inbreeding or linebreeding? A Grandfather to Grand daughter mating is not inbreeding. Even if it were, inbreeding doesn't create any problems that weren't there in the first place, it doesn't create some ten headed, two legged monser dog purely because Grandfather is bred to grand-daughter. What it does do is to fix a type, and also often bring to the forefront any problems controlled by recessive genes that would have otherwise possibly been lurking in the background for years until they potentially showed up in a high proportion of the population of that breed all at once. Inbreeding and linebreeding are both actually quite important to dog breeds, both health wise and type wise. of course, it shouldn't be overdone and it shouldn't be done by those who are not doing it for the right reasons, or with a very significant knowledge of the breed.

The programme you mentioned discussed health problems in Pugs and claimed they were due to there only being 10,00 DNA strands in the pedigrees. There are only the same 10,000 DNA strands in the pedigrees of Rough Collies, a breed of dog with a lot less health problems. The programme was also packed full of blatent lies and all sort of anti-KC 'propaganda'.

No breed is 'controlled' by the KC where breeding is concerned, it is controlled by the breed clubs, which are controlled by the breeders. In fact, the KC is pretty much controlled by that, not the other way round. There will always be people in it for the wrong reasons, but they are in the minority.

I'd be interested in the details of your dog's breeder, since plenty of my friends like cross breeds, and have yet to find a decent breeder, so have gone for older rescues, when they'd really prefer a puppy.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jackson said:


> A Grandfather to Grand daughter mating is not inbreeding. Even if it were, inbreeding doesn't create any problems that weren't there in the first place, it doesn't create some ten headed, two legged monser dog purely because Grandfather is bred to grand-daughter. What it does do is to fix a type, and also often bring to the forefront any problems controlled by recessive genes that would have otherwise possibly been lurking in the background for years until they potentially showed up in a high proportion of the population of that breed all at once.


But it does narrow the gene pool to the point that if you contiuously do it, the whole breed is related to itself. If you do not test properly (and there is no KC recognition rule or breed standard that says you have to) that recessive gene is being being bred and bred and bred and bred.........and with this type of breeding if it's there, then every single animal in that gene pool has it.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

jackson said:


> I thought you might have got your information from a certain TV programme...
> 
> Do you know anything about inbreeding or linebreeding? A Grandfather to Grand daughter mating is not inbreeding. Even if it were, inbreeding doesn't create any problems that weren't there in the first place, it doesn't create some ten headed, two legged monser dog purely because Grandfather is bred to grand-daughter. What it does do is to fix a type, and also often bring to the forefront any problems controlled by recessive genes that would have otherwise possibly been lurking in the background for years until they potentially showed up in a high proportion of the population of that breed all at once. Inbreeding and linebreeding are both actually quite important to dog breeds, both health wise and type wise. of course, it shouldn't be overdone and it shouldn't be done by those who are not doing it for the right reasons, or with a very significant knowledge of the breed.


mhmmmmm this seems a bit far fetched... and an unsatisfactory justification of a very poor breeding practice.
i would suggest you go back to genetics 101 and do a bit of reading...
i use professional geneticists to assists and advice me, but your statement is really "off the wall" of course inbreeding, linebreeding, or breeding with relatives (call it as you like) is recursively used to "perpetrate some type characteristics" but at what cost? 
It is detrimental for the health of the dogs for the weakening of the immune system and the superadditive effects it has on increasing chances of full blown recessive genetic disorders (and this is true in any other animal species, humans included, for that matter), it is a well known mechanism, which UNFORTUNATELY is systematically ignored in pedigree dog breeding...
best
D


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> Dear Nancy, first of all, thank you for the swift sex change you just gave me...
> though i am not that way inclined i would take it just to give a shock to my friends and colleagues after the winter break and see their faces!
> 
> 
> ...


Firstly I am not your Dear Nancy Secondly I posted links that obviously proved your "sweeping theory" wrong. I have a life so not interested in sitting all day counting a few hundred ads lol If that iswhat your life is like you are more than welcome to it.
May I say I have not been rude to you so do not see the justification on your replies Thanks


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> mhmmmmm this seems a bit far fetched... and an unsatisfactory justification of a very poor breeding practice.
> i would suggest you go back to genetics 101 and do a bit of reading...
> i use professional geneticists to assists and advice me, but your statement is really "off the wall" of course inbreeding, linebreeding, or breeding with relatives (call it as you like) is recursively used to "perpetrate some type characteristics" but at what cost?
> It is detrimental for the health of the dogs for the weakening of the immune system and the superadditive effects it has on increasing chances of full blown recessive genetic disorders (and this is true in any other animal species, humans included, for that matter), it is a well known mechanism, which UNFORTUNATELY is systematically ignored in pedigree dog breeding...
> ...


So you use professional geneticists to justify why you are breeding what you are?? Can I ask are you sleeping with Jemima lol


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

can be get this thread back on course before its gets closed as usual and the original question by the OP is forgotten


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> BTW... if you look at the breeding history of ASD Labradoodles, they have a longer history than required by KC (four generations I believe), are more consistent than many recognised breeds yet will never be allowed to be recognised in this country because of the anti movement withint the breed clubs.
> 
> I don't have an ASD so I'm really not that worried but I find it a shame that ASD breeders in this country have more extensive health testing programmes that many of the recognised breeds yet they're treated like lepers. Still, the public recognise their high standards and keep buying, perpetuating the breed which can only be a good thing.


Aha But if you read all the stories re ASD's you will realise that some are mostly Poodles and the rest well Who knows what mix and in what generation


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

The original question was why to register with the KC rather than these odd registrations that are now cropping up. Surely this has been answered. KC registered puppies have (usually) genuine pedigrees going back many generations. The breeders and their honesty or otherwise will usually be known among the breeders. The show records can be checked up on, which will at least confirm that there has been good conformation in the ancestors. Not necessarily temperament unfortunately unless they also have working qualifications.
The breeders can get endorsements put on pups registrations so that they cant have progeny registered. And only a certain amount of litters between two sensible age ranges can be registered.

Of course the odd breeder will cheat and lie about parentage or register extra pups from a litter so they have spare registration certificates for less well bred pups. But a good breeder that spends time doing health checks, showing their dogs and rearing the pups well is highly unlikely to do this so it just comes down to choosing a responsible breeder.

If you buy a pup that is registered with another society or unregistered then you have absolutely no check on the pups parentage. There will be no cross checks made so it can totally be invented. There will be no show record or any record whatsoever.

The KC is the governing body and the body that registers dogs, but has no responsibility for dishonest breeders.

Having said all that I personally have nothing against unregistered dogs (I have one) or cross breeds (I had one). And I do have quite a lot against the way the KC insist that shows are registered with them and can ban anyone that goes to an unregistered show from registering pups or showing at proper shows. But that is another topic altogether.


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The snobbery I was referring to (which you misinterpreted) was the fact that buyers of KC recognised breeds want "champion" whoever as the father/mother. Breeders will breed saying that "champion" is the father even if he isn't and if he is, they';ll breed again and again and again narrowing the gene pool. Sorry this is a generalisation but it seems to be quite trendy to generalise on this post.


So can I ask why do Crossbreed Breeders mostly always put what the Pedigree Sire or Dam has re Champion wise in their Peds. Why boast from this camp as well
I have a small crossbreed, not may I say with a funny name as I am unsure what her history is as was the rescue centre I got her from. Since owning her I have visited a lot of forums. 
Now here is a funny story A few of these forums have members who post looking for Studs etc... then realise their little one is related to members replying. Now Inbreeding imo is taking place in Crossbreeds as well More so now than before I believe. 
That is why imo DLRC also has its downside as someone could mate their DLRC registered Bitch to a Relative but be none the wiser
Sorry for waffling


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

dexter said:


> can be get this thread back on course before its gets closed as usual and the original question by the OP is forgotten


Agree So my answer I do not like DLRC due to how it came about and the fact that you can get paperwork for a litter of any mix, name etc...


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But it does narrow the gene pool to the point that if you contiuously do it, the whole breed is related to itself. If you do not test properly (and there is no KC recognition rule or breed standard that says you have to) that recessive gene is being being bred and bred and bred and bred.........and with this type of breeding if it's there, then every single animal in that gene pool has it.


I don't think anyone is suggesting it is done continuously, just that it doesn't create problems that weren't already there, which is what some people seem to think.

The whole point of inbreeding to show any recessive problems (and I am referring to things for which there are no health tests, or events that would have occurred prior to health testing becoming available) is that they would show in their homozygous form and then be bred out. If they are only ever in their recessive form (which could happen for many, many generations if no in or line breeding was done) THAT would mean every single animal in the gene pool could have it.

Linebreeding is/has certainly been done quite a bit in Golden Retrievers (the breed I know most about, as it is the one I am involved in) and yet there are very few health problems in the breed.


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2009)

Thanks for all your opinions, including those that breed none pedigree or crosses.

I have come to the conclusion that the KC would be the most respected registration club to register or buy a puppy that is KC registered from a reputable breeder. 

I do however think that the KC has many flaws and has a lot to answer for and encourages breeders to breed with no health checks as its not required. 

Wether or not its controlled by the breed clubs is a pitiful excuse in my eyes, for goodness sake without the KC there would be no breed clubs, so therefore they should have some power??? Or are they just people pleasers and not bothered about the welfare of the beloved pedigree dog. 

Why have they dropped the one litter a year per bitch? Why don't they make health test and DNA compulsory? I'm my eyes its not in the best interest of the dogs but the breeders themselves.

I understand where every one is coming from as regards the DLR and I agree it needs to come up to scratch and has a long way to go, but if it ever did I would be the first to support it as I think there could be better than the KC and that someone should give them a run for there money.

I not against cross breeders for doing what they do, registering your dogs/puppy's with the KC is not the be all and end all of a good breeder, if I wasn't such a perfectionist and having to do things by the books I wouldn't give the KC the time of day.

I have had my question answered and thanks to you all!! Happy new year!!


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Jackson said:


> inbreeding doesn't create any problems that weren't there in the first place, it doesn't create some ten headed, two legged monser dog purely because Grandfather is bred to grand-daughter.


True, I think inbreeding is merely a breeding tool, it doesn't *create* mutant dogs, that is the stuff we have been fed in horror movies.
The horrors are already there in dogs. By bringing together closely related dogs we get a glimpse of what all dogs carry in their genes. Inbreeding done with skill can be a good thing, however inbreeding does lower immunity and it can produce sickly/dead pups with genetic disorders, so it is not something to be undertaken with no fore-thought or research on the part of the breeder. Too often it is done by people who are goaded into it (often by other breeders) "to improve type" and who in fact know very little about it.

I think we can criticise the KC till we are blue in the face, but it all boils down to the breeders and their ethics. Good breeding practices are in the hands of the individual breeder and *no* registry can totally guarantee that no matter what their stance is.
Frankly too many breeders are in breeding for money, too many know little of genetics, too many are unaware of health issues, too many are unaware of the true rate of inbreeding in their breed, too many really do not care as long as they have puppies to sell and shows to win.
Cross breeders or mongrel breeders are definitely no better, producing large quantities of pups to feed the fashion market, or to sell for extortionate prices, with little thought for the dogs themselves.

There are good breeders out there who try their best but I think that they are in the minority.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> True, I think inbreeding is merely a breeding tool, it doesn't *create* mutant dogs, that is the stuff we have been fed in horror movies.
> The horrors are already there in dogs. By bringing together closely related dogs we get a glimpse of what all dogs carry in their genes. Inbreeding done with skill can be a good thing, however inbreeding does lower immunity and it can produce sickly/dead pups with genetic disorders, so it is not something to be undertaken with no fore-thought or research on the part of the breeder. Too often it is done by people who are goaded into it (often by other breeders) "to improve type" and who in fact know very little about it.
> 
> I think we can criticise the KC till we are blue in the face, but it all boils down to the breeders and their ethics. Good breeding practices are in the hands of the individual breeder and *no* registry can totally guarantee that no matter what their stance is.
> ...


good post. YES there are some good breeders out there. not sure whether i'd go as far as to say they are in the minority tho.

Just to add i have a 10 year old . bought in ...........she's from a mother/son mating and is as fit as a fiddle.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

dexter said:


> good post. YES there are some good breeders out there. not sure whether i'd go as far as to say they are in the minority tho.


Thanks, maybe that was a bit pessimistic. Sorry. 


> Just to add i have a 10 year old . bought in ...........she's from a mother/son mating and is as fit as a fiddle.


Glad to hear it.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Ridgielover said:


> Yet again a misinformed post. It is NOT the KC that breeds dogs - breeders breed dogs and they make the decisions about the matings they want to do and their objectives.


Not misinformed at all! I never said the KC breeds dogs. Breeders obviously breed dogs, to the breed society's standards. The standard can be looks (for show dogs) or working ability (for working dogs). Once a breed gets KC registered the working ability tends to go out of the window as the show appearance takes over. That's why breed societies for dogs such as Kelpies oppose registration with the KC and equivalent organisations in other countries, as they know that the breeding of the dogs for working ability would be suborned.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

jaradethan said:


> Wether or not its controlled by the breed clubs is a pitiful excuse in my eyes, for goodness sake without the KC there would be no breed clubs,........


Really? The Welsh Sheepdog society would still exist, as the KC doesn't recognise the breed. 
Lots of breeds that the KC doesn't acknowledge have breed clubs that exist now and would continue. People can set up and run things independantly!


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

yeah i came across this yesterday. the english shepherd!

Home


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Surely registering with either is for the breeder to give a "stamp of approval" to their breeding, so for those that say the KC is just a means to get a higher price for the dogs they produce, then in fact the same could be said for registering with the DLR, if not then why bother registering with either organisation? IMO registering with the DLR is in fact a cheap way of trying to con the buyer into thinking they have a registered dog, a true "recognised breed" if it can be registered then it HAS to be a good breeding? I dont know how many people that have met that have bought dogs and proudly stated oh yes my dog is a full pedigree because it is a registered dog with DLR(when in fact it is a first time x and both parents were in fact KC registered) and then proudly produe a certificates to prove it. these people have been conned and payed the same price as they would have for a KC registered dog.
There is a large pet store local to myself, they buy puppies on from all avenues, were exposed at one time on TV for supporting puppy farms by having them supply the pups to them, they sell their dogs with DLR registrations, the buyers of these dogs beleive they are getting well bred, full pedigree, they are being conned.

Mo


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

moboyd said:


> Surely registering with either is for the breeder to give a "stamp of approval" to their breeding, so for those that say the KC is just a means to get a higher price for the dogs they produce, then in fact the same could be said for registering with the DLR, if not then why bother registering with either organisation? IMO registering with the DLR is in fact a cheap way of trying to con the buyer into thinking they have a registered dog, a true "recognised breed" if it can be registered then it HAS to be a good breeding? I dont know how many people that have met that have bought dogs and proudly stated oh yes my dog is a full pedigree because it is a registered dog with DLR(when in fact it is a first time x and both parents were in fact KC registered) and then proudly produe a certificates to prove it. these people have been conned and payed the same price as they would have for a KC registered dog.
> There is a large pet store local to myself, they buy puppies on from all avenues, were exposed at one time on TV for supporting puppy farms by having them supply the pups to them, they sell their dogs with DLR registrations, the buyers of these dogs beleive they are getting well bred, full pedigree, they are being conned.
> 
> Mo


I agree to a point but then putting forward KC registration as a good thing is also a con. It just says that the KC reocognise the breed (so what??). I agree with the point why register with either? but breeders register with KC as they (and the public) feel it gives some sort of credibility when in fact, it does nothing of the sort.

People buy KC registered dogs for the same reason you state in your last sentence_ "the buyers of these dogs beleive they are getting well bred"_ but KC registration doesn't give them that at all. My dogs (those that aren't rescue) have pedigree, verifiable etc etc etc... so what..its a piece of paper with a history (registered with the KC no less)... but I also have verifiable health tests and DNA etc etc etc ... that's what the KC should be insisting on.

So I agree... register with neither organisation as they both give undeserved credibiliyt; instead, have the proper health tests and DNA done, then you can actually give your buyers some reason to believe you have the best intentions of the dogs at heart and not simply the best intentions of some club or your bank balance.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> Cross breeders or mongrel breeders are definitely no better, producing large quantities of pups to feed the fashion market, or to sell for extortionate prices, with little thought for the dogs themselves.


Just to clairfy, that'll be all cross breeders? a majority? the one's you know?


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

jackson said:


> I thought you might have got your information from a certain TV programme...
> 
> Do you know anything about inbreeding or linebreeding? A Grandfather to Grand daughter mating is not inbreeding. Even if it were, inbreeding doesn't create any problems that weren't there in the first place, it doesn't create some ten headed, two legged monser dog purely because Grandfather is bred to grand-daughter. What it does do is to fix a type, and also often bring to the forefront any problems controlled by recessive genes that would have otherwise possibly been lurking in the background for years until they potentially showed up in a high proportion of the population of that breed all at once. Inbreeding and linebreeding are both actually quite important to dog breeds, both health wise and type wise. of course, it shouldn't be overdone and it shouldn't be done by those who are not doing it for the right reasons, or with a very significant knowledge of the breed.
> 
> ...


Yes as a vet nurse I know all about breeding, I was actually repeating what this man said - he was the one who said that HE was interbreeding and I am saying that interbreeding is the main problem that should be addressed.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

I would be more than happy for DNA requirments in fact the more proving the better IMO and hopefully the KC is heading in the right direction, this cannot and I doubt if it ever will be a requirement of the DLR.

Mo


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Just to clairfy, that'll be all cross breeders? a majority? the one's you know?


 Elmo
_Just to clarify_ it took two years to find an ethical breeder of your cross bred pup.



Elmo the Bear said:


> My "mutt" has five generations (DNA) tested history with complete health checks (not just the off the shelf ones the KC recommend). She has this because we found a very good breeder... an exception (took us two years).


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

jackson said:


> I thought you might have got your information from a certain TV programme...
> 
> Do you know anything about inbreeding or linebreeding? A Grandfather to Grand daughter mating is not inbreeding. Even if it were, inbreeding doesn't create any problems that weren't there in the first place, it doesn't create some ten headed, two legged monser dog purely because Grandfather is bred to grand-daughter. What it does do is to fix a type, and also often bring to the forefront any problems controlled by recessive genes that would have otherwise possibly been lurking in the background for years until they potentially showed up in a high proportion of the population of that breed all at once. Inbreeding and linebreeding are both actually quite important to dog breeds, both health wise and type wise. of course, it shouldn't be overdone and it shouldn't be done by those who are not doing it for the right reasons, or with a very significant knowledge of the breed.
> 
> ...


Wrong! Talk to vets and they will tell you that due to inbreeeding of any close gene pool they have all seen pups born with deformities like 5 legs; half a head; mis shapen limbs; the list goes on


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

ally said:


> Yes as a vet nurse I know all about breeding, I was actually repeating what this man said - he was the one who said that HE was interbreeding and I am saying that interbreeding is the main problem that should be addressed.





ally said:


> Wrong! Talk to vets and they will tell you that due to inbreeeding of any close gene pool they have all seen pups born with deformities like 5 legs; half a head; mis shapen limbs; the list goes on


Vets are neither dog breeder nor geneticists, my own vet will admit to this...

You do not even know what inbreeding is, grandfather to grand-daughter mating is NOT inbreeding, so please check facts...

Inbreeding rarely happens these days, linebreeding happens more often. These are VERY different things...

Do you really think that breeders would inbreed repeatedly, let alone do so when recognising first generation deformities?


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> True, I think inbreeding is merely a breeding tool, it doesn't *create* mutant dogs, that is the stuff we have been fed in horror movies.
> The horrors are already there in dogs. By bringing together closely related dogs we get a glimpse of what all dogs carry in their genes. Inbreeding done with skill can be a good thing, however inbreeding does lower immunity and it can produce sickly/dead pups with genetic disorders, so it is not something to be undertaken with no fore-thought or research on the part of the breeder. Too often it is done by people who are goaded into it (often by other breeders) "to improve type" and who in fact know very little about it.
> 
> I think we can criticise the KC till we are blue in the face, but it all boils down to the breeders and their ethics. Good breeding practices are in the hands of the individual breeder and *no* registry can totally guarantee that no matter what their stance is.
> ...


Arh now that is a sweeping comment and unjustified as many people breeding designer dogs might be in it for the money which U+I don't agree with, but it is a case of supply and demand. IMO people should not breed in this economic climate unless they can prove they have definite purchasers for the pups. Sadly though this would be impractical. There are many more "pedigree breeders" out there who don't healthcheck and/or just think they have a lovely dog so lets breed from it and make some megabucks!


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

I have just been looking at the KC website, and it does appear some changes are being done, I see to be an AB DNA profilling is required, I hope this becomes a requirement of ALL breeders in the near future, I also noted the following regarding the use of ABS name and its usage.
"Using your Accredited Breeder Scheme membership status

Following concerns over misuse of phrases like Kennel Club approved in promotional materials and advertisements for canine products and services, and continued use by former Accredited Breeders, the Kennel Club would like to clarify the position which applies, whether in print or online. If you are an Accredited Breeder then you are entitled to say so and state that as a fact in your promotional literature  indeed, it is important to do so. If you cease to be and are not an ABS member, then a breeder should not allude to the Scheme at all. This otherwise may lead to confusion and the impression that the breeder is still connected with the Scheme. The position must not be confusing to potential puppy buyers. We understand that to improperly claim to be an Accredited Breeder could constitute one or more of the statutory Unfair Commercial Practices under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008." so hopefully this will help towards the sellers on websites that are using the ABS as a selling point that are not ~ABS and th KC can do something about it if an advert is brought to their attention, of course they also list their AB's in each breed on their site for the buyer to check on, all things that are IMO heading in the right direction.

Mo


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jackson said:


> Vets are neither dog breeder nor geneticists, my own vet will admit to this...
> 
> You do not even know what inbreeding is, grandfather to grand-daughter mating is NOT inbreeding, so please check facts...
> 
> ...


It is not considered inbreeding by those who don't want to admit what it is (and is given another name (line breeding).

Cleaners are also called _"Hygiene Technicians"_ and Dinner ladies _"Education Centre Nourishment Production Assistants"_ but if it looks like it and smells like it......

... on your last point, if they felt it emphasised breed standard yes. A deformity ??? never... just call it a furnishing then there's nothing wrong with it


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

moboyd said:


> I see to be an AB DNA profilling is required,


is that just to check the history or are they actually insisting its used for health checks??? whatever it is, its a start.... only took 137 years


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

ally said:


> There are many more "pedigree breeders" out there who don't healthcheck and/or just think they have a lovely dog so lets breed from it and make some megabucks!


are there. have you got figures to prove it??? more pedigree breeders than mutt/designer breeders????????


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

I no someone who DNA tests all her dogs.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

ally said:


> Wrong! Talk to vets and they will tell you that due to inbreeeding of any close gene pool they have all seen pups born with deformities like 5 legs; half a head; mis shapen limbs; the list goes on


yeah and i have seen the same with total outcrosses!!!!!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> Elmo
> _Just to clarify_ it took two years to find an ethical breeder of your cross bred pup.


Most of the breeders of my cross are subjected to pretty bad treatment by the KC / breeder establishment. One "lady" I talked to I was later told she'd been trying to find out the name of the breeder so they could be reported to the poodle club for "ruining the purity".... err central europe.... late 20's early 30's ring any bells ??

There are not many breeders of my cross at all, so to find one that did all the tests (I probably have a higher opinion of "ethical" than most... "my pups are KC registered" does not make a breeder ethical.. neither does "I have their eyes tested").

So that's your question answered... how about answering my question ... your sweeping baseless statement.. anything other than prejudice behind it?


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

This arguement just goes on and on!

- ally

Not all breeders breed for 'mega bucks' may I just say I breed for bloodlines, does that make me a mega bucks breeder because I charge £1200 per pup? No I dont think it does. My next door neighbour used to bree dogs (ones on dexters picture, cant remeber the name) and she breeds for the bloodline also and she was VERY succesful in the showring and she is now a crufts judge of the breed. Please dont *tar* people with the same brush.. its not fair on people like me who takes _alot_ of care in my dogs and they get the best of the best.

As for cross breeding - I dont like it when people breed for money because they are making *designer* dogs, but when beautiful dogs are created such as labradoodles wether you like it or not the breed is starting to become recognised out there and puppies sell - some breeders do it ethically, some dont. Im using the labradoodle as a example as I have a friend who owns one. They have there own assosiation now aswell the UKLA with people on there who are now adivising about the breed and breeding it correctly. On the UKLA there are puppies there which are tested for heart, eyes and hips.

- Rant over..


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

ally said:


> There are many more "pedigree breeders" out there who don't healthcheck and/or just think they have a lovely dog so lets breed from it and make some megabucks!


Did I not just say that or something along the same lines. 



Lauren001 said:


> *Frankly too many breeders are in breeding for money, too many know little of genetics, too many are unaware of health issues, too many are unaware of the true rate of inbreeding in their breed, too many really do not care as long as they have puppies to sell and shows to win.*
> Cross breeders or mongrel breeders are definitely no better, producing large quantities of pups to feed the fashion market, or to sell for extortionate prices, with little thought for the dogs themselves.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

This topic is about wether the KC or DLR isnt it? IMO at least with the KC although a little late in some aspects they are involved in a lot related to the dog world, showing,working,research, testing, public awareness, etc, so for your money you get a lot more, the DLR well go on their website see what they are doing with your money? apart from the odd advices about breeding and health tests you may or may not want to do, thats it, oh but you get nice certificates.

Mo


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

ally said:


> Wrong! Talk to vets and they will tell you that due to inbreeeding of any close gene pool they have all seen pups born with deformities like 5 legs; half a head; mis shapen limbs; the list goes on


Must be a lot of horrendous looking Breeds with 5 legs in the Ring then LOL


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

ally said:


> There are many more "pedigree breeders" out there who don't healthcheck and/or just think they have a lovely dog so lets breed from it and make some megabucks!


Any studies/links to back up your statement would be nice


----------



## Puma (Nov 17, 2009)

ally said:


> Yes as a vet nurse I know all about breeding, I was actually repeating what this man said - he was the one who said that HE was interbreeding and I am saying that interbreeding is the main problem that should be addressed.


Then you must be a rarety, there are few vet nurses that I know, and vets too for that matter that know anything at all about breeding. And I know a fair few vets. It is the same with diet, few vets, other then specialist vets know much about canine dietery requirements.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

nancy63 said:


> Any studies/links to back up your statement would be nice


Hang on there's a queue for "back up"... I'm still waiting for Lauren to come up with a vague justification for the _"Cross breeders or mongrel breeders are definitely no better, producing large quantities of pups to feed the fashion market, or to sell for extortionate prices, with little thought for the dogs themselves."_ comment...


----------



## Puma (Nov 17, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> Elmo
> _Just to clarify_ it took two years to find an ethical breeder of your cross bred pup.


Good heavens, All I can say there must be some extremely bad breeders out there of some 'breeds' if it took two years to find an ethical one.


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Hang on there's a queue for "back up"... I'm still waiting for Lauren to come up with a vague justification for the _"Cross breeders or mongrel breeders are definitely no better, producing large quantities of pups to feed the fashion market, or to sell for extortionate prices, with little thought for the dogs themselves."_ comment...


Okay I will wait my turn Patience is a virtue LOL Hurry her up Elmo lol


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

- Lauren

not every breeder of cross breeds, breeds for that purpose! :|


----------



## Puma (Nov 17, 2009)

Some interesting reading on this thread, thank you those who know what you are talking about, there is also a far bit of, lets be nice and call it pie in the sky. Maybe we should be reminding the public to take with a pinch of salt anything that ANY breeder, whether is be pedigree or mongrol. Its down to the buyer to check all paperwork to confirm any health tests etc, as it is for the buyer to ask (assuming we are talking pedigree) why the pups are not KC registered if they are not, and remember there are many reasons that this could be. Also remember that genuine breeders cannot hide the results any longer as many of these are now published on the net for all to see.


----------



## Puma (Nov 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Hang on there's a queue for "back up"... I'm still waiting for Lauren to come up with a vague justification for the _"Cross breeders or mongrel breeders are definitely no better, producing large quantities of pups to feed the fashion market, or to sell for extortionate prices, with little thought for the dogs themselves."_ comment...


Why should Lauren have to justify her views? Is she not entitled to these?


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Elmo only has one view unfortunately.

I find it incredible that some on here will defend cross bred/mongrel breeding to the death, despite the fact that many so called "breeders" of such pups are anything but ethical. Take a glance at the free-ads and decide for yourselves.
I have previously and I will again refuse to back pedigree breeders who are of the same ilk, yet we still get this "them and us" attitude from some people on here who refuse to see what is staring them in the face.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Puma said:


> , thank you those who know what you are talking about,


Those would just be the people you agree with / agree with you then ?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> Elmo only has one view unfortunately.
> 
> I find it incredible that some on here will defend cross bred/mongrel breeding to the death, despite the fact that many so called "breeders" of such pups are anything but ethical. Take a glance at the free-ads and decide for yourselves.
> I have previously and I will again refuse to back pedigree breeders who are of the same ilk, yet we still get this "them and us" attitude from some people on here who refuse to see what is staring them in the face.


All the time people make unsubstatiated comments about people who breed crosses, you will I'm afraid.

Just because some people dare to disagree and taken a different view to you, doesn't mean they are refusing to see what is "staring them in the face".

I don't think it is a coincidence that, everytime those who put forward your argument are asked to justify what you are saying, you resort to the tactic of making everyone who disagrees is stupid...... nice 

I've never said (all) breeders of crosses are "ethical" (you fail to define your understanding) but do not believe the arguement that there are more unethical crossbreeders that KC registered breeders.


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

im a bit stuck on both sides here!

i dont agree with cross breeding mongrels for money BUT there are some people out there that do it ethically and responsibly ?


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Why do topics like this always seem to attract the same group of people arguing, its like a message is sent out hey another thread about x breeds go on and wind them up and ruin the thread, arghhhh I am out of this one now.

mo


----------



## Puma (Nov 17, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> Elmo only has one view unfortunately.
> 
> I find it incredible that some on here will defend cross bred/mongrel breeding to the death, despite the fact that many so called "breeders" of such pups are anything but ethical. Take a glance at the free-ads and decide for yourselves.
> I have previously and I will again refuse to back pedigree breeders who are of the same ilk, yet we still get this "them and us" attitude from some people on here who refuse to see what is staring them in the face.


I really do find it hard to accept that, bearing in mind this is a 'pet forum' that so many members seem to be fighting amongst themselves over what they should be united with. There seem to be many of you that are pulling the KC to pieces, I cannot see the reason for this, sorry folks, but it may not be perfect but it is all we have at the moment, because those who see the DLR as anywhere near to the KC are sadly misled into believing that have something of value when it is infact actually worthless. It's like me attemping to swim the channel because I got my 50 yard swimming certificate when I was ten.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Puma said:


> Why should Lauren have to justify her views? Is she not entitled to these?


Because she made an unjustified sweeping statement... told me to back up my point (which I did) so I was asking simply for reciprocity... still haven't got it..

.... anyway, who are you... her mum ??


----------



## Puma (Nov 17, 2009)

moboyd said:


> Why do topics like this always seem to attract the same group of people arguing, its like a message is sent out hey another thread about x breeds go on and wind them up and ruin the thread, arghhhh I am out of this one now.
> 
> mo


And I am on your heels, even a blind man would see from which direction the trouble is coming. I really find this rather odd.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

moboyd said:


> Why do topics like this always seem to attract the same group of people arguing, its like a message is sent out hey another thread about x breeds go on and wind them up and ruin the thread, arghhhh I am out of this one now.
> 
> mo


I take that means me... and the reason I only have "one view" (I guess that means others have varying views depending on which way the wind is blowing) is because people make unjustified statements... the same ones.. over and over.

I meet so many people who say "my puppy must be great as its registered with the KC"......... and its come from a puppy farm.
So to keep giving people the impression that the KC is in some way an "MOT" is wrong.. so I'll stick with the one view.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Puma said:


> And I am on your heels, even a blind man would see from which direction the trouble is coming. I really find this rather odd.


So why jump in and stir it up?


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> All the time people make unsubstatiated comments about people who breed crosses, you will I'm afraid.
> 
> Just because some people dare to disagree and taken a different view to you, doesn't mean they are refusing to see what is "staring them in the face".
> 
> ...


I actually potentially agree with you that there are possibly as many unethical KC registering breeders as there are crossbred breeders, mainly as the KC allows puppy farmers and BYB's to register. I'm not entirely sure I think they should change that, as they are a registry for purebred dogs,a nd the dogs bred by these people (assuming they are honest, of course) are still purebreds. If they educated the general public, that would go a long way to help, the majority still do nto realise what makes agood ro ethical breeder, and why it isbetter to buy from someone who cares about what they are doing an dbreeds properly, than Bob down the road having his fifth litter from his bitch as she has been allowed to wander again. After all, 'good breeders' puppies are £600 and Bob's are only £50....

That said, what I do think is that there are many more ethical breeders of pedigree dogs than there are of crossbreed dogs, and the fact hat it took you two years to find a breeder you were happy with indicates that, and also you do only have to glance at the free ads or whatever to find plenty of unethically bred litters... In most cases, the only reason to cross breed is because people feel like it, and they don't think they need to health test 'cos it's onyl pedigrees that are unhealthy'...

What I think the KC should do is to improve the Accredited Breeder Scheme massively. Health testing should be _absolutely_ mandatory, and maybe DNA testing also, or at least they should phase it in. There should also be stricter regulations about how often and how many litters can be bred from a bitch, and although it varies from breed to breeed, a minimum age for a bitch to have a litter, they could maybe agree that with the bred clubs dependant on individual breed. Breeders should also not be able to register more than a certain number of litters per year unless they have specific permission and a very good reason for doing so. That would, at least, be a start.


----------



## Puma (Nov 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Because she made an unjustified sweeping statement... told me to back up my point (which I did) so I was asking simply for reciprocity... still haven't got it..
> 
> .... anyway, who are you... her mum ??





Elmo the Bear said:


> I take that means me... and the reason I only have "one view" (I guess that means others have varying views depending on which way the wind is blowing) is because people make unjustified statements... the same ones.. over and over.
> 
> I meet so many people who say "my puppy must be great as its registered with the KC"......... and its come from a puppy farm.
> So to keep giving people the impression that the KC is in some way an "MOT" is wrong.. so I'll stick with the one view.





Elmo the Bear said:


> So why jump in and stir it up?


And I might well ask you the same, who are you?
or rather i'll rephrase that!
Who do you think you are?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jackson said:


> I actually potentially agree with you that there are possibly as many unethical KC registering breeders as there are crossbred breeders, mainly as the KC allows puppy farmers and BYB's to register. I'm not entirely sure I think they should change that, as they are a registry for purebred dogs,a nd the dogs bred by these people (assuming they are honest, of course) are still purebreds. If they educated the general public, that would go a long way to help, the majority still do nto realise what makes agood ro ethical breeder, and why it isbetter to buy from someone who cares about what they are doing an dbreeds properly, than Bob down the road having his fifth litter from his bitch as she has been allowed to wander again. After all, 'good breeders' puppies are £600 and Bob's are only £50....
> 
> That said, what I do think is that there are many more ethical breeders of pedigree dogs than there are of crossbreed dogs, and the fact hat it took you two years to find a breeder you were happy with indicates that, and also you do only have to glance at the free ads or whatever to find plenty of unethically bred litters... In most cases, the only reason to cross breed is because people feel like it, and they don't think they need to health test 'cos it's onyl pedigrees that are unhealthy'...
> 
> What I think the KC should do is to improve the Accredited Breeder Scheme massively. Health testing should be _absolutely_ mandatory, and maybe DNA testing also, or at least they should phase it in. There should also be stricter regulations about how often and how many litters can be bred from a bitch, and although it varies from breed to breeed, a minimum age for a bitch to have a litter, they could maybe agree that with the bred clubs dependant on individual breed. Breeders should also not be able to register more than a certain number of litters per year unless they have specific permission and a very good reason for doing so. That would, at least, be a start.


I think the point I should stress again is that it took a long time for us to find a breeder we considered ethical. Our "bar" may be considerably higher than the common perception of ethical breeder. I'm not sure if the KC promulgate a view on whnat is considered ethical for breeders to register/have their dogs registered?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Puma said:


> And I might well ask you the same, who are you?
> or rather i'll rephrase that!
> Who do you think you are?


Someone who can answer for themselves


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Puma said:


> And I might well ask you the same, who are you?
> or rather i'll rephrase that!
> Who do you think you are?


I think I'm a reincarnated Inca deity, but that's between me and my therapist


----------



## Puma (Nov 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Someone who can answer for themselves


As can most by the time they reach puberty.


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I meet so many people who say "my puppy must be great as its registered with the KC"......... and its come from a puppy farm.
> So to keep giving people the impression that the KC is in some way an "MOT" is wrong.. so I'll stick with the one view.


And equally, I meet so many people who say 'oh, my dogs a crossbreed and I wouldn't have a pedigree dog as they are so unhealthy'...

_No one _ is saying the KC is perfect. However, the OP was asking of the benfits and comparisions between the KC and DLRC and most people seem to think the KC is leaps and bounds better than the DPRC, would you disgree with that?

Yes, plenty of the general public think that KC reg. is some sort of stamp of quality (as they do when they say 'oh, his Grandfather was BOB at Crufts... ) and education is the way forward. Pure bred, KC reg. dogs CAN be healthy, and breeders who KC reg. CAN be ethical, it is showing people how to find those breeders that is important.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Puma said:


> As can most by the time they reach puberty.


I must be an early starter then ... notice we're going off thread again without an answer to the "all cross breeders are unethical" question... how odd:wink:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jackson said:


> And equally, I meet so many people who say 'oh, my dogs a crossbreed and I wouldn't have a pedigree dog as they are so unhealthy'...
> 
> _No one _ is saying the KC is perfect. However, the OP was asking of the benfits and comparisions between the KC and DLRC and most people seem to think the KC is leaps and bounds better than the DPRC, would you disgree with that?
> 
> Yes, plenty of the general public think that KC reg. is some sort of stamp of quality (as they do when they say 'oh, his Grandfather was BOB at Crufts... ) and education is the way forward. Pure bred, KC reg. dogs CAN be healthy, and breeders who KC reg. CAN be ethical, it is showing people how to find those breeders that is important.


10/10 agree


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I think the point I should stress again is that it took a long time for us to find a breeder we considered ethical. Our "bar" may be considerably higher than the common perception of ethical breeder. I'm not sure if the KC promulgate a view on whnat is considered ethical for breeders to register/have their dogs registered?


Well, perhaps you can enlighten us all with your standards then and maybe we can all 'raise our bar'....


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I must be an early starter then ... notice we're going off thread again without an answer to the "all cross breeders are unethical" question... how odd:wink:


I think rather than justify her opions, the person who said that has decided to post on people's profiles. She certainly has on mine...


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

jackson said:


> And equally, I meet so many people who say 'oh, my dogs a crossbreed and I wouldn't have a pedigree dog as they are so unhealthy'...
> 
> _No one _ is saying the KC is perfect. However, the OP was asking of the benfits and comparisions between the KC and DLRC and most people seem to think the KC is leaps and bounds better than the DPRC, would you disgree with that?
> 
> Yes, plenty of the general public think that KC reg. is some sort of stamp of quality (as they do when they say 'oh, his Grandfather was BOB at Crufts... )


I agree with you KC is far better than DLRC. I also find it starnge on adverts especially crossbreed ones when they boast about parents are KC Reg and have so many Champions etc...If crossbreed owners/breeders are so much against the KC why do they feel the need to use the KC to promote their crosses. Have not seen many with Parents are DLRC reg as an incentive to catch buyers


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Elmo the bear said:


> I meet so many people who say "my puppy must be great as its registered with the KC"......... and its come from a puppy farm.
> So to keep giving people the impression that the KC is in some way an "MOT" is wrong.. so I'll stick with the one view.


There are good KC breeders and bad KC breeders as I said previously, the KC cannot be everywhere looking down the necks of everyone who is breeding, it can make guidelines which it does and it has its rules which is fair enough.
I fail to see why people who refuse to join up and take its rules and guidelines on board are somehow suddenly better breeders.



Jackson said:


> ..... what I do think is that there are many more ethical breeders of pedigree dogs than there are of crossbreed dogs, and the fact hat it took you two years to find a breeder you were happy with indicates that, and also you do only have to glance at the free ads or whatever to find plenty of unethically bred litters... In most cases, the only reason to cross breed is because people feel like it, and they don't think they need to health test 'cos it's onyl pedigrees that are unhealthy'...


My view too.


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I think the point I should stress again is that it took a long time for us to find a breeder we considered ethical. Our "bar" may be considerably higher than the common perception of ethical breeder. I'm not sure if the KC promulgate a view on whnat is considered ethical for breeders to register/have their dogs registered?


Was your breeders Dam and Sire KC or DLRC reg?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jackson said:


> Well, perhaps you can enlighten us all with your standards then and maybe we can all 'raise our bar'....


Everyone has their own standards and I'm guessing by the way you wrote that you think I'm saying that "I'm great and you're rubbish and your standards aren't as good as my standards" etc etc.... but I wasn't. I was simply making the point that the word "ethical" has a meaning and an interpretation.

Some (that's some) breeders interpret "ethical" one way and other breeders see it another... there is no standard.

In the absence of a standard, or a body to regulate that standard (the KC neither set nor regulate) everyone is free to make up their own.

Transpose that into the car market or anything else... unacceptable _"Oh yes guv we have an ethical standard for air bags... they're guranteed to come on within five minutes of impact"_... complete nonsense.

So what is the regulation....? none... yet buyers think the fact pups with "KC registered" in tow have some standard applied... well they must have.. surely... KC?? Kennel Club... with that nice Peter Purvis.. oh I'm sure the breeder has been inspected and licenced and the puppies checked and blah blah ... when in actual fact nothing of the sort has happened.

So I have mine (which is mine... not an expert (although I consulted enough) just mine... where is the expert regulatory body????.... not the KC... not the DLC (most certinaly not)... then who ??


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> I fail to see why people who refuse to join up and take its rules and guidelines on board are somehow suddenly better breeders.


And I fail to see why those who _do_ join _are_ suddenly better breeders.

I don't think I ever said those who don't register pups are better breeders.


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So what is the regulation....? none... yet buyers think the fact pups with "KC registered" in tow have some standard applied... well they must have.. surely... KC?? Kennel Club... with that nice Peter Purvis.. oh I'm sure the breeder has been inspected and licenced and the puppies checked and blah blah ... when in actual fact nothing of the sort has happened.
> 
> So I have mine (which is mine... not an expert (although I consulted enough) just mine... where is the expert regulatory body????.... not the KC... not the DLC (most certinaly not)... then who ??


So are your dogs from KC Registered Parents?? as I know crossbreed breeders use the "Parents are lovely KC Reg dogs with champions in their lines" routine often


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

> I don't think I ever said those who don't register pups are better breeders.


You have spent the last year slagging off the KC and purebred breeders on various threads and now you are saying that registering pups with the KC is a good thing???
I thought they were mostly puppy farmers and up to no good in your world.

You are splitting hairs and as usual up for a fight.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> You have spent the last year slagging off the KC and purebred breeders on various threads and now you are saying that registering pups with the KC is a good thing???
> I thought they were mostly puppy farmers and up to no good in your world.
> 
> You are splitting hairs and as usual up for a fight.


Where did I say joining the KC was a good thing... I was trying (and obviously failing) to make the point that being KC registered pups (or non) makes no difference because the KC do nothing to regulate breeding... some people think they do and will buy pups on the basis they think they're getting some sort of guarantee.

I am not "up for a fight".. it just annoys me that if I crticise the KC I'm told I know nothing yet you make a sweeping statement about crossbreeders (still without any justification at all) and that's OK... well its not.

If that wasn't clear.... no I do not think people should register pups with KC because there is no point.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

nancy63 said:


> So are your dogs from KC Registered Parents?? as I know crossbreed breeders use the "Parents are lovely KC Reg dogs with champions in their lines" routine often


Nancy... my dogs are "mongrels"... "mutts"... etc it doesn't matter and I'm not going to get personal about anyone's dogs.. including mine.

BTW .. we have two dogs that are (were) KC registered pups.... you can tell they are on account of the fact they cost more 

... no other difference :wink:


----------



## nancy63 (Dec 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Nancy... my dogs are "mongrels"... "mutts"... etc it doesn't matter and I'm not going to get personal about anyone's dogs.. including mine.
> 
> BTW .. we have two dogs that are (were) KC registered pups.... you can tell they are on account of the fact they cost more
> 
> ... no other difference :wink:


Okay lol My dog is a mutt or a whatever lol Just was wondering why you are against KC but may have bought a dog bred from KC parents. Anyway is it time for the chorus yet LOL


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> You have spent the last year slagging off the KC and purebred breeders on various threads and now you are saying that registering pups with the KC is a good thing???
> I thought they were mostly puppy farmers and up to no good in your world.
> 
> You are splitting hairs and as usual up for a fight.


Oh BTW:

1. "Slagging off purebred breeders" ? think not... no apology necessary.

2. "Slagging off the KC" ?think not... no apology necessary.

I think you're confusing your statement that all crossbreeders are puppy farmers with my statement that KC registration does give any sort of guarantee on health checks etc and that KC breeders are not "ethical" simply by registering their pups.

You're getting what you said (sweeping and unjustified statements)mixed up with me just giving my point of view.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

nancy63 said:


> Okay lol My dog is a mutt or a whatever lol Just was wondering why you are against KC but may have bought a dog bred from KC parents. Anyway is it time for the chorus yet LOL


I am not against the KC... I am against the view that is commonly held that registration with KC gives some kind of "gold seal" to the pup... it gives nothing at all. KC registered or not I want to see (verifiable) health checks etc etc.

I would not even bother to ask if a pup was KC registered because that doesn't answer my questions (a different "bar"... maybe not a higher one). So yes I'd buy KC registered dogs... same as I'd by no registered dogs and dogs that were members of the Brownies or the Mickey Mouse club (or is that just for pedigree mice) :wink:


----------



## Puma (Nov 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I am not against the KC... I am against the view that is commonly held that registration with KC gives some kind of "gold seal" to the pup... it gives nothing at all. KC registered or not I want to see (verifiable) health checks etc etc.
> 
> I would not even bother to ask if a pup was KC registered because that doesn't answer my questions (a different "bar"... maybe not a higher one). So yes I'd buy KC registered dogs... same as I'd by no registered dogs and dogs that were members of the Brownies or the Mickey Mouse club (or is that just for pedigree mice) :wink:


But surely then it is down to educating the public then about what to ask and what to look for then when buying a pup, and as I have said before NOT to take lightly anything that ANY breeder tells you, to do your own homework and check out everything that the breeder claims. You may not be a fan of the KC but for many it is a good place to start.

And whislt we are on the subject I know of someone who recently purchased a crossbred dog, this dog came with a 'pedigree certificate' and the owner has already discovered that the information on that certificate is fake. I am not prepared to go into this in any more detail other then in this instance the breeder may had met their comeuppence. But I cannot for the life of me understand why a breeder of 'mongrols would want to supply such a certificate.


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Everyone has their own standards and I'm guessing by the way you wrote that you think I'm saying that "I'm great and you're rubbish and your standards aren't as good as my standards" etc etc.... but I wasn't. I was simply making the point that the word "ethical" has a meaning and an interpretation.
> 
> Some (that's some) breeders interpret "ethical" one way and other breeders see it another... there is no standard.
> 
> ...


Very good, but you still haven't answered the question, and whether you think you're standard sare higher than anyone else's, or 'most' I am genuinely interested in what you would view as ethical, as I feel other than the od dchildish comment (intende dwith humour, I am sure) you have added some good points to the thread.



Elmo the Bear said:


> I am not against the KC... I am against the view that is commonly held that registration with KC gives some kind of "gold seal" to the pup... it gives nothing at all. KC registered or not I want to see (verifiable) health checks etc etc.
> 
> I would not even bother to ask if a pup was KC registered because that doesn't answer my questions (a different "bar"... maybe not a higher one). So yes I'd buy KC registered dogs... same as I'd by no registered dogs and dogs that were members of the Brownies or the Mickey Mouse club (or is that just for pedigree mice) :wink:


I think it is usually only people who do not know much about dogs at all that hold the view the KC is some kind of 'Gold Seal'

You own (or have owned) pedigree dogs and crossbreeds or 'mutts', some of which are obviously not KC registered, and some which are.

Would you buy a KC registereable breed from a breeder who did not KC register? I ask as whilst KC may not be a 'gold seal', I personally have never found what I consider to be an ethical breeder of a pedigree, KC recognised breed, that didnt' KC register...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Puma said:


> But I cannot for the life of me understand why a breeder of 'mongrols would want to supply such a certificate.


For the very reasons I've stated.. they want the certificates because the public believe that buy having "KC registered" on the ad that gives them some sort of stamp of approval.

MSN is slow tonight... anyone else having _trouble_?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I wonder why owners of doodle type crossbreeds are so defensive. There is nothing wrong with owning a crossbreed but there is everything wrong about being bigoted over it and trying to put people down that want a KC registered pup because they consider they then know what they are getting.


----------



## Puma (Nov 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> For the very reasons I've stated.. they want the certificates because the public believe that buy having "KC registered" on the ad that gives them some sort of stamp of approval.
> 
> But a pedigree certificate and KC registration do not go hand in hand, you can buy a blank pedigree certificate off ebay, or you can print your own.
> But what I find more alarming is that some of these breeders who are putting fake information on these certificates need to be aware that if they are claiming that the parents are KC registered (what everthe breed)then this information can be checked. So like em or like em not but the KC does have its uses.
> ...


But a pedigree certificate and KC registration do not go hand in hand, you can buy a blank pedigree certificate off ebay, or you can print your own. 
But what I find more alarming is that some of these breeders who are putting fake information on these certificates need to be aware that if they are claiming that the parents are KC registered (what everthe breed)then this information can be checked. So like em or like em not but the KC does have its uses.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jackson said:


> Very good, but you still haven't answered the question, and whether you think you're standard sare higher than anyone else's, or 'most' I am genuinely interested in what you would view as ethical, as I feel other than the od dchildish comment (intende dwith humour, I am sure) you have added some good points to the thread.
> 
> I think it is usually only people who do not know much about dogs at all that hold the view the KC is some kind of 'Gold Seal'
> 
> ...


But that is the problem... most buyers don't know anything about dogs... I doubt if any of us did when we bought first time round. I'm not an expert.. I'm lucky enough to know many, so I'm guided by them as to both what I need and what is feasible (you can't invent an accurate, comprehensive log of screening results for data comparability overnight) but a breed club could (but chooses not to) or the KC could (but chooses not to).

So would I buy from a breeder who could register but chose not to? what would be the reason for not registering? If the dog had all the health tests I needed then yes, probably would.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But that is the problem... most buyers don't know anything about dogs... I doubt if any of us did when we bought first time round. I'm not an expert.. I'm lucky enough to know many, so I'm guided by them as to both what I need and what is feasible (you can't invent an accurate, comprehensive log of screening results for data comparability overnight) but a breed club could (but chooses not to) or the KC could (but chooses not to).
> 
> So would I buy from a breeder who could register but chose not to? what would be the reason for not registering? If the dog had all the health tests I needed then yes, probably would.


so what is that ur consider as ethical.... ???


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jackson said:


> Very good, but you still haven't answered the question, and whether you think you're standard sare higher than anyone else's, or 'most' I am genuinely interested in what you would view as ethical, as I feel other than the od dchildish comment (intende dwith humour, I am sure) you have added some good points to the thread.
> 
> I think it is usually only people who do not know much about dogs at all that hold the view the KC is some kind of 'Gold Seal'
> 
> ...





Puma said:


> But a pedigree certificate and KC registration do not go hand in hand, you can buy a blank pedigree certificate off ebay, or you can print your own.
> But what I find more alarming is that some of these breeders who are putting fake information on these certificates need to be aware that if they are claiming that the parents are KC registered (what everthe breed)then this information can be checked. So like em or like em not but the KC does have its uses.


So I check with the KC and they say "yes" or (as an alternative) "no"..... that leaves me with a truthful or otherwise breeder. So the KC is a check to see if a breeder is honest?... so if the pedigree is correct (although you can't check all pedigree/histories with the KC because they only register the "breeds" they recognise... another whole thread i know) then... what ? I have a dog whose parents I know and I know its registered with the KC... so what... what does that give me as a buyer?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> so what is that ur consider as ethical.... ???


I am not a club and am not pretentious enough to push my "standards" on anyone. I simply wish there was an organisation that did regulated standards and ethics withint breeding and not just one that gives the impression it does that.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I am not a club and am not pretentious enough to push my "standards" on anyone. I simply wish there was an organisation that did regulated standards and ethics withint breeding and not just one that gives the impression it does that.


 i think u didnt understand my question so i try again...

what do u consider as ethical as im interested to know...


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But that is the problem... most buyers don't know anything about dogs... I doubt if any of us did when we bought first time round. I'm not an expert.. I'm lucky enough to know many, so I'm guided by them as to both what I need and what is feasible (you can't invent an accurate, comprehensive log of screening results for data comparability overnight) but a breed club could (but chooses not to) or the KC could (but chooses not to).
> 
> So would I buy from a breeder who could register but chose not to? what would be the reason for not registering? If the dog had all the health tests I needed then yes, probably would.


You are correct, a lot of buyers do not know anything about dogs, which is why education is the way forward. However, you would be suprised to find that many do know when they buy their first dog, because they have researched like mad, and as a breeder myself, this sort of buyer is especially welcomed by me.

Can you see any valid reason for a breeder of a KC recognised breed not KC registering the pups? I can't... Good breeding of pedigree dogs shoul dbe about improving and bettering the breed, in ALL ways, and that includes health testing, and if records are not kept, how can that be done properly?

And you should be a politician... what with all the excuses not to state your personal standards when looking for an ethical breeder. I think most of us would gladly state if asked, after all it may help others, and it is only your opinion after all, not law...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> i think u didnt understand my question so i try again...
> 
> what do u consider as ethical as im interested to know...


I understood your question, I just don't think that one individuals ethics are appropriate to a group. The group should decide where their ethical position is (we should have done that as a race but fail miserably).

The KC code includes not "culling" (mudering) healthy pups... why would you need that in there? It's a bit like saying "don't run out in front of that bus". My (personal) code is underpinned by what is right for the dog.. not me.. whether the dog is given the best environment in which to grow and the best health care during its formative weeks. Prior to that would be the requirement that both parents do not have an unecessary risk attached to the breeding (as in the tests you would expect, plus DNA, no "line"/in breeding for breed specific requirements, only breeding for health (and temperment).... the list goes on and on and on.......


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jackson said:


> And you should be a politician... what with all the excuses not to state your personal standards when looking for an ethical breeder. I think most of us would gladly state if asked, after all it may help others, and it is only your opinion after all, not law...


... but I'm not a politician therefore I'm under no obligation to divulge my private view..... but I have (in part)


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Well, all I can say is that you're lucky all the 'experts' you know were happy enough to divulge their personal views on ethics to you, otherwise you'd still be none the wiser.... 


How are people supposed to learn if ther eis no-one to guide or help them? 

And actually, some breed clubs do lay down codes of ethics...


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I understood your question, I just don't think that one individuals ethics are appropriate to a group. The group should decide where their ethical position is (we should have done that as a race but fail miserably).


u said ur bar is set high when it comes down to ethics so im interested as an individual on this forum to know what ur consider as ethical...

why dont u just answer me? unless ur ethics are that low and not going hand in hand with ur previous statement that ur rather not answer at all....


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> u said ur bar is set high when it comes down to ethics so im interested as an individual on this forum to know what ur consider as ethical...
> 
> why dont u just answer me? unless ur ethics are that low and not going hand in hand with ur previous statement that ur rather not answer at all....


errr I did answer........ I actually said my bar was not the same... not necessarily high (height is a bit of an abstract concept in this matter)


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jackson said:


> Well, all I can say is that you're lucky all the 'experts' you know were happy enough to divulge their personal views on ethics to you, otherwise you'd still be none the wiser....
> 
> How are people supposed to learn if ther eis no-one to guide or help them?
> 
> And actually, some breed clubs do lay down codes of ethics...


They weren't personal views they were professional views. The problem is their profession is not "dogs" so they are paid to advise on their field of expertise (genetics) but not to the KC or to an appropriate regulatory body. If there was one then funds could be raised (through licensing) to pay professional to advice on the appropriate genetics, testing, screening to improve the health of the genral population (dogs that is).

But - No body, no regulations, no standards etc etc etc thats what we have now.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> errr I did answer........


sorry, i read the first sentence and just assumed ur going on about the kc again :blush: 

so its...
good enviroment
best health care
health testing
no line/in breeding
breeding good character

etc etc

Thats much the same as most people would class someone as an ethical breeder....

and it took u 2 years to find one in ur "breed" ?


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

I think the bickering is becoming boring again..


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> They weren't personal views they were professional views. The problem is their profession is not "dogs" so they are paid to advise on their field of expertise (genetics) but not to the KC or to an appropriate regulatory body. If there was one then funds could be raised (through licensing) to pay professional to advice on the appropriate genetics, testing, screening to improve the health of the genral population (dogs that is).
> 
> But - No body, no regulations, no standards etc etc etc thats what we have now.


The KC DO employ geneticists. 

So what you are saying is, you have been advised on dogs, by people who know nothing about dogs? Even more interested to hear what your personal ethics are now, and no, you haven't posted them... not really, and you know that...

I can onyl assume,as Natik has posted, that maybe you feel your own ethics aren't up to the standards of others on here, and THAT is why you haven't really posted them...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jackson said:


> The KC DO employ geneticists.
> 
> So what you are saying is, you have been advised on dogs, by people who know nothing about dogs? Even more interested to hear what your personal ethics are now, and no, you haven't posted them... not really, and you know that...
> 
> I can onyl assume,as Natik has posted, that maybe you feel your own ethics aren't up to the standards of others on here, and THAT is why you haven't really posted them...


Yes that's exactly what I said. You win.


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Yes that's exactly what I said. You win.


LOL, it's surely not about that?!

It's always interesting to debate things, and always interesting to hear other's views on it.

As I said much earlier in the thread, I have friends who are intereste din having crossbred dogs, but have never been able to find one ethically bred, so have taken in rescues. It is encouraging to know there are potentially ethical breeders of crossbreeds out there and I was genuinely interested to know what made you chose the breeder you did, especially since it took you so long and such an obvious amount of consideration.

That was all...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jackson said:


> The KC DO employ geneticists.
> 
> So what you are saying is, you have been advised on dogs, by people who know nothing about dogs? Even more interested to hear what your personal ethics are now, and no, you haven't posted them... not really, and you know that...
> 
> I can onyl assume,as Natik has posted, that maybe you feel your own ethics aren't up to the standards of others on here, and THAT is why you haven't really posted them...


Sorry.. I thought I'd given up then as it obviously wasn't getting through, but the I realised you were all obviously just misreading posts.

"There are potentially ethical breeders of crossbreeds out there"... try not to be quite so crass. There are a great deal; they have to have higher standards as they cannot hide behind the KC badge. They have to produce evidence of testing ... not just just "yeah well they're KC registered mate so they're cosher"

So... I take advice on geentics from experts in genetics (doesn't matter if its a dog a cat or an owl). So that is a bit silly to make a remark like that.

Your ethics, as you support the KC, must be in line with their's which manages to reach as high as not murdering puppies... how very magnanimous of you all.

Natik listed some points:

"so its...
good enviroment
best health care
health testing
no line/in breeding
breeding good character

etc etc

Thats much the same as most people would class someone as an ethical breeder....

and it took u 2 years to find one in ur "breed" ? "

First off I don't have a breed, secondly what I have put may be much the same as other people would class an ethical breeder , but not the KC. No requirement from them for health testing... in fact a statement saying why they're not doing it.

Because the dogs I like are alienated by the narrow minds of those who (without fail) say to me "but there are lots of dogs that are pedigree, have one of those instead of a cross" and the go on to talk about the fantastic (untested, pre genetic, pre health test) history of their breed. I think I would take considerably more years to find a breeder of KC recognised dogs that met the self imposed standards I looked for.

So I'm sorry but the standards I look for are not as low as no health testing (KC), having to remind breeders that you don't "cull" healthy pups.

And sorry to repeat myself but genetics is not a dog thing... its a science thing.

If you want to personally attack me because I oppose the weak will and inaction of the KC fine... go ahead, but please stop conning people into believing that KC registration gives them any more than a piece of paper.

I'm not going to to try and defend cross breeders anymore. I'm not a breeder and never want to be but all the time KC registering breeders want to continue unregulated and unchecked then conversations like this will continue. Hopefully the buying public will start to ask what the piece of paper means... maybe some breeders will be honest enough to say "well nothing really" and start to regulate themselves.... hmmm


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

jackson said:


> Well, all I can say is that you're lucky all the 'experts' you know were happy enough to divulge their personal views on ethics to you, otherwise you'd still be none the wiser....
> 
> How are people supposed to learn if ther eis no-one to guide or help them?
> 
> And actually, some breed clubs do lay down codes of ethics...


what about putting to use one's brain and set the standards oneself?, why does one should need some experts to work out the ethics?...experts have invaluable knowledge (from genetics to animal husbandry) from which we learn and work out ways to make things better for our dogs, hence achieve the milestones set out in own ethics...
best
d


----------



## u-look-like-a-hamster (Aug 17, 2008)

Can KC also mean kennel cough?

Fred's sdoption papers say he had KC which is kennel cough right 

lol


----------



## alaun (Jul 21, 2009)

u-look-like-a-hamster said:


> Can KC also mean kennel cough?
> 
> Fred's sdoption papers say he had KC which is kennel cough right
> 
> lol


Yes it can. All these acronyms can be quite confusing


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I am not a club and am not pretentious enough to push my "standards" on anyone. *I simply wish there was an organisation that did regulated standards and ethics withint breeding and not just one that gives the impression it does that*.


In that case, what you are looking for is a breed club with a decent code of ethics


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> They weren't personal views they were professional views. The problem is their profession is not "dogs" so they are paid to advise on their field of expertise (genetics) but not to the KC or to an appropriate regulatory body. If there was one then funds could be raised (through licensing) to pay professional to advice on the appropriate genetics, testing, screening to improve the health of the genral population (dogs that is).
> 
> But - No body, no regulations, no standards etc etc etc thats what we have now.


Many, many breed clubs raise funds and pay for research into health issues, as does the KC. (Sorry, Jackson - see you've already commented on this  )


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> In that case, what you are looking for is a breed club with a decent code of ethics


But should there not be one code of ethics and one regulatory organisation? It would stop breed clubs being able to pick and choose. The KC's current "code" is mandatory, there is no opt out on most points - (which is good) but fails to address health issues (which is bad).


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Quote from Elmo the Bear: "There are potentially ethical breeders of crossbreeds out there"... try not to be quite so crass. There are a great deal; *they have to have higher standards as they cannot hide behind the KC badge*. They have to produce evidence of testing ... not just just "yeah well they're KC registered mate so they're cosher"

Elmo - perhaps you could endeavour to be a little more polite?

Could you please also explain your comment re why just breeders of crossbreds/mutts have to have higher standards and would have to provide evidence of health testing? Unfortunately, by far the majority of the general public still haven't got a clue about health testing (too lazy to do any proper research ) and don't bother to ask ANY "breeder" about it. If they are clued up about health testing, they will ask.

And you are accusing us who belong to breed clubs, follow their codes of ethics and breed pedigree, KC registered dogs of not having high standards?? Some of us have very high standards - some don't. Some who breed crossbreds/mutts have very high standards - some don't. Simple really.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> Many, many breed clubs raise funds and pay for research into health issues, as does the KC. (Sorry, Jackson - see you've already commented on this  )


But if you don't apply that research and turn the findings into madatory instructions viz testing has shown that only cattle over thirty months could introduce BSE into the food chain therefore no cattle over thirty months will be introduced into the food chain... mandatory... effective.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But should there not be one code of ethics and one regulatory organisation? It would stop breed clubs being able to pick and choose. The KC's current "code" is mandatory, there is no opt out on most points - (which is good) but fails to address health issues (which is bad).


Well perhaps the KC's accredited breeder scheme has something going for it then, as one of the "accolades" is about breed club membership?

Personally, if I was buying a KC registerable breed, I would only buy one that is actually registered as I would be very concerned about why it wasn't registered if not. As an ethical and caring breeder, I endorse all the pups that I breed - so their progeny wouldn't be eligible for registration.

Having said this, I do agree that the KC isn't perfect. It is moving in the right direction, too slowly but at least it is better than the alternatives. I am considering joining the AB scheme as it has recently improved. Now you can't join unless you have a bitch of breeding age and soon all breeding stock will have to be DNA profiled.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> Quote from Elmo the Bear: "There are potentially ethical breeders of crossbreeds out there"... try not to be quite so crass. There are a great deal; *they have to have higher standards as they cannot hide behind the KC badge*. They have to produce evidence of testing ... not just just "yeah well they're KC registered mate so they're cosher"
> 
> Elmo - perhaps you could endeavour to be a little more polite?
> 
> ...


I'm guessing you're reading everything I write out of context by accident... I've not been rude.. the part you noted my apparent impoliteness against is in inverted commas.. it was drawing an inference that hiding behind the KC paperwork is similar to that of a second had car dealer hiding behind an MOT he produced on his photocopier.

The earlier accusation was that all crossbreeders are unethical and only breed for money. I've still not had a response when I asked for justification of that comment other it doesn't need to be justified. So the general view here is that cross breeders are fair game but all others are innocent until proven otherwise.

My point was very, very simple. There needs to be oen effective regulatory body that sets and regulates standards. Those standards must be set against the best scientific information and research.

So in short I did not say cross breeders have to have higher standards, what I do believe is at the moment, a cross breeder when questioned, will have to produce health testing information etc etc whereas a breeder with KC registered pups will simply produce that registration... a registration which porves nothing other than the fact they are registered.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But if you don't apply that research and turn the findings into madatory instructions viz testing has shown that only cattle over thirty months could introduce BSE into the food chain therefore no cattle over thirty months will be introduced into the food chain... mandatory... effective.


You're wrong about the 30 month rule  - we farm 

I do understand what you are saying, though, Elmo. But the trouble with having hard and fast rules re breeding eg a certain total score for a hip score, does mean that you could lose really good animals, who perhaps carry rare bloodlines, from the gene pool. For example, one of mine scored a high score - she had an accident when young and damaged just one hip. So her total score was higher than the average. If a blanket ban of breeding from animals over the mean score had been applied, I couldn't have bred from her, and she had one wonderful litter and one of her sons has bred some excellent dogs - with good hip scores, wonderful temperaments, good health etc etc. So some disgression needs to be given.

I also think that the public have to take some responsibility about puppy purchases - find out what conditions can apply to their chosen breed/breeds and do their own research.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> all breeding stock will have to be DNA profiled.


but as I understand it the profiling is simply for identification? What is the point in that.

So OTMS did not stop beef cattle over thirty months from entering the food chain then ? (maybe I should have qualified this by saying between '96 and '05). Maybe you could explain which bit I have wrong.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I'm guessing you're reading everything I write out of context by accident... I've not been rude.. the part you noted my apparent impoliteness against is in inverted commas.. it was drawing an inference that hiding behind the KC paperwork is similar to that of a second had car dealer hiding behind an MOT he produced on his photocopier.
> 
> The earlier accusation was that all crossbreeders are unethical and only breed for money. I've still not had a response when I asked for justification of that comment other it doesn't need to be justified. So the general view here is that cross breeders are fair game but all others are innocent until proven otherwise.
> 
> ...


Sorry, Elmo, when I read the section where you wrote the part that says "cross breeders have to have higher standards", I foolishly thought you were saying that you thought that "cross breeders have to have higher standards" - silly me.

And where do you get the idea that a breeder of KC reg pups will just produce the registration when asked about health testing? Unless, of course, you mean that they will produce the KC registration docs of the parents and/or pups that will have the results of health testing on them - then that is all that will be necessary.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> Sorry, Elmo, when I read the section where you wrote the part that says "cross breeders have to have higher standards", I foolishly thought you were saying that you thought that "cross breeders have to have higher standards" - silly me.
> 
> And where do you get the idea that a breeder of KC reg pups will just produce the registration when asked about health testing? Unless, of course, you mean that they will produce the KC registration docs of the parents and/or pups that will have the results of health testing on them - then that is all that will be necessary.


Sorry that'll be me being rude then. The KC registration document has to have health test results on it??? Excellent... well that's one step forward.

OK... currently (because there is not mandatory testing) cross breederd (who don't have the advantage of a KC registration certificate (the new one with the health tests on) have to produce actual helth test results if asked.. thereby they have to have higher standrads (the actual test information) because they cannot produce a KC registration... even though (in my opinion) that registration means nothing.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

... I have a load of dogs to walk. I've come to the conclusion that most here don't want any standards and are happy with self regulation.. so I'm wasting my time. Thanks anyway.


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Whilst the KC doesn't force us to have standards, it doesn't mean we don't have to have any, does it... 


As for health testing, you must have met some dreadful breeders who KC register to think they do things the way you do. Just because people chose to KC register, does not mean they agree with all their policies or that they are perfect. 

Personally, on top of that, despite health test results being on KC papers, I still show health test results to potential owners, and copies of the stud dog's health test results and KC papers too, as I do not own any stud dogs. They are also given the owner of the stud dogs number to contact her and visit if they so wish. I wouldn't entertain using a stud dog who's owner wasn't co-operative in that, or that didn't ask to see copies of my bitches health test results. 

I am not sure where you get the idea that breeders who KC reg. would entertain the idea of culling healthy pups either? Maybe that is something that occurred years ago, but it certainly isn't something that would even come into the equation for sane people.... 

Like I said earlier in the htread, there are good and bad breeders everywhere. There are even some breeders who have got it wrong but had the best intentions, and eduction is the key here aswell. 

I do wonder why, if ethical breeders of crossbreeds are so easy to find, why it took two year sto find one that you were happy with though?


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> but as I understand it the profiling is simply for identification? What is the point in that.
> 
> So OTMS did not stop beef cattle over thirty months from entering the food chain then ? (maybe I should have qualified this by saying between '96 and '05). Maybe you could explain which bit I have wrong.


You said "therefore no cattle over thirty months will be introduced into the food chain..." - if you had said "were" introduced into the food chain, you would have been right. You have corrected yourself in your later statement.

Re DNA profiling - surely it is a good thing for all breeding stock to be permanently identified and then profiled? Then it's easier to prove the parentage of puppies (should someone feel this is in doubt - not an issue I've had with the breeders of pedigree dogs that I know!) and hence know the tested health status of their parents (who also have been permanently identified, with this being checked at the time of testing)? I thought the lack of provability of parentage was one of your issues with the KC - but may well have confused you with someone else here. If so - I apologise


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

well, as i said in another post...

until the "customers" are not educated in the ways of the law and start suing for big bucks breeders of poorly bred dogs, the situation won;t be any better.

unfortunately there is a lot of legislation that applies to the case of poorly bred dogs, like washing machines or cars, but the public do not use it...and bear the the monetary expenses as well as the emotional instead of suing the hell out breeders who are not able to produce dogs that will be able to run or jumping the stairs after the 5th or 6th year of age! or that have fits, or drop dead for a heart attack, go blind at the age of 2 - 3yo, collapse after 30 minutes running...and the list goes on and on...

i would be inclined in promoting further this sort of legislation and make the breeders bear the costs of any animal they produce which has a morbidity rate inferior to that of the whole specie, no matter which club or company they have their dogs registered with...

it would be a start and gesture of good will for breeders to start by mentioning the buyers' rights on their contracts, i wonder how many do actually do that...i

here is a suggestion:
*_Your statutory rights are regulated by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002) whereas the conditions are applicable_

this covers faulty "goods" as well as damages deriving from them
Best
D


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry that'll be me being rude then. The KC registration document has to have health test results on it??? Excellent... well that's one step forward.
> 
> OK... currently (because there is not mandatory testing) cross breederd (who don't have the advantage of a KC registration certificate (the new one with the health tests on) have to produce actual helth test results if asked.. thereby they have to have higher standrads (the actual test information) because they cannot produce a KC registration... even though (in my opinion) that registration means nothing.


Sorry, Elmo, but your second paragraph lacks logic! Surely the point is that parents of a litter have had the appropriate health tests? Just because one set may be recorded on the KC docs and the second set (from breeders of crossbreds) have to actually be physically produced does NOT mean a difference in standards at all - just different paperwork


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2009)

Can I just say, that I think Elmo talks alot of sense, how difficult can it be to understand what hes trying to say. 

Breeders with KC registered pups can still get a good price and seem to get a lot of respect by the public even though they might not have had any health checks test done. Where as the respected cross breeder does not have the KC to hide behind and so has to have the health checks done to set them apart from the cross breeders that are doing it for the wrong reason, KC registered breeder can still do it for the wrong reasons but because they are KC the public put them on a pedistal.

I'm not too sure why that is so hard to understand as yes a cross breeder will have to work harder and set his standards higher than the average KC breeder that don't do the health checks but will still have the advantage of the pups being KC registered.

I am a newish KC registered breeder that has all my dogs health tested, but can see where Elmo is coming from and some of you do need to be more open minded and not take instant offence by some one who feels as strongly about cross breeds as we do about pedigrees.

And as regards to it taking Elmo two years to find what he was looking for, so what, the same thing could be said for finding a quality KC dog/puppy, it took me 15 month to find a health tested KC registered stud dog for my breed and i still have to travel an hour to get to him. I good breeder in the KC can be as hard to find as a good breeder of a cross.

I too have now finished with this post, as I have said before I have my answer to my post and respect the opinion on both sides.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> Sorry, Elmo, but your second paragraph lacks logic! Surely the point is that parents of a litter have had the appropriate health tests? Just because one set may be recorded on the KC docs and the second set (from breeders of crossbreds) have to actually be physically produced does NOT mean a difference in standards at all - just different paperwork


*
The KC registration does not include proof of health tests*. Why are you trying to say it does. You may be able to get documents from the KC that show you've had helath test but the majority of sellers simply put "KC registered" in the advert to make people think that gives some sort of assurance as to health. Sorry,my paragraph was being sarcastic.

A KC registered dog does not have to have any health tests at all to have KC registration paperwork. Some breeders do not have health tests, they simply produce the registration and buyers think that means the dog has had tests etc... when they may not have had.

A non (cross) KC registered breeder does not have the KC regsitration document so has to have health test documents.

You are (and this is the huge problem) inferring that KC registration = health tests when it does nothing of the sort... this is the con I have a problem with.

Far from lacking logic, my paragraph is written in reasonble english but you choose to misunderstand so you can justify continued self regulation.

All I'm trying to do is get compulsory health testing for dogs that are to be bred or sold... the KC refuses (aided by the breed clubs) to do this... why?


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

dexter said:


> are there. have you got figures to prove it??? more pedigree breeders than mutt/designer breeders????????


 No and neither do the people making the assumption about cross breed breeders!


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

dexter said:


> yeah and i have seen the same with total outcrosses!!!!!


Oh dear some people jump to conclusions - I was generalising. Maybe I will have to start nposting in simple terms


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

ally said:


> Oh dear some people jump to conclusions - I was generalising. Maybe I will have to start nposting in simple terms


please do.............................no need to be patronising!!!


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> *
> The KC registration does not include proof of health tests*. Why are you trying to say it does. You may be able to get documents from the KC that show you've had helath test but the majority of sellers simply put "KC registered" in the advert to make people think that gives some sort of assurance as to health. Sorry,my paragraph was being sarcastic.
> 
> A KC registered dog does not have to have any health tests at all to have KC registration paperwork. Some breeders do not have health tests, they simply produce the registration and buyers think that means the dog has had tests etc... when they may not have had.
> ...


Come on... the general public are widely naive about dog buying, they don't even know to ask about health testing from KC breeders, let alone cross breeders. (where there is also no regulation)

I agree with you the KC should make health testing mandatory, I don't think anyone on this board is disagreeing with that. I also happen to think they should make a number of other changes, including the mimimum age a bitch may have puppies, the number of litters a bitch may have, six is more than excessive. (Most breeders I know will have one or two litters from a bitch, three at a push and only then if there is a really good reason for doing so).

There ar emany mor echanges the KC need otmake, but they are (slowly) getting there. However, the question at the start of this thread was asking about the DLRC versus the KC, and the KC is MUCH better, despite not being perfect.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

ally said:


> Oh dear some people jump to conclusions - I was generalising. Maybe I will have to start nposting in simple terms


well ally, this unfortunately is a very common occurrence as one can see by reading the 24 page-long thread, there are a few very good posters open to debate that instead of carrying out personal attacks or making pointless argument trying to make their points in the best possible way...and to what avail?
i see two main sources of distortion that can be centred of the following scenarios:

scenario 1) some dogs - breed of dogs - have a very limited healthy life span say, 6 years, (statistics collected over a large sample of the population) VS my ONLY same breed dog form the line KC XYZ lived to be 7 and 1/2 -> hence all dogs from that line are healthier...

this i guess can be rectified by trying to explain what is an average/mean, and why a single case (over thousand) is not a good enough to disprove what's happening in general.

scenario 2) i am a breeder following the code of ethic of the club hence i am ethical and likewise all (or most) breeders in my club (as that's the reason we joined the club), all others, especially those cross breed breeders are not...
at this point a deepening knowledge on why people join the club can give is a better understanding...OBVIOUSLY IS FOR THE BETTERING OF THE BREED (right!)

statements of the like have been sweeping this thread since the beginning...probably that's where the problem lies.
we all get defensive when people touch on our system of beliefs, and excuses, factoids, justifications are brought about to substantiate personal opinions, to push one's agenda instead of looking at the facts and assess them clear-and-open-mindedly.

if one just gazes through the present thread (and similar ones), these attitudes are easily observable... i, at present, i would leave it at that, and, given that it has been implied that "i sleep" with someone i don't know, that I don't know what i'm talking about, that my posts prove something that i said outright as i were in court or somewhere more sinister than a court...and that i should get a life instead of collecting data and analysing averages.. + a good deal of other insults... i would call myself out.
wishing all to enjoy the discussion while keeping the mind as shut as it can possibly be and wishing all the best to inbred/linebred dogs will continue to win rosettes at cruft's and make their proud owner a lot of money.

ciao for now

best
D


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> well ally, this unfortunately is a very common occurrence as one can see by reading the 24 page-long thread, there are a few very good posters open to debate that instead of carrying out personal attacks or making pointless argument trying to make their points in the best possible way...and to what avail?
> i see two main sources of distortion that can be centred of the following scenarios:
> 
> scenario 1) some dogs - breed of dogs - have a very limited healthy life span say, 6 years, (statistics collected over a large sample of the population) VS my ONLY same breed dog form the line KC XYZ lived to be 7 and 1/2 -> hence all dogs from that line are healthier...
> ...


As an ex-breeder of pedigree KC registered dogs I do try and see both sides (ie the pedigree versus crossbreed/mongrel and the healthchecking/decent breeder and bybs, but I see why certain posters (usually us crossbreed owners) get to the point of using stats to make our point when WE are having people making incorrect judgements about breeders of our dogs ie: assuming none healthcheck or all are bybs etc; people call our dogs "mutts" - do we call your dogs anything other than their name if known or their breed??? NO! The stats one poster put up were, in fact requested and used to make a valid point. I for one can see that people are entitled to choose their own dog/pet/breed whatever AND expect respect and civility for that - we just get fed up with the endless preaching about how wonderful pedigrees/pedigree breeders and the KC are and how evil and demonic crossbreed and mongrel breeders are. It's like a persistant thing certain people bring up over and over and over...why? It seems that this one poster with his stats has proved his point and backed it up with facts... if people don't like that then they have to get real. Fact: we try and respect your opinions and choices, please respect ours.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> *
> The KC registration does not include proof of health tests*. Why are you trying to say it does. You may be able to get documents from the KC that show you've had helath test but the majority of sellers simply put "KC registered" in the advert to make people think that gives some sort of assurance as to health. Sorry,my paragraph was being sarcastic.
> 
> A KC registered dog does not have to have any health tests at all to have KC registration paperwork. Some breeders do not have health tests, they simply produce the registration and buyers think that means the dog has had tests etc... when they may not have had.
> ...


Elmo - I'm sorry but I think that you are trying to misunderstand me! I certainly have not said that KC registered means health tested - just said that if you look at the KC registration docs of pups from health tested parents, then the results of the parents' health tests will be recorded on their KC docs - not the same thing at all! If a buyer is clued up enough to ask about health tests, then they won't just accept the fact that a breed is KC registered as proof of testing. The sad fact is that most buyers don't bother to find out about health conditions (whether of a KC reg breed, a cross or a mutt) - they just want a puppy NOW.

I also have not said that KC registered means quality. My main breed (bit obvious from my username!) has been well and truly targetted by people that I would regard as puppy farmers - no wish to health test, no understanding of, or care about the breed, just motivated by money. I hope that it's obvious from my posts that I think ALL breeding stock should be health tested for relevant conditions - surely I've made that clear? - whether they be purebred or crossbred, and I've said that there are ethical breeders in all camps, and completely unethical ones as well.

I fail to understand why you think that the breed clubs don't want compulsory health testing as a requisite for KC registration - many of them do.

Where we disagree is that my starting point would be making sure that a dog I purchased was KC reg (if an eligible breed) rather than unregistered or registered with an "alternative" registry. However, KC reg would just be my starting point!


----------



## PFModerator (Jun 24, 2009)

This as always is now starting to get personal to some of our members please refrain from this and if not it will be another one closed


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

PFModerator said:


> This as always is now starting to get personal to some of our members please refrain from this and if not it will be another one closed


* do we have a new mod?*


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> If a buyer is clued up enough to ask about health tests, then they won't just accept the fact that a breed is KC registered as proof of testing. The sad fact is that most buyers don't bother to find out about health conditions (whether of a KC reg breed, a cross or a mutt) - they just want a puppy NOW.
> 
> I fail to understand why you think that the breed clubs don't want compulsory health testing as a requisite for KC registration - many of them do.


On your first point.. my point exactly. Buyers aren't clued up and believe that a KC registration is some sort of proof of a healthy animal when it isn't. They walks away thinking they have some sort of warranty when they simply have a worthless piece of paper.

On the second point, if the breed clubs want compulsory testing, how many of the m are lobyying the government, the KC or anyone (At all) for this?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

this thread is so stupid you have to either laugh or cry. I think such ignorance and bigotry makes me laugh though.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Blitz said:


> this thread is so stupid you have to either laugh or cry. I think such ignorance and bigotry makes me laugh though.


Glad you're having a laugh... which particular ignorance and bigotry were you referring to? or are you in the broad and sweeping statements camp


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> On your first point.. my point exactly. Buyers aren't clued up and believe that a *KC registration is some sort of proof of a healthy animal when it isn't.* They walks away thinking they have some sort of warranty when they simply have a worthless piece of paper.
> 
> On the second point, if the breed clubs want compulsory testing, how many of the m are lobyying the government, the KC or anyone (At all) for this?


i must somehow disagree with that with having talked to alot of people who bought their first dog.... none of them was even aware there are health issues within the breed and what kind of issues, none of them were aware that health testing excists so none of them actually believed they are buying a healthy animal because its kc registered.... so tbh ur statement isnt really correct going by that....


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> * do we have a new mod?*


i believe its the anonymous moderator account...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> i must somehow disagree with that with having talked to alot of people who bought their first dog.... none of them was even aware there are health issues within the breed and what kind of issues, none of them were aware that health testing excists so none of them actually believed they are buying a healthy animal because its kc registered.... so tbh ur statement isnt really correct going by that....


So what was their view of the KC registration document? I'm not doubting that they didn't know about health testing, but they must have thought the KC registration meant something?


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2009)

Blitz said:


> this thread is so stupid you have to either laugh or cry. I think such ignorance and bigotry makes me laugh though.


Thanks for the insult, since I started the thread. Some of us are not "know it alls" and therefore respect and want the opinions of others, if its so stupid why read and comment!! Sad !!!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

jaradethan said:


> Thanks for the insult, since I started the thread. Some of us are not "know it alls" and therefore respect and want the opinions of others, if its so stupid why read and comment!! Sad !!!


I don't think the poster was saying the thread per se was silly...

I think the question of registration is valid but without regulation it means very little.

I could start a club tomorrow called the "Absolutely Right Science and Ethics" society (do your own acronym). Gets lots of members and issue certificates to people as I saw fit.

I could keep on doing this for, say 137 years... do the certificates mean anything?... not really...not without the standards I promulgate being open to check.. not without regulation that what I say is true and not without some scientific bakcing (that is recognised not discredited 'science').

You made a point in your opening post about the other organisation and the fact they produce great certificates etc etc. Nothing wrong with that, but what does it mean for the dogs...? It simply means they are registered somewhere... same as registering them with the KC. So without checks and balances, neither organisation can offer much more than nice peice of paper.


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

Blitz said:


> this thread is so stupid you have to either laugh or cry. I think such ignorance and bigotry makes me laugh though.


Not sure about the ignorance, but there's plenty of bigotry again!!! Some people just need to respect other folks choice of dog and opinions rather than take the superiority route. Do the mod's now have an "umbrella log-in" or is this another mod? If so welcome.


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

Natik said:


> i must somehow disagree with that with having talked to alot of people who bought their first dog.... none of them was even aware there are health issues within the breed and what kind of issues, none of them were aware that health testing excists so none of them actually believed they are buying a healthy animal because its kc registered.... so tbh ur statement isnt really correct going by that....


As a first time dog owner this thread has been really interesting. I was unaware so many people buying dogs know nothing of health testing or think a KC registration is some sort of warranty.

My husband had had our chosen breed before but I spent hours researching, so I knew what to ask breeders and the potential health risks of the breed. We went to shows to talk to breeders and owners and asked for recommendations.

At no point did I think KC registration was some sort of MOT, I looked for the full package. In fact we walked away from one breeder, who although was within the Breed Club Code of Ethics, we felt they were pushing it right up to the limit.

TBH I wouldn't have considered a litter not KC registered as I would have felt they had something to hide e.g. one parent had endorsements. To my mind it was a starting point, as the question would be 'Why not register?'. I fully realise it's not some sort of 'gold seal'of approval. Maybe we were in the minority of people getting a puppy?


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So what was their view of the KC registration document? I'm not doubting that they didn't know about health testing, but they must have thought the KC registration meant something?


for them its simply a registry where u get a pedigree for their dogs... (if its a correct pedigree or not is obviously another thing)

Yes, people believe that having champions in the pedigree is some sort of guarantee for a quality dog (which obviously it isnt) but thats little to do with the kc and more down to their lack of research and understanding...



Polimba said:


> As a first time dog owner this thread has been really interesting. I was unaware so many people buying dogs know nothing of health testing or think a KC registration is some sort of warranty.
> 
> My husband had had our chosen breed before but I spent hours researching, so I knew what to ask breeders and the potential health risks of the breed. We went to shows to talk to breeders and owners and asked for recommendations.
> 
> ...


its good to know there are people like u who do their research before purchasing a puppy but sadly there are alot of people who dont and often dont know what to look out for...

I too would be concerned why someone wouldnt register as like u said, dogs could be endorsed or it might be even a stolen dog, or its a rescue dog totally unsuitable for breeding... there is alot of negative reasons to why not to register and no good enough ones as an excuse....


----------



## babycham2002 (Oct 18, 2009)

Polimba said:


> As a first time dog owner this thread has been really interesting. I was unaware so many people buying dogs know nothing of health testing or think a KC registration is some sort of warranty.
> 
> My husband had had our chosen breed before but I spent hours researching, so I knew what to ask breeders and the potential health risks of the breed. We went to shows to talk to breeders and owners and asked for recommendations.
> 
> ...


Totally agree with this statement.
I too am buying my first pedigree puppy (not first dog)
and I feel that we are in the minority of new puppy buyers, which is sad.


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

An advantage of KC registration is that you can look up the health test results (if any!) of the parents and grandparents etc of a litter that you might be interested in. Just follow/copy the link and put in the KC name of the dogs 

Dog Health Test Search â€¢ The Kennel Club

I believe that as from 1st Jan, any dog will have to be permanently identified before any tests are done. Another step in the right direction.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

Can you UK members answer a question for me? Are you saying that KC registered dogs and pups do not have any identification? Over here all pups and dogs that are KC reg either have to be tatooed or microchipped. Just a little confused as I thought that this was standard. ............Jill


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

Ridgielover said:


> An advantage of KC registration is that you can look up the health test results (if any!) of the parents and grandparents etc of a litter that you might be interested in. Just follow/copy the link and put in the KC name of the dogs
> 
> Dog Health Test Search â€¢ The Kennel Club
> 
> I believe that as from 1st Jan, any dog will have to be permanently identified before any tests are done. Another step in the right direction.


Totally agree - anything in the right direction is good. More education is needed to teach people and guide them before they buy a puppy! Personally, I would do all the reasearch into the breed, the breeder and the previous litter standard rather than specifically feel the need for an endorsement of the KC.. as already debated this does not prove the dogs are going to be the best or be any guarantee. Whether I was buying a pedigree or crossbreed/mongrel I would want to see proof of health checks but I would also insist on only getting a dog that had been house bred rather than in a shed or kennels personally.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

canuckjill said:


> Can you UK members answer a question for me? Are you saying that KC registered dogs and pups do not have any identification? Over here all pups and dogs that are KC reg either have to be tatooed or microchipped. Just a little confused as I thought that this was standard. ............Jill


*
In the Uk dogs do not have to be micro chipped or tatooed.*


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> * do we have a new mod?*


It's probs an anonymous account so mods cannot be blamed or attacked for closing threads etc. Don't blame them for making one myself


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

sequeena said:


> It's probs an anonymous account so mods cannot be blamed or attacked for closing threads etc. Don't blame them for making one myself


*
oh right, thanks for that. I've never seen it before.*


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *
> oh right, thanks for that. I've never seen it before.*


Me neither :huh: :laugh:


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

Yes, I posted earlier that maybe it was some type of "Mod umbrella " user and now think that it's been set up so that individual moderators don't get accused of being biased.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Wow - what a topic and one that appears to have descended into a pedigree vs cross breed discussion which wasn't what the original question was about, so to get back on topic....



> Thanks for all your opinions, including those that breed none pedigree or crosses.
> I have come to the conclusion that the KC would be the most respected registration club to register or buy a puppy that is KC registered from a reputable breeder.


It is the ONLY registration that has any benefit  the others, including DLRC were simply businesses set up to print up names on a pedigree to enable the seller to sell their puppies as registered and so sell at a higher price than an unregistered pedigree would sell for and to add qudos.



> I do however think that the KC has many flaws and has a lot to answer for and encourages breeders to breed with no health checks as its not required.


The KC does not encourage people to breed with no health checks it actually encourages health testing, but it does not make it compulsory. They have however, invested huge amounts of money (in spite of people saying they are only interested in money they are a non profit making organisation and much of the money they make goes towards research into health and diseases).



> Or are they just people pleasers and not bothered about the welfare of the beloved pedigree dog.


Wilth all due respect, the KC have put in more money on health testing research and dogs, and do more to promote good ownership and training than any other organisation. Dont get me wrong, the KC has a way to go and Im not a huge fan  its more of a necessity, but these sweeping statements are far from reality.



> Why don't they make health test and DNA compulsory?


There are two different approaches that the kennel club could have taken and I think its also important to realise that the KC approach is very much a work in progress and that they are in fact working towards a time when all breeding stock will be health tested, but there are several different paths to take towards this. As much as I am in favour of health testing and do above and beyond what is required for my breed (as do other breeders I know), the fact remains that probably around half of breeders in my breed dont. The kennel club have (at this time) taken the view that through the introduction of the ABS they are hoping to encourage more breeders to health test, because simply not registering dogs would be unlikely to force breeders to health test  indeed, these are the breeders that are far more likely to go and register with dubious registries like the DLRC. In Germany, for example, where all breeding stock must be health tested, only around 30% of pure breeds are registered with the KC. The cynics would say the KC dont want to do this because of loss of revenue, however the more serious effect of this, and the reason the KC is concerned about this, is that it would seriously deplete the gene pool.



> I understand where every one is coming from as regards the DLR and I agree it needs to come up to scratch and has a long way to go
> The DLRC has nowhere to go  it is simply a profit making business that makes money out of peoples ignorance and love of their pets. It has no interest in dogs apart from the money it makes from registration,
> but if it ever did I would be the first to support it as I think there could be better than the KC and that someone should give them a run for there money.


I dont mean to be rude, honestly, but it is this sort of ignorance that is so dangerous and the reason why alternative registrations are laughing all the way to the bank  did you know that DLRC was set up by a large puppy farmer for the very purpose to be able to sell their puppies at the same price as KC registered puppies by fooling the gullible into thinking they were getting a KC registered puppy.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> It is the ONLY registration that has any benefit 


You omitted to mention what the benefit was.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

re. all the posters that have proudly mentioned all that the KC does for genetics research (and to Rocco as well...) here what i have found at a first glance at the KC annual reports and accounts:
the KC does fund research through its Charitable Trust
in 2008 the KC, through its Charitable Trust, spent £140,611 in research....

by doing some simple maths...
they barely have paid for two low-level researchers, one year full time equivalent doing research on 11 topics. Research funding is used to cover for wages, hiring of the research facilities, hiring/buying of the computers (pro rata over usually three years), testing machineries, subscriptions to scientific journals... etc...add on top the consumables (like telephone calls, paper, toners...etc) and well, how can i forget: administrative costs, overheads, fixed cost for the structure...
given that their "research" span from cancer to arthritis to retinal diseases to heart and brain conditions...to strategies for reducing hereditary diseases...well, that means: the two low level researchers are each specialised in 5.5 areas of intervention...which is a very biiiiiig stretch of the imagination!
another possibility is that they actually fund 11 researchers, each specialised in one area of intervention...and if that is so then with that money they could be able to afford 11 low level researchers working in a year only about a week

i have been in research for the past 14 years professionally, and i can easily tell that...well, this sort of money..won;t buy much research in one field, think what it can buy in 11 fields
i am not going to add further comments to this as it is clear to any simpleton like me what's going on...one has to be in _mala fede_ to think the kc effort is genuine! but then...i am happy to wait and see what will come out...

I am now curious to know what they have done for 2009 after the pd exposed...the next annual report and account should be published within the first few months of next year...

just in case one might think that i have lost a few screws...here's the certified annual report and accounts of the trust:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/7140/ctaccounts2008.pdf


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2009)

So have we all got to wait 100 + years before they get where we all want them to be???? How slow can you get, they are the only highly respected organization that are supposed to care for the welfare of pedigree dogs, all we want is for health testing to become compulsory for a KC registered breeding dog, and if all the breed clubs are behind this then I find it very hard to understand why and how it can take so long and be a "slow on going progress" to get these compulsory, what are they scared of??? Loosing customers who don't or wont do the test???

If they go any slower most of us wont be here when they finally actually do do something constructive about this LOL!!! 

With all due respect regardless of how much money they have thrown into health testing that's worthless if its not made to be a must if you want to breed your dog. When the chairman of the KC was asked, "why health testing wasn't made compulsory for breeding ", in the famous "Pedigree dogs exposed" (just watch it for the first time last night), he simply said, "because breeders would leave"!!!. 

It like having a beautiful flash car that you spent thousands on and then not bothering to MOT it, insure it etc.. Which means you can't use it, what's the point??? If they have put all that money into researching health testing then let us see the results of it and make them compulsory.

And just to clear, I would never turn to the DLR as I now understand that it is not the way to go, but what I was trying to say is if it or any other organization did come up to scratch and did better the KC, I would have no problems and would probably change and leave the KC, but that's pie in the sky!!!

The KC are all we have right now but they should and could do more to contribute to helping eliminate some of the horrible diseases that occur in so many breeds. What I find so difficult to understand is that if the majority of breeders and the breed clubs want health tests to be compulsory then it must only be the KC that is holding back and I would like to know why!!!


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> The cynics would say the KC dont want to do this because of loss of revenue, however the more serious effect of this, and the reason the KC is concerned about this, is that it would seriously deplete the gene pool.


Rocco, i am afraid to say that the only way to increase the gene pool is to open the stud books...a close stud book has only the effect of depleting the genepool...reducing to 30% as you say, it only increases the speed of depletion...

that argument does not hold even if it were cast in concrete...you can do the maths yourself...
cheers
best 
d


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

jaradethan said:


> The KC are all we have right now but they should and could do more to contribute to helping eliminate some of the horrible diseases that occur in so many breeds. What I find so difficult to understand is that if the majority of breeders and the breed clubs want health tests to be compulsory then it must only be the KC that is holding back and I would like to know why!!!


Sadly, you're right, they are all we have, but they are making imrpovements. it does take time, and although maybe it should have happened a long time ago, these changes don't happen overnight.

The key is educating the buyers. Ms. Harrision would have better spent her time publiscising this, but instead she chose not to mention at all in her programme how the average person looking for a pet pedigree dog might go about finding a good breeder. Sadly, the programme only did harm, as it was followed by hundreds of puppy farmers and BYB's advertising proudly stating they didn't KC register, or show their dogs. That certainly isn't the way to go.


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> Rocco, i am afraid to say that the only way to increase the gene pool is to open the stud books...a close stud book has only the effect of depleting the genepool...reducing to 30% as you say, it only increases the speed of depletion...
> 
> that argument does not hold even if it were cast in concrete...you can do the maths yourself...
> cheers
> ...


Isn't importing bloodlines another way to increase the gene pool?

I am not entirely sure what you thinkt he alternative to the KC is. You are very good at critiscising it, but don't seem to be offering any insight into what your solutions would be.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

jackson said:


> Isn't importing bloodlines another way to increase the gene pool?
> 
> I am not entirely sure what you thinkt he alternative to the KC is. You are very good at critiscising it, but don't seem to be offering any insight into what your solutions would be.


yes it is...but very few breeders take the time and spend the money necessary for importing sperms or take the brood bitch abroad...with a massive amount of paperwork that goes with it...

unfortunately i don;t have a solution for the KC as is, as the intertwining of interests within the KC is so complex that is very difficult to find the levers to steer it in one direction or another...

the way out i can see, on the other hands, would depend on the dogs' owners, if they start enforcing their rights and sue the breeders claiming damages when their pooch has clinical problems linked to a known and testable hereditary conditions, bad breeders and bad breeding practices would dwindle in time...and best practice would eventually be established, and, most importantly maintained and improved on...

as for me, personally, as i said in my first post on this thread and on other posts on the breeding section, while i have the time and the patience to discuss the issues here, i don't have the time, the means and the patience to campaign publicly...so i stick to my dogs and by them, with the help of great scientists, including my little sister, that i have the honour to befriend and share my passion for animals, perpetrate in my own way... i know many other breeders within the KC, the ENCI (the Italian KC) and, mostly, outside of the breeding clubs with whom i share what i learn and learn from them...

i can only take responsibility for my dogs...

sad, i know, but i do try my best even if at times i come forward as a belligerent nerd...but it is hard to pass on a simple message, as simple as inbreeding, line breeding or any other breeding with relative however close is BAD for any animal...dogs included...and practices to avoid it are commonly used in any other animal breeding programme...but not in the canines...but when breeders don;t want to hear / listen and bring forward any sort of justification for what they are doing....then,
well, i keep on it, maybe someone is listening, take on board the message and take the time to go out and speak with someone like me closed away in an university department spending away their time in studying and researching...
_there's always hope...as long as i don't die hopeless..._(*)

just to add: in the late 30s Konrad Lorenz (and others ethologists) observing the state of the canines in Europe advices pet owners to get hybrids and crosses leaving the pedigree dogs only to those who show...and that was merely 50 years after the KC was founded and other registry/organisers of show appeared... that must mean something...me thinks

(*) bad English translation of a southern Italian proverb


----------



## jackson (May 22, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> yes it is...but very few breeders take the time and spend the money necessary for importing sperms or take the brood bitch abroad...with a massive amount of paperwork that goes with it...


I think you'd be suprised at how many actually do go to the expense of course, good breeders that actually care about the breeds.

I have a friend who took a brood bitch to Norway to be mated. Twice actually, as she didn't even take the first time. The gene pool for that breed in this country is very small, as numbers are still low.

The breeder of one my bitches actually did an exchange with stud dog in Norway. (her stud dog went to her friend there, the Norwegian Stud dog came here and it was Norway again quite by accident!) They are just people I know, and int he last year, and there are also different bloodlines over here in Ireland to the UK.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

jackson said:


> I think you'd be suprised at how many actually do go to the expense of course, good breeders that actually care about the breeds.
> 
> I have a friend who took a brood bitch to Norway to be mated. Twice actually, as she didn't even take the first time. The gene pool for that breed in this country is very small, as numbers are still low.
> 
> The breeder of one my bitches actually did an exchange with stud dog in Norway. (her stud dog went to her friend there, the Norwegian Stud dog came here and it was Norway again quite by accident!) They are just people I know, and int he last year, and there are also different bloodlines over here in Ireland to the UK.


well i know of a few breeders that actually go to the trouble and not necessarily for rare breeds, you'd be surprised to learn (or at least i was) that many very common breeds have a very shallow gene pool...(popular stud effect, i think it is called)
Population Structure and Inbreeding From Pedigree Analysis of Purebred Dogs -- Calboli et al. 179 (1): 593 -- Genetics
but again, my point is not to the single breeder that knows his/her stuff and is prepared to learn by investing time and effort, consulting with the experts etc etc...fortunately this kind of breeders are still out there...within the KC or out of it...i don't know if you see my point...

on another unrelated subject....the bash against the KC that every body cries out is not really started with the pedigree dogs exposed programme...
is quite a long debate... a couple of pointers can be taken from the advocate for animal: the price of a pedigree dog published early 2006, and following the lit. from other well documented works down the history up to the late 30s...

so it is not really new...and any breeder that had the breed at heart knew this, as my dad and i knew some 20 odd years ago....probably this is the first time that it appeared in front of a large audience..and this cannot be bad...can it?

best
d


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Wow - what a topic and one that appears to have descended into a pedigree vs cross breed discussion which wasn't what the original question was about, so to get back on topic....
> 
> It is the ONLY registration that has any benefit  the others, including DLRC were simply businesses set up to print up names on a pedigree to enable the seller to sell their puppies as registered and so sell at a higher price than an unregistered pedigree would sell for and to add qudos.
> 
> ...


excellent post and on topic.

Mo


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> re. all the posters that have proudly mentioned all that the KC does for genetics research (and to Rocco as well...) here what i have found at a first glance at the KC annual reports and accounts:
> the KC does fund research through its Charitable Trust
> in 2008 the KC, through its Charitable Trust, spent £140,611 in research....
> 
> ...


As we're complimenting posts, I'd like to compliment this one. The subject was "Why KC?" - I've been asking the question as have others but no one has yet answered other than to say "well they're better than the other lot" or "they're the best we have"... not really satisfactory.

No one seems to want to answer the question (Pythonesque I know) but "what have the KC ever done for us?"... clearly not reasearch... so what does that bit of paper mean (the resgistration) and what are the benfits (to the buyer) of buying a KC registered pup ?


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

jackson said:


> Isn't importing bloodlines another way to increase the gene pool?


With a lot of research - it is an excellent way to increase the gene pool. In my breed, *many* people I know have either imported dogs or bitches or have taken their bitches abroad to be mated. Indeed, I have recently imported a young dog from Finland ....

Another advantage of the KC - they will properly check the paperwork of the imported dog and then will UK KC register it. Then, when it's had its health checks, they will be findable on its health page .... Whereas an "alternative" registry would register it whatever, have no way of checking health checks or of having a properly certified pedigree.

Elmo - none of us have claimed the KC is perfect but it is slowly moving in the right direction. Several of us have listed advantages of KC registration. If you choose not to think there are _any_ advantages then that is your prerogative.


----------



## feathersnowglitter (Nov 3, 2009)

Hi I have been reading through this thread quickly and have a question. I have posted it elsewhere but thought as you are discussing KC........... I have a border terrier pup coming up 12 weeks who is not KC registered. I was told by his breeder that both parents are registered and wondered now, if it was too late for me to register him myself or would that have to be done by the breeder? If I can do it, what information do i need to have and what would be the benefits to have him registered?

I am not interested in showing him unless it were for fun. I would like to try and get him into agility for fun also when older. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2009)

Hi,
There would be no point unless you were going to go down the route of breeding/showing (not sure about agility)in which case its only the breeder that would be able to register the pup with the KC, that is if both parents were registered in the first place?. Don't worry about it, there is no real benifit if hes only a pet, but if you do want him registered you can only do it through the breeder!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

feathersnowglitter said:


> Hi I have been reading through this thread quickly and have a question. I have posted it elsewhere but thought as you are discussing KC........... I have a border terrier pup coming up 12 weeks who is not KC registered. I was told by his breeder that both parents are registered and wondered now, if it was too late for me to register him myself or would that have to be done by the breeder? If I can do it, what information do i need to have and what would be the benefits to have him registered?
> 
> I am not interested in showing him unless it were for fun. I would like to try and get him into agility for fun also when older. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


*As has been stated only the breeder can reg. the pups which in my oppion is wrong.If the kc have all the documents then i think the new owners should be entitled to them.*


----------



## feathersnowglitter (Nov 3, 2009)

I have posed the same question to the breeder so will see what they say. If there is a reason why they parents were not registered in the first place, she will have to honest now as cant get out of it. It probably isnt worth the hassle if they have to do it, but I just thought if I could have done it, I would have paid the £12 just to have the papers. More expensive and i wouldnt have bothered but it was just really to say he is registered. Not worried tho as i bought him without them in the first place. xxx


----------



## Colsy (Oct 3, 2008)

So does it make any difference if the dog/bitch is not KC reg ?
What i can make out from this thread its only good if you show or breed.
But what if a bitch is KC reg,had puppies and the breeder did not reg them ?
If its only £12 why dont all these breeder's do It ?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Colsy said:


> So does it make any difference if the dog/bitch is not KC reg ?
> What i can make out from this thread its only good if you show or breed.
> But what if a bitch is KC reg,had puppies and the breeder did not reg them ?
> If its only £12 why dont all these breeder's do It ?


*Both Kai's parents where kc reg but i was told he couldn't be reg as his mum had had a litter the previous year.Whether that is true or not i don't know but i do know they were both kc reg.
The point i'd like to bring up is this.If all pups that are born from kc reg parents could be reg. then surely the kc would know how many litters a bitch is having.
That way breeders couldn't fob buyers off with excuses as to why they aren't reg. I hope that makes sence.*


----------



## Colsy (Oct 3, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Both Kai's parents where kc reg but i was told he couldn't be reg as his mum had had a litter the previous year.Whether that is true or not i don't know but i do know they were both kc reg.
> The point i'd like to bring up is this.If all pups that are born from kc reg parents could be reg. then surely the kc would know how many litters a bitch is having.
> That way breeders couldn't fob buyers off with excuses as to why they aren't reg. I hope that makes sence.*


Thanks Janice..


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I think there is a lot of KC bashing around, but think of the scenario that the KC gave up tomorrow.

I think chaos, may be a term that would be bandied about.

It is all very well to say they do nothing, but behind the scenes many things are done and without them, if we think we have a puppy farmer/BYB problem now, then where would dog breeding be without the KC's guidelines/rules/regulations.
The KC cannot be too dictatorial otherwise people just walk, I feel it has done the best it could in the circumstances. Breed clubs and the breeders themselves have a lot to answer for as regards the way some breeds have turned out, it is not all down to the KC.

KC registration of course doesn't turn sows ears into silk purses, but at least there is some verification of where a dog came from, who owned its parents/grand-parents etc., who its ancestors are and what breed it is, how pure bred it is and some indication of its health status, if that info has been recorded. It cannot make *all* breeders tell the truth as regards pedigree, but the fact the KC is there gives breeders some incentive to tell the truth in case they are found out, with all the embarrassment and loss of reputation that would ensue.

Despite the attempts of some to challenge the KC, they frequently use KC registered dogs or the product of two KC reg. dogs, as those are the only ones that have some sort of backing and history. Other dogs without papers are just mongrels (ie dogs of uncertain parentage or breed), no matter what they claim as there is no way of verifying their breeding. At least with a KC registered dog, it is possible to do some detective work as regards who bred it, and the likelihood that its parents are who they say they are.

The KC is not for everyone, but in my mind the industry needs some sort of "control" and as someone else said they are a work in progress and their mandate has changed a bit recently with the "blame" for all the ills of the industry, being put upon them by PDE and the media.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I think there is a lot of KC bashing around, but think of the scenario that the KC gave up tomorrow.
> 
> I think chaos, may be a term that would be bandied about.
> 
> ...


agree. rep coming your way


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> I think there is a lot of KC bashing around, but think of the scenario that the KC gave up tomorrow.
> 
> I think chaos, may be a term that would be bandied about.
> 
> ...


*But i can't understand why you would think there would be chaos.It would be no different to when the kc 1st set up.If a body was to start now and it had all the things that the kc haven't got then i think it would be a good new starting point.For me having a kc reg. dlr or none reg dog doesn't make any differance.BUT if i was to go down that road i would want all dogs to be dna tested and i would want to be able to hold any records that have anything to do with a pup i had purchased.*


----------



## Calix (Dec 28, 2009)

Having been involved with pedigree dogs most of my life I think responsible breeders will always be truthful regarding their dogs and any litter they may breed etc.
The problem today is people breeding just for money, designer cross breeds like Labradoodles. They advertise them as from KC reg parents, so what, they are a cross breed and cost more that a pedigree Lab or Poodle.
The only way to buy a puppy is to contact a breed club secretary who will be able to advise on the chosen breed, put the prospective owner in touch with a breeder who would welcome a visit to show the breed in the home.
KC registration does not always mean quality. There are loads of puppy farmers who register their stock, sick poorly reared puppies. 
If people stopped buying from them, they would have to stop their cruel trade, but that will never happen.
Rant over!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Calix said:


> Having been involved with pedigree dogs most of my life I think responsible breeders will always be truthful regarding their dogs and any litter they may breed etc.
> The problem today is people breeding just for money, designer cross breeds like Labradoodles. They advertise them as from KC reg parents, so what, they are a cross breed and cost more that a pedigree Lab or Poodle.
> The only way to buy a puppy is to contact a breed club secretary who will be able to advise on the chosen breed, put the prospective owner in touch with a breeder who would welcome a visit to show the breed in the home.
> KC registration does not always mean quality. There are loads of puppy farmers who register their stock, sick poorly reared puppies.
> ...


*But why are the kc allowing them to be reg.?*


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

The general public though will think KC autmomatically means good dogs so they may be buying them from bybs without realising. So how do we stop that? Not everyone in the UK uses these sorts of forums to find out the info they need.


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

JANICE199 said:


> *But why are the kc allowing them to be reg.?*


revenue ............


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

tashi said:


> revenue ............


*So in actual fact they are contributing to bad breeding.*


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *So in actual fact they are contributing to bad breeding.*


but they are promoting good breeding. They don't promote bad breeding, it's just they register them. it's the bybs fault for breeding those dogs, not the kc for registering them. don't blame the middle man, blame the source.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

The KC are a good orginisation but... There have been plenty of members here who report puppy farms and BYBs to them (and countless more people no doubt) yet these people are still in operation and reg the pups as KC ...


----------



## Calix (Dec 28, 2009)

If you know a way, tell them. It is something people have been saying for ages. 
I can't believe they don't notice loads of litters being bred by one person!
Any one with a breeders license has carte blance to do as they like.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *But why are the kc allowing them to be reg.?*


The KC is a registration body first and foremost, just like a school is a school. 
A school knows that some of its pupils are no hopers and cause chaos but it doesn't say at the first off that Johnny Perkins cannot come into the school because his parents are wasters. It gives Johnny a chance but if the complaints are too much then it takes action and expels him; it may also be that Johnny turns into a star pupil with the right education and mixing with the right crowd.

The KC doesn't have the resources to monitor every breeder, it cannot say that someone with 20 dogs is obviously a puppy farmer and Mrs Smith with her two dogs is a lovely "home breeder". Mrs Smith may keep her two in a cage in a dingy back bedroom, feeding them poorly and breeding her dogs to within an inch of their lives and the "puppy farmer" exercises her dogs 3 times a day on her land and the nearby beach, giving them the best of food and has great breeding ethics. The KC therefore cannot make any assumptions.
The KC can however listen to complaints and take action as required if the complaints are found to be verified.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> but they are promoting good breeding. They don't promote bad breeding, it's just they register them. it's the bybs fault for breeding those dogs, not the kc for registering them. don't blame the middle man, blame the source.


*People can't have it both ways, including the kc.If people are against puppy farms and byb why would they then give money in any way shape or form to anyone that that isn't doing all they can to stop it?*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> The KC is a registration body first and foremost, just like a school is a school.
> A school knows that some of its pupils are no hopers and cause chaos but it doesn't say at the first off that Johnny Perkins cannot come into the school because his parents are wasters. It gives Johnny a chance but if the complaints are too much then it takes action and expels him; it may also be that Johnny turns into a star pupil with the right education and mixing with the right crowd.
> 
> The KC doesn't have the resources to monitor every breeder, it cannot say that someone with 20 dogs is obviously a puppy farmer and Mrs Smith with her two dogs is a lovely "home breeder". Mrs Smith may keep her two in a cage in a dingy back bedroom, feeding them poorly and breeding her dogs to within an inch of their lives and the "puppy farmer" exercises her dogs 3 times a day on her land and the nearby beach, giving them the best of food and has great breeding ethics. The KC therefore cannot make any assumptions.
> The KC can however listen to complaints and take action as required if the complaints are found to be verified.


*I know for a fact this isn't the case,just recently a member on here reported a so called accredited breeder for selling pups that should not have been bred.The advert is still running to my knowledge.*


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

How would you go about proving someone is or isnt a BYB or PF? If the KC were to refuse to register puppies from certain breeders, they could be opening themselves up to legal action. It could be classed as slanderous.

I think tighter laws need to be introduced in regards to the amount of breeding bitches anyone one person/family can own.

It seems that the KC relies heavily on honesty, and lets face it, where money/fame/prizes are concerned honesty is hard to come by.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> How would you go about proving someone is or isnt a BYB or PF? If the KC were to refuse to register puppies from certain breeders, they could be opening themselves up to legal action. It could be classed as slanderous.
> 
> I think tighter laws need to be introduced in regards to the amount of breeding bitches anyone one person/family can own.
> 
> It seems that the KC relies heavily on honesty, and lets face it, where money/fame/prizes are concerned honesty is hard to come by.


It is a hard one. A breeder could health test every single dog yet churn out pups several times a year and keep them in horrible conditions... But they're health testing and producing good pups.


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

It is something that various breed clubs have mused over for years as a club we suggested that only pups from health tested parents were registered as most byb or pf wont do theirs because of cost, that was just one suggestion but I know there have been many others over the years so it is something that is thought about by many many breed clubs if not all of them


----------



## Calix (Dec 28, 2009)

That's not possible, to breed healthy pups, the KC ask Accredited Breeders to health test the sire and dams and the litter. The trouble with the ACB is there is no body to inspect the premises of the people who join the scheme, so it is toothless.
The vast majority of died in the wool pedigree dogs owners and breeders would support the KC if they went down the road of inspections. 

There are more people breeding for money than the ones who breed to improve their chosen breed and run a pup on to keep.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

tashi said:


> It is something that various breed clubs have mused over for years as a club we suggested that only pups from health tested parents were registered as most byb or pf wont do theirs because of cost, that was just one suggestion but I know there have been many others over the years so it is something that is thought about by many many breed clubs if not all of them


*Tashi can i ask you this as i know your breed your dogs.Say for instance i had all the records the kc have but i also insisted on dna testing and all health tests which would you reg. your dogs with?and what else would you want included? this is purely hypathical (sp)*


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

sequeena said:


> It is a hard one. A breeder could health test every single dog yet churn out pups several times a year and keep them in horrible conditions... But they're health testing and producing good pups.


Yes they could but that is impossible for the KC to ascertain unless it receives complaints from people who have visited the establishment.
The KC cannot take action unless it receives proper verifiable complaints. It is not good enough to say a friend of a friend got a puppy from breeder x and its eyes were weeping and it had to be put down at 6 months. Or I have heard that they keep their dogs in cages all day and night. Gossip is no good, it needs hard evidence of wrong doing, just like any other "court".
Jealous breeders and "wronged" pet owners can be vindictive, so it is a complete waste of time to follow up every "allegation".


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

well i might seem repetitive, but 

the law grants some rights to the dogs owners buying a dogs from a breeders..that then has a miserable life for hereditary preventable diseases and live their last young years crippled...but this is underused, and to my knowledge only a few cases have been heard by a court...

in that sense doesn;t really matter if the breeder is KC, DLR or going outside the clubs... when one is brought to court repetitively and start to loose more monies than ones make by cheap breeding, then there is a strong disincentive for these practices to perpetrate...

i would like to know if dogs owners have any cognition of their rights in this regards... and also why only some advertisement sites actually try (in their own not-too-effective way) to warn/educate the buyers
...

best
d


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

JANICE199 said:


> *Tashi can i ask you this as i know your breed your dogs.Say for instance i had all the records the kc have but i also insisted on dna testing and all health tests which would you reg. your dogs with?and what else would you want included? this is purely hypathical (sp)*


I would want them all DNA tested, microchipped, have all relevant health tests which would all be kept on record with the KC, they do have the health tests listed I am having the TT DNA profiled and also DNA tested for PLL and most of ours are now microchipped which I think is essential to have on the health forms to prove that they belong to the dog in question and not a 'ringer'.

If you came here you wouldnt know which golden was which and doubt if you were here for a week or so you would even identify them - so how can the people doing the health testing they have to take your word for it that the paperwork you have is for that dog

Hope that makes sense and hope I have answered your query but it would only be KC for us because of the showing etc


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

When I was a child, I knew to never buy a pup from a breeder that could not show you the parent(s), at least one of them. That wasn't yesterday and it is so basic a concept. 

It seems that the general public ignore this time and again, why that should be I just don't know.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

tashi said:


> I would want them all DNA tested, microchipped, have all relevant health tests which would all be kept on record with the KC, they do have the health tests listed I am having the TT DNA profiled and also DNA tested for PLL and most of ours are now microchipped which I think is essential to have on the health forms to prove that they belong to the dog in question and not a 'ringer'.
> 
> If you came here you wouldnt know which golden was which and doubt if you were here for a week or so you would even identify them - so how can the people doing the health testing they have to take your word for it that the paperwork you have is for that dog
> 
> Hope that makes sense and hope I have answered your query but it would only be KC for us because of the showing etc


*
It made perfect sence and that to me is what the kc should be doing.*


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *
> It made perfect sence and that to me is what the kc should be doing.*


The KC isn't stopping anyone from doing that anyway. Breeders need to take the lead in this as after all it is their revenue and breeds that the BYB and puppy farmers are eroding and ruining. 
It is up to individual breeders, then the breed clubs to start something positive then say that "80% of our breeders" are now doing this and can the KC come up with a database or certificate or some other piece of recognition so we can differentiate ourselves from the masses.
It shouldn't need the KC to take the lead and then spend years trying to "force" reluctant breeders to change.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> The KC isn't stopping anyone from doing that anyway. Breeders need to take the lead in this as after all it is their revenue and breeds that the BYB and puppy farmers are eroding and ruining.
> It is up to individual breeders, then the breed clubs to start something positive then say that "80% of our breeders" are now doing this and can the KC come up with a database or certificate or some other piece of recognition so we can differentiate ourselves from the masses.
> It shouldn't need the KC to take the lead and then spend years trying to "force" reluctant breeders to change.


*If they are worth their salt they would and should make a stand.If nothing else it would give people a genuine body that they could rely on.This thread has shown a lot of people have no faith in the kc because its seen to have double standards.imo.*


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I think that most expect far too much of the KC.

It is a registration body, it can not be a mixture of the police and the judicial system, the RSPCA and veterinary ethical committees, and be responsible for everything that may or may not happen to all dogs in this country.
It tries on many fronts, but it cannot possibly be all things to all men or all things to all dogs.
Unless we have a regime in which being a puppy farmer or BYB is made a capital offence then there will always those who want a cheap pup and those who will want to fill that gap in the market.


----------



## Colsy (Oct 3, 2008)

Calix said:


> Having been involved with pedigree dogs most of my life I think responsible breeders will always be truthful regarding their dogs and any litter they may breed etc.
> The problem today is people breeding just for money, designer cross breeds like Labradoodles. They advertise them as from KC reg parents, so what, they are a cross breed and cost more that a pedigree Lab or Poodle.
> The only way to buy a puppy is to contact a breed club secretary who will be able to advise on the chosen breed, put the prospective owner in touch with a breeder who would welcome a visit to show the breed in the home.
> KC registration does not always mean quality. There are loads of puppy farmers who register their stock, sick poorly reared puppies.
> ...


Dont all breeder's breed for some kind of money ?
Not all Labradoodles go for big bucks and i know this,also should be health tested just like every other dog should be.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *
> In the Uk dogs do not have to be micro chipped or tatooed.*


So how are they identified? Wow I never knew that, I thought all KC reg dogs had to be tattooed or microchipped. I had heard in the states that they use descriptions but are going to be going to microchipping. When I bred Shelties here in Canada in the 90's the pups had to be tattooed, now most people are using microchips.........Jill


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

canuckjill said:


> So how are they identified? Wow I never knew that, I thought all KC reg dogs had to be tattooed or microchipped. I had heard in the states that they use descriptions but are going to be going to microchipping. When I bred Shelties here in Canada in the 90's the pups had to be tattooed, now most people are using microchips.........Jill


You can only identify a dog using a microchip or tattoo. It's not compulsory for all dogs in the UK (KC or not) to be microchipped/tattooed. A lot of dogs found roaming have neither.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

canuckjill said:


> So how are they identified? Wow I never knew that, I thought all KC reg dogs had to be tattooed or microchipped. I had heard in the states that they use descriptions but are going to be going to microchipping. When I bred Shelties here in Canada in the 90's the pups had to be tattooed, now most people are using microchips.........Jill


*Many years ago we use to have to have a dog licence but that didn't work.I think it would be a good idea if we were made to have our dogs microchipped or tattooed.*


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Colsy said:


> Dont all breeder's breed for some kind of money ?


errr, no, not really,
i don;t know the number here in the UK (but i have had the pleasure to get in contact with some...) and as far as i can remember in the last 25 years back where i come from...myself and many other breeders i know don't breed for any kind of money...we breed for ourselves and the passion we have for our dogs...
in the unlucky event something goes wrong some don't even ask for any (voluntary) contribution towards the costs.

unfortunately, to keep ill intentioned away, some (including myself) have advertised the dogs for big bucks... but then, once the application and vetting procedures have gone through and there was a positive outcome all fees were lifted and a contribution eventually accepted

i have to admit though that in my case, this happened for my naivety (or my incompetence) as i did only have 1 new holder lined up before breeding; in my defence (if it were needed) we used to have a cue of people contacting my dad, my mates and I when the word of mouth was out, we were in fact used to have many people coming to make enquiries on the pups and we could easily decide to whom they were going....well, learning from my mistakes... of thinking that Northern England urban area could have been any similar to a Southern Italian rural area...

having said that i do understand why breeders want to get some money for their effort... though even if i understand why people want to breed for money i still cannot get my head around why people buy into the consumerism linked to this practice...well enough to get on with pedigree dogs for people that show their dogs or have something to prove on the rings or on trials... and are in it for the fun, for their competitive streak or whatever pushed them to into that hobby...
but having a pet with papers or for fashion (with all the extra price paid) i think is a bit like having a faulty Ferrari that didn't quite make it in the car dealer's window and keeping it in the living room... don't know if the simili makes sense, probably it is a bit pushed due to lack of better words... but any one is free to make their own choice and this is a good thing, though it'd better if the public knew what's happening behind the breeders' closed doors... any one knows what they are getting into when they buy a coffee machine, reading out reviews form other buyers, compare for price and for performance...without taking for granted the description of the seller...and if following the instruction they were given, the coffee machine causes damages...they are ready to get back to the dealer and ask for refund and damages....but not dog owners....
mhmmm strange world!!!

well...back to do some more research...

best
D


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Quote from Calix: "The trouble with the ACB is there is no body to inspect the premises of the people who join the scheme, so it is toothless."

This is changing - now more people are being employed to do inspections. One of the reasons I'm considering joining this scheme - even though I have always done more than the AB scheme's requirements. At least I'd be entitled to all the "accolades"!


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Calix said:


> That's not possible, to breed healthy pups, the KC ask Accredited Breeders to health test the sire and dams and the litter. The trouble with the ACB is there is no body to inspect the premises of the people who join the scheme, so it is toothless.
> The vast majority of died in the wool pedigree dogs owners and breeders would support the KC if they went down the road of inspections.
> 
> There are more people breeding for money than the ones who breed to improve their chosen breed and run a pup on to keep.


the KC are trying to get a team for checking the AB's another step forward in the right direction.

Kennel Club calls on dog specialists to join its Accredited Breeder Team
12-Jun-09

The Kennel Club is calling for those experienced in all aspects of the dog world to join its Accredited Breeder Schemes team of Regional Breeder Advisers, who will play a crucial part in helping the Kennel Club to ensure that the high standards of the Scheme are maintained.

The Kennel Club Accredited Breeder Scheme, which was created in 2004, now has more than 4,000 members throughout the country, who have all agreed to follow the basic principles of good breeding practice.

One important aspect of the Schemes success is that all members must agree to allow Kennel Club Breeder Advisers access to inspect their premises.

The Kennel Club has already sent an application form to those who have previously expressed an interest in the role and as the Scheme continues to grow in size and stature the Kennel Club is enlisting the help of further. Advisers, who will help the Kennel Club to continue fulfilling its obligation to puppy buyers by providing quality control checks on its members. A decision to recruit additional Breeder Advisers was announced by the Kennel Club in October 2008.

The role is open to all those with experience and interest in the canine world. All applicants will be considered by the Kennel Club and preference will be given to those with knowledge of dog breeding and who have a good understanding of the Scheme. The role is a voluntary one but all expenses will be covered and full training and mentoring will be provided.

Bill Lambert, Head of the Kennel Club Accredited Breeder Scheme, said: The Accredited Breeder scheme is continually growing in size, as more and more people recognise the vital role that it plays in protecting the health and welfare of newly bred puppies.

We are delighted to have now gone past the 4,000 members mark and in order to continue running our robust system of inspections, we need an experienced network of Breeder Advisers to be in place across the country. We know that there is a wealth of experience out there and we are now calling on that experience to help us shape the Schemes development.

The recruitment of Breeder Advisers is one of the many steps that we have taken continually to improve and refine the Scheme and we now visit many applicants before they join us. Additionally, we have built up a system of accolades that reward the most experienced within the scheme, who are setting an exceptional example that others can aspire to. These accolades and the health tests that we require for certain breeds are always evolving as the Scheme continually develops.

I have no doubt that the Scheme will continue to grow and my hope is that every responsible breeder will come under the KCAB umbrella, thereby ensuring puppy buyers can easily distinguish those who follow basic standards of good breeding practice from disreputable breeders who play on public ignorance in order to make a sale.

Accredited Breeders have all agreed to sign up to Kennel Club standards for responsible breeding, which include following guidelines about the maximum age and frequency of litters, providing post-sales advice, proper whelping and kennelling facilities and agreeing to give their dogs the required health tests for their breed. The Kennel Club, in addition to running a system of inspections, has various other checks in place to monitor the credentials of its members, which include continually monitoring puppy feedback forms and running pre-acceptance checks on all new members.

The continued growth and development of the Kennel Club Accredited Breeder Scheme comes as the Kennel Club calls on the government to make the principles and standards of the Accredited Breeder Scheme compulsory throughout the country. This means that anybody who does not follow responsible breeding practice, whether they breed pedigrees or cross breeds and whether they register with the Kennel Club or not, will be unable to sell puppies within the law.

If this were to become law then the Kennel Club would be able to push the bar even higher within the Accredited Breeder Scheme, to ensure the choice is always between responsible and excellent breeders, rather than ever being between responsible and disreputable ones. Dog lovers can show their support by signing the Kennel Clubs petition at Kennel Club - fit for function fit for life

Those interested in becoming Regional Breeder Advisers should contact Angela Cliffe at [email protected] or phone 020 7518 1015. The deadline for applications is the end of July.

mo


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Just to respond to one of the points above, health testing now requires that the dog is identified at the time of testing by either a tattoo or chip from January 2010; and so if you are a member of the ABS then at least the dog now has to be positively identified, which can only be a good thing. 

Haven't read the whole thread, the point has been raised a couple of times that the KC isn't a policing organisation, simply a registration. It's a bit of a juxtaposition though, they offer a 'standard' which needs effectively policing as well as recording, I'm all for dna identification, but it is a slippery slope just how much needs policing. Some health tests are not understood and are not proven to be of any value particularly, do you have a system of policing that forces breeders to undertake all tests, or only a few, and if so, who decides which ones?


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> errr, no, not really,
> i don;t know the number here in the UK (but i have had the pleasure to get in contact with some...) and as far as i can remember in the last 25 years back where i come from...myself and many other breeders i know don't breed for any kind of money...we breed for ourselves and the passion we have for our dogs...
> in the unlucky event something goes wrong some don't even ask for any (voluntary) contribution towards the costs.
> 
> ...


can I have a free pup then next litter please? all breeders BREED FOR MONEY if they're honest - not doing it for the dog'd sake are they? OK who's going to now spout on about "keeping the bloodline going"?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Rocco, i am afraid to say that the only way to increase the gene pool is to open the stud books...a close stud book has only the effect of depleting the genepool...reducing to 30% as you say, it only increases the speed of depletion...
> 
> that argument does not hold even if it were cast in concrete...you can do the maths yourself...
> cheers


No need to be so condescending Dimkaz  if you actually read my post properly you will see that I made no mention of increasing the gene pool, simply that they do not wish to deplete it which is what would happen if registration was closed to all unless health tests were done. And you can argue as much as you like, but the fact is that it is not the KC that is preventing people from health testing, but the breeders who are not health testing. Those who cannot be bothered to health test now will not start doing so in order to get their puppies KC registered  they will just not bother to register them.



> Isn't importing bloodlines another way to increase the gene pool?


This is exactly what is happening in those countries that have made health testing compulsory. As an example a lot of German breeders use UK studs as (in part because in my breed the UK bred working ones are the best), the gene pool has been severely depleted.
unfortunately i don;t have a solution for the KC as is, as the intertwining of interests within the KC is so complex that is very difficult to find the levers to steer it in one direction or another...



> the way out i can see, on the other hands, would depend on the dogs' owners, if they start enforcing their rights and sue the breeders claiming damages when their pooch has clinical problems linked to a known and testable hereditary conditions, bad breeders and bad breeding practices would dwindle in time...and best practice would eventually be established, and, most importantly maintained and improved on...


Good to see something constructive being said and I do agree with you. The problem is that it is the byb breeders, pet breeders and puppy farmers that are causing most of the problems, not the good breeders (in my breed at least as thats all I have any indepth knowledge about). The fact remains however, that as much as people may complain, the general public need to take responsibility for researching when buying a puppy. I have been on countless forums, giving recommendations on what to look for in a good breeder (including details of health tests required) only to have that advice ignored. Im sorry to have to say this, but it is not just poor breeding practices that is causing the problem .



> The KC are a good orginisation but... There have been plenty of members here who report puppy farms and BYBs to them (and countless more people no doubt) yet these people are still in operation and reg the pups as KC ...
> People can't have it both ways, including the kc.If people are against puppy farms and byb why would they then give money in any way shape or form to anyone that that isn't doing all they can to stop it?


The problem here is that the KC can only operate within the law. Much like the RSPCA they cannot do anything if no laws have been broken. The organisation to report them to is the Local Authority who issue breeding licences they are the only people that can do anything, but be warned that the laws surrounding breeding of dogs is very very basic and most puppy farms would indeed pass under current legislation. The main reason why byb and puppy farms exist is because people continue to buy puppies from them.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Haven't read the whole thread, the point has been raised a couple of times that the KC isn't a policing organisation, simply a registration. It's a bit of a juxtaposition though, they offer a 'standard' which needs effectively policing as well as recording, I'm all for dna identification, but it is a slippery slope just how much needs policing. Some health tests are not understood and are not proven to be of any value particularly, do you have a system of policing that forces breeders to undertake all tests, or only a few, and if so, who decides which ones?


Very true and very good points. Before one brings in compulsory health testing, one has to fully understand what it is. In my experience many people are not aware of what it really means.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

ally said:


> can I have a free pup then next litter please? all breeders BREED FOR MONEY if they're honest - not doing it for the dog'd sake are they? OK who's going to now spout on about "keeping the bloodline going"?


if you are in the Manchester area
i'll send you an application form, if all pans out we'll take it from there....
cheers
p.s. i don;t get your bloodline point though...


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ally, I find your comment offensive against people who do not breed for money.

I can give you a list if you like, of the expenses incurred health testing my two bitches, only to decide against breeding from one of them. I am currently in the process of health testing Tau for a condition I know she is genetically clear from, simply so that the status of any pups will appear on the KC registration documents. I don't have to do this, but as an ethical breeder I consider this the right thing to do.

So thank you for your biased view, I will ask probably the going rate for a Labrador pup, which is around £600. Do you think I'll make a profit, even if she has a large litter? I can tell you now, I won't make any profit, and I don't even hope to, I won't even cover her 'living expenses'. If I do go ahead and breed, then I will do so because I have a personal aim in mind, not because I'm in it for the money, and I am not the only one with the same goals in mind. Your comment is unfair and biased, as much as there are people out there who will breed for cash, there is another end to the spectrum.


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

I KNOW the costs of breeding - been there done that- so don't need to do that - my point is that breeding makes an income for people. Period!


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

ally said:


> I KNOW the costs of breeding - been there done that- so don't need to do that - my point is that breeding makes an income for people. Period!


what about re wording it as: *breeding makes an income for SOME people?*
i'd be comfortable with that and you don risk to make a sweeping statement that can cause offence... (to me as to others...)

cheers
d


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

I'd imagine that if anyone's b*tch needed an emergency c-section there's no way there would be a profit off the pups....


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ally said:


> I KNOW the costs of breeding - been there done that- so don't need to do that - my point is that breeding makes an income for people. Period!


So I'll retire then on the back of Tau's one possible litter? Or perhaps I'll stretch it to two litters for her.....

You perhaps need to realise that not every person is the same as the next. I'm not in it for the money, I'm certainly not in it to better the breed, I'm in it because I love the breed of dog, and want to perhaps contribute towards it, and do it in an ethical and responsible way.

It does not make an income, period, I find that statement offensive.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

OK, im gong back to the post topic . . .
*
Why KC?*
_
For me,_ the reason I would choose KC over DLRC is that the dogs lineage can be traced which helps me with future breeding in terms i can see what lines had the "type" i'm looking for (some top kennels have a certain look or type within their own breed standard which i might find desireable/beneficial).

As already mentioned, DLRC was set up by a puppy farmer looking to increase his profits and does not encourage any health testing. I know health testing is not mandatory under KC but they at least try and provide a list of of health tests recomended and diseases/health problems prevalant within the breed.

Under the KC Accredited Breeder Scheme, Acc breeders must register ALL litters and even at that any litter that is KC'd, the details are stored which helps discourage puppy farmers (not saying it stops it!). Why does it discourage? If your like myself and are/have shown, breeders talk to each other, info is passed on and people not adhering to breed club and/or KC regulations can be (and i have seen this done) "frozen out" of certain areas of the show world. Yes this can be done on gossip, but the incident i refer to was based on FACTS.

The KC is a member of the FCI and works with other member countires

_to support free exchange of dogs and cynological information between member countries and initiate the organization of exhibitions and tests._

Funnily enought DLRC is not. The kennel club IS NOT perfect, it does not claim to be so, but i beleive it is doing more to help dogs than the DLRC, which is why Im KC


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

ally said:


> I KNOW the costs of breeding - been there done that- so don't need to do that - my point is that breeding makes an income for people. Period!


I can give a FULL breakdown on the costs of breeding my two litters, and the "profit" made, if I had been breeding for profit I went about it totally wrong, my aim for breeding was to keep a pup for myself, my breed can be a little funny with other dogs, my dogs live in the home, so I wanted harmony, I had a better chance of this by mother/daughter. mother /son etc than to buy a pup in, this has worked well for me. I actually take offence at your post because you are making a sweeping statement as though it is a fact, and it is totally incorrect.

Mo


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

I haven't read all this thread yet!

But i am not bothered by the KC. I have never and will never only look for breeders who use the KC.

I will scrutinise every part of a breeder to ensure that they do breed completely 110% ethically before buying a pup/dog etc etc

But i am not at all bothered about the KC in anyway whatsoever. In fact i do not particulary like them!

I have my plenty reasons but thats for another thread.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

ally said:


> I KNOW the costs of breeding - been there done that- so don't need to do that - my point is that breeding makes an income for people. Period!


I believe that you are right. I think some make more of a "profit" than others, there is not a fortune to be made if you are in it in a small way, but it is still for some an income. Things can go wrong obviously and sometimes disastrously but for those who do not do loads of expensive health tests who have bought dogs cheaply and who are just in the business of selling puppies for as much as possible, then there is definitely money in it.

The ads would not be full of puppies otherwise, from people breeding pet dogs, non KC registered dogs and KC registered dogs from all sorts of breeds, and there would be no puppy farmers or "professional" breeders either.
I do not for one moment think it is "merely a hobby" for a lot of people. I think for some it is pin money and for others it is holiday money and for others it is part of or all of their income, depending on the number of dogs they have, the number of litters per year they have, the breed they are in or how much they can charge for pups depending on where they live.

Even those who say that the showing/buying new dogs etc. uses up all the puppy money, it is still an income that they wouldn't have had if they didn't breed the puppies in the first place, what they spend it on is of course their own business but it is still money made.


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> what about re wording it as: *breeding makes an income for SOME people?*
> i'd be comfortable with that and you don risk to make a sweeping statement that can cause offence... (to me as to others...)
> 
> cheers
> d


Yet people can make sweeping comments about crossbreeds can they? OK people breed for money; an income, a living, in the main... a few exceptions who profess to be doing it for the breed, but obviously they would be pedigree owners because let's face it all crossbreed/designer breeders are the scum of the earth eh?


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

ally said:


> Yet people can make sweeping comments about crossbreeds can they? OK people breed for money; an income, a living, in the main... a few exceptions who profess to be doing it for the breed, but obviously they would be pedigree owners because let's face it all crossbreed/designer breeders are the scum of the earth eh?


mha, speechless for once...probably i am missing something...
best
d


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

ally said:


> Yet people can make sweeping comments about crossbreeds can they? OK people breed for money; an income, a living, in the main... a few exceptions who profess to be doing it for the breed, but obviously they would be pedigree owners because let's face it all crossbreed/designer breeders are the scum of the earth eh?


Considering Dimkaz breeds crossbreeds i highly doubt he would make any such sweeping statements. 
He also pretty much gives his puppies away, so how can he make a profit?

Personally i very much like Dimkaz's breeding ethics, and is one of just a few crossbreeders (and breeders in general) whom i would ever consider getting a dog off of.

Pity he only breeds giants


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

My comments were NOT aimed at ANYONE in particular and certainly not the person mentioned so I apologise if that was misinterpreted. It was a generalised statement.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

IF i was going to buy a purebred dog i would want that dog with an endorsed enforcable (if it was wrong) pedigree so i could see all its generations.

Simple.

But only a very small part of all the other things i would want along with my pup, including all the health tests passed, excellent temperament, family history, quality breeding, properly raised, well socialised etc etc etc etc

but as a purebred dog... i want a guarentee its a purebred puppy, not something that anyone could have written. Yes there are always going to be crooks in all walks of life, but at least you have the chance for some recompense and action should your kc pedigree be wrong. DLRC isnt worth being used as toilet paper.


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> IF i was going to buy a purebred dog i would want that dog with an endorsed enforcable (if it was wrong) pedigree so i could see all its generations.
> Simple.
> 
> But only a very small part of all the other things i would want along with my pup, including all the health tests passed, excellent temperament, family history, quality breeding, properly raised, well socialised etc etc etc etc
> ...


 We got that with our doodles.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> Considering Dimkaz breeds crossbreeds i highly doubt he would make any such sweeping statements.
> He also pretty much gives his puppies away, so how can he make a profit?
> 
> Personally i very much like Dimkaz's breeding ethics, and is one of just a few crossbreeders (and breeders in general) whom i would ever consider getting a dog off of.
> ...


wow!!!

thank you! not that i am looking for approval, but your remark truly made my day!!!
thank again

best
d


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

ally said:


> We got that with our doodles.


enforceable?

really?

my aunt fanny

Ive got all billys "pedigree" in that i know all his ancestors, which were all kc registered, and can go back many many generations if i so chose. It still wouldnt be enforceable, he's a mongrel.


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

SAy "hi" to your Aunt Fanny for me........


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

ally said:


> SAy "hi" to your Aunt Fanny for me........


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> enforceable?
> 
> really?
> 
> ...


I think Ally meant an enforcable contract to spay... which she did have (see my earlier post).. retention of title etc etc etc


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I think Ally meant an enforcable contract to spay... which she did have (see my earlier post).. retention of title etc etc etc


ahhh

thats not what i was referring to

i was referring to the actual pedigree.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> ahhh
> 
> thats not what i was referring to
> 
> i was referring to the actual pedigree.


Nah - I agree with you though. They are (pedigrees) simply (until we have proper DNA tests available) a list of name. You could ring round and try and find them but its very much on trust as far as the pedigree list goes.


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

Actually I meant that I have all the KC registration papers and parents healthcheck results for my doodles.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

ally said:


> Actually I meant that I have all the KC registration papers and parents healthcheck results for my doodles.


a doodle cant be kc registered ally. just like my billy cant be. I have all his parents kc names numbers and pedigrees. But its not enforceable because he cannot be registered!


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

ally said:


> Actually I meant that I have all the KC registration papers and parents healthcheck results for my doodles.


You cannot have KC registration documents (unless of course, you are referring to the activities register but most people would not immediately think of that as being "KC registered") for your crossbreds. 

However, I'm delighted that you have the health test results for their parents. :smile5:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ridgielover said:


> You cannot have KC registration documents (unless of course, you are referring to the activities register but most people would not immediately think of that as being "KC registered") for your crossbreds.
> 
> However, I'm delighted that you have the health test results for their parents. :smile5:


KC for parents I think that says... Les Dawson typing.....right words...wrong order.

I have them for B's parents too..... meaning I know who her relatives are... which was nice


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> KC for parents I think that says... Les Dawson typing.....right words...wrong order.
> 
> I have them for B's parents too..... meaning I know who her relatives are... which was nice


Was it not you(bit tired at the moment so apologise if it wasnt) that mentioned that pedigrees are just a list of names? and hasnt this debate been back and forth about the "use" of pedigrees and that the names on them may not be the real dogs involved in the actual pedigree? if that is the case, how can you say

" meaning I know who her relatives are... which was nice "

does that mean only the dogs in your dogs pedigree are to be taken as certain? but those of us that have KC registered dogs are to doubt the dogs in their pedigree?

Mo


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

yes a pedigree is just a list of names

However when registered with a proper body should you have been duped by an unscrupulous and fradulent breeder, then you have some recourse.


How can people claim then that mixed breed dogs are better, because theyre not part of the KC, yet be proud that they have all the KC parentage pedigrees of their mongrels?

Hmmmm

Sounds a bit twisted to me!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

moboyd said:


> Was it not you(bit tired at the moment so apologise if it wasnt) that mentioned that pedigrees are just a list of names? and hasnt this debate been back and forth about the "use" of pedigrees and that the names on them may not be the real dogs involved in the actual pedigree? if that is the case, how can you say
> 
> " meaning I know who her relatives are... which was nice "
> 
> ...


Sorry it was sarcasm - there was a sketch that used to appear on the Fast Show where the guy would say someting ...... and end it with ".... which was nice". I was making the point that its a-unverifiable and b-not much use but "nice" (I wasn't saying it was certain at all)...... not really sure how you read it the way you did but sorry for the confusion / trivilisation


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> a doodle cant be kc registered ally. just like my billy cant be. I have all his parents kc names numbers and pedigrees. But its not enforceable because he cannot be registered!


 Obviously not, but as their parents are all pedigrees I have theirs which is what I put. That said, I idn't say I WAS proud of their parents KC reg andpedigree; I was just proving a point to the person who commented about not having them for crossbreeds. Personally wouldn't want doodles to be KC registered and controlled ever. It is the same with insuring our dogs, if we had registered them as the parent breed ie: Lab/Retriever or SP it would have cost us SO much more and the Insurers advised us that it is better to insure them as crossbreeds.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

ally said:


> Obviously not, but as their parents are all pedigrees I have theirs which is what I put. That said, I idn't say I WAS proud of their parents KC reg andpedigree; I was just proving a point to the person who commented about not having them for crossbreeds. Personally wouldn't want doodles to be KC registered and controlled ever. It is the same with insuring our dogs, if we had registered them as the parent breed ie: Lab/Retriever or SP it would have cost us SO much more and the Insurers advised us that it is better to insure them as crossbreeds.


i dont get why you would insure them as their parent breeds? they are mixes end of.

As to insurane costing more. Billy's insurance is no more than misos! They are the same!


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> i dont get why you would insure them as their parent breeds? they are mixes end of.
> 
> As to insurane costing more. Billy's insurance is no more than misos! They are the same!


It was proving a point by the Insurance Company; not to do literally! Insuring our dogs as crossbreeds saved us over £70 against the price of a Lab or SP not that I would insure them as something they are not... that would be fraudulent!


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry it was sarcasm - there was a sketch that used to appear on the Fast Show where the guy would say someting ...... and end it with ".... which was nice". I was making the point that its a-unverifiable and b-not much use but "nice" (I wasn't saying it was certain at all)......not really sure how you read it the way you did but sorry for the confusion / trivilisation


Ahh I dont watch the fast show so missed out on the humour.

")......not really sure how you read it the way you did but sorry for the confusion / trivilisation "

because you posted the quote below, and I couldnt see any other way of possibly reading it, seeing I was unaware of the fast show humour.

I have them for B's parents too..... meaning I know who her relatives are... which was nice.

mo


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

> Personally wouldn't want doodles to be KC registered and controlled ever.


And why would that be?


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

ally said:


> Personally wouldn't want doodles to be KC registered and controlled ever.


It's actually the breed clubs affiliated to the KC (for recognised breeds) that call the shots with regard to breed standards etc, (i.e. what the dogs should look like) not the KC itself. The KC is a registering body and doesn't have many teeth. The breed clubs have more control than the KC.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Personally wouldn't want doodles to be KC registered and controlled ever


I wouldn't worry - It's highly unlikely they ever will be due to the way they are being bred.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I wouldn't worry - It's highly unlikely they ever will be due to the way they are being bred.


Good point. :smile5:


----------



## Colsy (Oct 3, 2008)

This thread is now being closed, its been going around in circles for awhile.
Hope you all have a Happy New Year.


----------

