# Charging more for KC papers with a "pedigree" dog



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

Since having Oliver I've joined a few facebook groups aimed at Chihuahua's, one of which was a Chihuahua for sale group that was puppies and items for Chihuahua's.

Last night a lady advertised her 2 Chihuahua puppies, the owner of the group asked her to put the price on the advert as per the group rules, the breeder stated that there was two different prices, 1 for them with KC papers and 1 without.

The owner of the group asked her the prices and what was included in the prices, as some Chihuahua breeders sell the pups at 12 weeks vaccinated ect.

The breeder stated it was £1000 without papers or vaccines and £1500 with papers but without vaccines. 

I asked why the hike in £500 per puppy for KC papers which cost very little to acquire. She stated as she was working towards "accredited" status with the KC she was limited to the number of litters she could have. 

I pointed out the only limits were too many litters from a bitch, too many litters via c-section or too many in general to need a council licence.

Anyway she had a go calling me a troll and I should "research the kennel club before having an opinion". :rolleyes5:

So, how could anyone justify charging an extra £500 per dog for a £18 (I think it is now) registration. 

Why would any good breeder actually want to sell their pups without papers? The mind boggles.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

Sounds to me like a cheeky bitch.

Working towards Assured status limits the the amount of litters she can register?Sounds like she doesn't deserve the Assured status as she is already trying to work a fiddle.Gives the rest of us a bad name that are trying to work by high standards.


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

Sounds like she doesn't want to register every litter so it looks like she's breeding less than she is. So if you want papers, that's an extra litter she can't have, so the extra money is towards her loss from the next litter that now won't exist, not the cost of registration.


----------



## heartagram (Oct 12, 2012)

depending on what groups you're on I would ignore 90% of what is said on there, half of them are airheads who raise litters on bakers and think they're the bee knees with apparant "show quality" chihuahuas who look more jack russel than anything else!


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Another [email protected] example of Assured Breeder. Not saying all ABs are up to no good but certainly there is a lot to be desired if people like the one you describe are screwing the system by not registering litters purely so that they can breed more litters than is allowed if you are a member of the AB Scheme


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Since having Oliver I've joined a few facebook groups aimed at Chihuahua's, one of which was a Chihuahua for sale group that was puppies and items for Chihuahua's.
> 
> Last night a lady advertised her 2 Chihuahua puppies, the owner of the group asked her to put the price on the advert as per the group rules, the breeder stated that there was two different prices, 1 for them with KC papers and 1 without.
> 
> ...


It's £13 to register a pup - and you are not a troll - she is talking a load of B******s

Licensed breeders can become ABS members - the only way she can be "having too many litters" is if she is either breaking the terms of the number of dogs ./ pups she is licensed for, or she is breeding a bitch more than once in a twelve month which would also contravene the terms for licensed breeders.

The myth that a bitch can't have more than one litter in a 12 month window if the breeder is an ABS member is a load of bunkum unless as above, they are licensed.

I'm not going to claim ir's breed I'm familiar with, or what health-tests may be required, suitable breeding age etc - however, I do know that (if I am reading this right) £500 difference between pups from the same litter based solely on whether the pup is KC registered or not is outrageous. (for many breeds it is unusual for breeders to start vaccinations for reasons which have been explained many times on this forum (and probably others yes)

It's hard to know what goes on behind closed doors, and probably best not to jump to conclusions, but it does sounds a bit dodgy to me,


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

chichi said:


> Another [email protected] example of Assured Breeder. Not saying all ABs are up to no good but certainly there is a lot to be desired if people like the one you describe are screwing the system by not registering litters purely so that they can breed more litters than is allowed if you are a member of the AB Scheme


  

There IS NOT any limit to the number of litters that can be registered by someone that is an ABS member - so PLEASE DO NOT rubbish the scheme because people who are members / hoping to become members aren't actually aware of the facts.

For hobby breeders within the limits of their local council licensing scheme (i.e. they don't breed enough litters to be licensed) - the rules are solely what health-tests are mandated for the scheme, and if members of the breed club the recommendations on age limits, number of litters a bitch can have and the distance between them.

For licensed breeders what they do / don't do are based SOLELY on the terms of their license NOT the ABS.

==============================

I find it astonishing how many people remain ignorant of the scheme requirements and licensing rules - but are still willing to use "mis-information" to slate the scheme.


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

Not arguing as such, but I thought there were limits to numbers of litters you could register if you were an assured breeder. After reading some comments I thought, okay, maybe I'm wrong, so I went and looked it up.

This page - http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1100/abshealthreqs.pdf seems to imply there are limits to the number some breeds are recommended to have (although Chihuahuas are not on there), and it states to be an assured breeder you should follow the recommendations.

Some are age of first mating, some are how many seasons a bitch should have first, and some are upper age limit.

Have I misunderstood?


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

Vaccinations at my vets £49.50 for the course.

IMO,yes a Registered dog is supposedly twice the price of a non registered dog but i would have thought the price for the registered Chihuahua would have been £1000 not £1500.I think her prices are way too high but if she can pull a fast one and get an extra £500 for her dogs she will do it.

I think she has probably been spending her extra money on vodka and worked herself into a delusion state.

I personally don't see how she can charge these prices,there are too many Chihuahua ,good and bad being bred.

Why a Chihuahua Shetlandlover?Not judging just curious.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

BoredomBusters said:


> Not arguing as such, but I thought there were limits to numbers of litters you could register if you were an assured breeder. After reading some comments I thought, okay, maybe I'm wrong, so I went and looked it up.
> 
> This page - http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1100/abshealthreqs.pdf seems to imply there are limits to the number some breeds are recommended to have (although Chihuahuas are not on there), and it states to be an assured breeder you should follow the recommendations.
> 
> ...


As per my above posts, some breeds have mandated test requirements in order to register a litter - for Labs it is hips and eyes.

Then we come to the "recommendations" - a recommendation is not legally enforceable - although one would assume that if the breed club have specified a bitch isn't to have a litter before the age of 2 years, or (as with NSDTR) - a dog should not be used at stud before 2 years old.

Under the ABS, the breeder cannot be kicked off the scheme for not following "recommendations" (the KC can and have refused to register litters where mandated requirements "appear" not to have been met - not my place to go into the ins and outs of it - because the requirements had been met).

However, if someone on the ABS is also a breed club member, and it is the breed club who've specified the recommendations, then one would assume that the breed club would have these same recommendations for their members and therefore by not following these they are breaching the terms of their membership with their club.

However ALL of the above is supposition - mandatory tests can be enforced by the KC refusing to register the litter if they have not been met.

Recommendations are just that - and not enforceable in law.

And only local council licensing mandates how many dogs or how many litters a breeder can have - irrespective of whether they are an ABS member.

If a breeder wants to have back to back litters with say 8 months between them - the scheme presently allows for this unless the breeder is licensed - and this is one of the reasons why you hear of some big breeders having some litters where the puppies are not KC registered.

ETA - not that it affects me because I test my dogs over and above the mandatory and recommended tests under the scheme

However, if a breeder MUST follow recommendations in order to register litters under the scheme - then they are NOT recommendations they are requirements - a single word but completely different meanings.

I do know of scheme members who don't use the elbow test in Labs but still register their litters - again - it's not mandatory and therefore not enforceable - same with PRA.

I know there are a growing number of breeders who want to see every single litter registered having one PRA clear parent - this way - anyone registering a litter can never again produce PRA affected progeny,


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

swarthy said:


> As per my above posts, some breeds have mandated test requirements in order to register a litter - for Labs it is hips and eyes.
> 
> Then we come to the "recommendations" - a recommendation is not legally enforceable - although one would assume that if the breed club have specified a bitch isn't to have a litter before the age of 2 years, or (as with NSDTR) - a dog should not be used at stud before 2 years old.
> 
> ...


ok thanks for the clarification! It helps when I'm working with clients looking for a good breeder. :thumbsup:


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

swarthy said:


> There IS NOT any limit to the number of litters that can be registered by someone that is an ABS member - so PLEASE DO NOT rubbish the scheme because people who are members / hoping to become members aren't actually aware of the facts.
> 
> For hobby breeders within the limits of their local council licensing scheme (i.e. they don't breed enough litters to be licensed) - the rules are solely what health-tests are mandated for the scheme, and if members of the breed club the recommendations on age limits, number of litters a bitch can have and the distance between them.
> 
> ...


ALL breeders are limited to (if not licensed) no more than 5 litters per year (if they cannot produce a license).

Perhaps I didnt word my post correctly to be fully understood but to make it clear......if this breeder is not registering litters when they are....or working towards being an assured breeder....this shows the worth of the AB scheme.....well to anyone who wants to open their eyes!

I know breeders that are very respected who will not join the AB scheme whilst there are dodgy breeders as members.

I assume you are a member of the AB scheme.....hence your defence of it. Feel free to have your opinion...which we are all entitled to btw....but please dont be in denial about the flaws in the AB scheme.

Nobody is saying the ABS is terrible but there is a long way to go before (to me) the term "Assured Breeder" means more than just words.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

£ 500 to register a puppy is a huge sum of money than £1000 unreg, i'm assuming noone takes them up on the offer so the whole litter doesn't get registered and the poor bitch can me mated on her next season again.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

Firedog said:


> Why a Chihuahua Shetlandlover?Not judging just curious.


I've already got a Chihuahua Oliver, I joined a few groups to talk to other Chihuahua owners and came across that advert, which quite a few others were protesting the ridiculous amount of money she was asking for.

If you're asking why I've got Oliver, I fell in love with Chihuahua's after meeting quite a few at shows, they are amazing little dogs.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

I have seen this, although not to the extreme of £500 but £100 for papers and I really don't know and I think it seems off to offer them without if they can be KC reg. I really don't understand why there wouldn't be any KC reg if you have an affix.

To me the KC means something, even if people do abuse it.

If breeders are offering pups without papers, to me it seems as if they have plans to mate the bitch again too soon.



shetlandlover said:


> Why would any good breeder actually want to sell their pups without papers? The mind boggles.


Isn't Oliver without papers though?


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> I have seen this, although not to the extreme of £500 but £100 for papers and I really don't know and I think it seems off to offer them without if they can be KC reg. I really don't understand why there wouldn't be any KC reg if you have an affix.
> 
> To me the KC means something, even if people do abuse it.
> 
> ...


There is no valid reason to sell a puppy without papers if both Parents are KC reg and the breeder has the paperwork.

If I ever see an advert that gives the new owner the option of having the pups KC Reg or not (for a lower price) I immediately think "dodgy"


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

by papers are you meaning pedigree for the pup or KC reg or both? i've seen many pups advertised with pedigree but no mention of kc reg


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Isn't Oliver without papers though?


Yes because he's from a long coat x short coat mating, the litter in question was completely short coat so there was no reason to avoid kc reg.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

dexter said:


> by papers are you meaning pedigree for the pup or KC reg or both? i've seen many pups advertised with pedigree but no mention of kc reg


I was talking about KC Reg papers.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

shetlandlover said:


> Yes because he's from a long coat x short coat mating, the litter in question was completely short coat so there was no reason to avoid kc reg.


Yes for those that dont know....Chi litters cannot be registered if the KC parents are of different coat types.....long x smooth. Although some other Countries allow crossed coats in the breed to be registered....the UK does not allow it.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

chichi said:


> Yes for those that dont know....Chi litters cannot be registered if the KC parents are of different coat types.....long x smooth. Although some other Countries allow crossed coats in the breed to be registered....the UK does not allow it.


yep. so why do breeders do it? what advantage is there?


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

dexter said:


> yep. so why do breeders do it? what advantage is there?


Oli's litter wasn't intentional, she has had a litter previously that was 100% long coated as she used an outside stud and the litter was KC registered.

The breeder went away and left hubby in charge of the dogs and he let Oliver's mum in with Oliver's dad.

I know other breeders intentionally breed long x short but I am unsure why? I know in the states ect they can be registered but over here not so.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

dexter said:


> yep. so why do breeders do it? what advantage is there?


Different breeders have different reasons for doing it. Sometimes a mistake.

I have a long x smooth girl I bought years ago from a fantastic breeder....she is probably the prettiest...most typey Chis Ive ever seen. She was a "mishap" mating and one that I cannot be more thankful for. She is amazing inside and out.....never had a days ilness.....temperament to die for. Before anyone asks.....did I breed her......the answer is no.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

dexter said:


> yep. so why do breeders do it? what advantage is there?


There's one on CN now and it is £500 with KC reg and £400 without.

What on earth is the point?


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> There's one on CN now and it is £500 with KC reg and £400 without.
> 
> What on earth is the point?


what a long x short ? it can't be registered if it is.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> Oli's litter wasn't intentional, she has had a litter previously that was 100% long coated as she used an outside stud and the litter was KC registered.
> 
> The breeder went away and left hubby in charge of the dogs and he let Oliver's mum in with Oliver's dad.
> 
> I know other breeders intentionally breed long x short but I am unsure why? I know in the states ect they can be registered but over here not so.


I thought the breeder wanted a bitch from the litter and it was planned but the reason the coats didn't match up was because she only had a long coated male and the only bitch able to breed from was short haired.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

dexter said:


> what a long x short ? it can't be registered if it is.


No a rough dog, it is 2 years old but to sell with or without kc papers.

I would assume it must already be registered though, isn't 2 too late?

So maybe he means you can get them but you have to pay extra to take home the kc papers too.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> No a rough dog, it is 2 years old but to sell with or without kc papers.
> 
> I would assume it must already be registered though, isn't 2 too late?
> 
> So maybe he means you can get them but you have to pay extra to take home the kc papers too.


yes probably. i've seen lots of ads like that. Its meant to deter people from breeding i think


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

dexter said:


> yes probably. i've seen lots of ads like that. Its meant to deter people from breeding i think


I'm sure that will work!!

How strange......


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> I thought the breeder wanted a bitch from the litter and it was planned but the reason the coats didn't match up was because she only had a long coated male and the only bitch able to breed from was short haired.


She did want a bitch from the litter, when I asked her about the litter she said it was an accidental mating but that she had contemplated doing the mating in the future as she wanted a bitch from her girl and her boy.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> She did want a bitch from the litter, when I asked her about the litter she said it was an accidental mating but that she had contemplated doing the mating in the future as she wanted a bitch from her girl and her boy.


but why? what would it achieve?


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

chichi said:


> Different breeders have different reasons for doing it. Sometimes a mistake.
> 
> I have a long x smooth girl I bought years ago from a fantastic breeder....she is probably the prettiest...most typey Chis Ive ever seen. She was a "mishap" mating and one that I cannot be more thankful for. She is amazing inside and out.....never had a days ilness.....temperament to die for. Before anyone asks.....did I breed her......the answer is no.


Oliver's a lovely dog and the breeder was very good even have a nice contract here that insists he's not to be bred (I have no intentions to breed him, ever) and to be neutered at the appropriate age. As well as other bits of the contract that cover the basic care needs ect.

I certainly don't regret getting him, nor do I regret supporting the breeder. She had her dogs interest at heart, I know I can call her anytime for advice and visit her whenever I like.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

dexter said:


> but why? what would it achieve?


She didn't want it to achieve anything, she wanted a bitch from her two dogs.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

dexter said:


> but why? what would it achieve?


Potentially (hopefully if the breeder has taken care)....a well bred dog but without KC papers.

Whilst KC registration is desirable....I dont think its essential if pet homes are the aim for the pups.

KC registration is in no way a guarantee that the pup is healthy. It guarantees (as far as the information given by the breeder who registers the litter) that the pup is purebred....absolutely nothing Else.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

chichi said:


> Potentially (hopefully if the breeder has taken care)....a well bred dog but without KC papers.
> 
> Whilst KC registration is desirable....I dont think its essential if pet homes are the aim for the pups.
> 
> KC registration is in no way a guarantee that the pup is healthy. It guarantees (as far as the information given by the breeder who registers the litter) that the pup is purebred....absolutely nothing Else.


No i agree its not but if its a mating that the KC don't allow i can't see the point tbo, especially if the breeders wants to join the ABS. it would be like me mating a rough collie with a smooth collie .


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

shetlandlover said:


> Oliver's a lovely dog and the breeder was very good even have a nice contract here that insists he's not to be bred (I have no intentions to breed him, ever) and to be neutered at the appropriate age. As well as other bits of the contract that cover the basic care needs ect.
> 
> I certainly don't regret getting him, nor do I regret supporting the breeder. She had her dogs interest at heart, I know I can call her anytime for advice and visit her whenever I like.


Sounds like she cares about the puppies she breeds......so many scummy breeders cashing in on Chis atm.....makes me sad 

Oliver is a very cute Chi btw


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

chichi said:


> Potentially (hopefully if the breeder has taken care)....a well bred dog but without KC papers.
> 
> Whilst KC registration is desirable....I dont think its essential if pet homes are the aim for the pups.
> 
> KC registration is in no way a guarantee that the pup is healthy. It guarantees (as far as the information given by the breeder who registers the litter) that the pup is purebred....absolutely nothing Else.


But you can get well bred pet dogs and source a stud dog, rather then just your two pets.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

nice to have a decent conversation on here without it getting nasty


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

dexter said:


> No i agree its not but if its a mating that the KC don't allow i can't see the point tbo, especially if the breeders wants to join the ABS. it would be like me mating a rough collie with a smooth collie .


If the breeder wants to join the ABS then they shouldnt be considering such matings but as they dont register this kind of litter (they cant) they hope the KC doesnt find out I suppose.

Where Chis are concerned....there is no Health or ethical reason not to cross the coats....only in so far as the pups from such mating cant be registered with the KC so I dont see its a bad thing....so long as the breeder honours all of the morals and ethics one would/should when breeding a litter that can be registered.

KC registration....as we know....is not necessary to produce good and healthy pups but the breeder, whether registering pups or not, should put the Dam and pups welfare in first place priority at all times.

Where the KC will no longer register merles in Chis because of health problems/implications....this is obviously very different.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

chichi said:


> Sounds like she cares about the puppies she breeds......so many scummy breeders cashing in on Chis atm.....makes me sad
> 
> Oliver is a very cute Chi btw


Thanks, he knows he's cute he gets away with so much!

She's excellent, a real rare thing tbh. On a few of the Chihuahua groups on facebook it's just breeders chucking puppies at anyone who wants it, it's very sad to see. I've seen so many "pedigree" but no papers, no kc papers and no actual linage either! Very confusing as how is it pedigree if you don't know where its from?

She made me feel like I had to work for him, exactly what I wanted from a breeder, she asked me questions despite knowing my dogs and my experience which made me feel very happy as it wasn't a "you want him?" "yes" "okay he's ready on thsi date"

It was very official and I know she felt by the end of it she found him the best home. She came over met my dogs, saw my house and got to see how we handled our dogs.

I think there are good breeders out there in the grey bit between "back yard breeder" and "Ethical breeder" but it is a grey bit.

I've dealt with a few back yard breeders over the years and it's how quick they can get buyers out the door with the puppy with the cash in their pocket without any aftercare. There's no way Olivers breeder and by the sounds of it your girls breeder are under that category.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> But you can get well bred pet dogs and source a stud dog, rather then just your two pets.


You can of course but, like I said, more often than not.....cross coat litters are a mishap. Sometimes a mishap that has a beautiful outcome.

If cross coating in Chis is acceptable in the US and other Countries I dont see it is necessarily a bad thing.....:yesnod:


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I think there are good breeders out there in the grey bit between "back yard breeder" and "Ethical breeder" but it is a grey bit.


And there could be a place in this world for this 'grey' area type of breeder IF rescues were not over flowing with dogs. If the rescue crisis was sorted out, and byb/puppy farms stopped for good, then I could see a place for very caring, thoughtful people, occasionally breeding health tested pups for no real reason besides wanting to - breeders that in every other way meet the standards of what we'd expect ethical breeders to meet today, all besides having a strong reason to breed. However, with the situation being as it is at the moment, I really feel that every litter produced needs to be ethically justified and have a point to it. To me, wanting a pup from your dog is not a good enough reason when there are so many dogs being produced.

It does sound as though Oliver's breeder was in many ways better than your average byb, and I respect a lot of what you've said about her, but without a really good reason for breeding, in my opinion she shouldn't have had the litter.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

chichi said:


> You can of course but, like I said, more often than not.....cross coat litters are a mishap. Sometimes a mishap that has a beautiful outcome.
> 
> If cross coating in Chis is acceptable in the US and other Countries I dont see it is necessarily a bad thing.....:yesnod:


I suppose but then there are lots of differences in other countries and not all good. I for one am not really a fan of the US colour breeding in roughs with sable to blue and having sable merle. Obviously there are some who don't mind it though.

I know you can breed for pet homes but I don't know why you wouldn't just choose one (long coat or short) and stick with it.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Alice Childress said:


> And there could be a place in this world for this 'grey' area type of breeder IF rescues were not over flowing with dogs. If the rescue crisis was sorted out, and byb/puppy farms stopped for good, then I could see a place for very caring, thoughtful people, occasionally breeding health tested pups for no real reason besides wanting to - breeders that in every other way meet the standards of what we'd expect ethical breeders to meet today, all besides having a strong reason to breed. However, with the situation being as it is at the moment, I really feel that every litter produced needs to be ethically justified and have a point to it. To me, wanting a pup from your dog is not a good enough reason when there are so many dogs being produced.


What would you class as a good reason for a litter?

I've never understood why cross coat matings in chis aren't allowe tbh- if it was only the one variety it would certainly make the toy breed ring move faster at shows! 
Also, Oliver's an absolute doll! :001_wub: Not that you need telling of course!


----------



## heartagram (Oct 12, 2012)

At least you found a good breeder shetland, I'm finding it a nightmare.
I'm finding they're either totally scummy back yard breeders, or so precious with their little darlings they'd go mad if you ever planned to take them outside of a garden, let alone walk offlead in a field somewhere and godforbid let them interact with another dog that isn't a chihuahua, ugh  sadly anything that remotely looks like a chihuahua seems to fall into the second lot.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> I suppose but then there are lots of differences in other countries and not all good. I for one am not really a fan of the US colour breeding in roughs with sable to blue and having sable merle. Obviously there are some who don't mind it though.
> 
> I know you can breed for pet homes but I don't know why you wouldn't just choose one (long coat or short) and stick with it.


sable x merle has been done over here too

well i quess we are all different when interpretating ethical breeders. i for one don't like "mishaps"


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

dexter said:


> sable x merle has been done over here too
> 
> well i quess we are all different when interpretating ethical breeders. i for one don't like "mishaps"


Oh yes of course. But it isnt as common and forgive me if I am wrong but Im pretty sure we dont have a sable merle either.

Quite agree.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> Oh yes of course. But it isnt as common and forgive me if I am wrong but Im pretty surewe dont have a sable merle either.
> 
> Quite agree.


i'll send you something about it if i can find it.x nonot a registered colour
.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

dexter said:


> i'll send you something about it if i can find it.x nonot a registered colour
> .


Thank you!

I know about the breeding long ago when blues were almost extinct in the ring and they bred what blues they had to sables at times to get the 'type' into them but was frowned on as it could produce rusty blues and blue eyed sables.

In the US they have such a difference with colour breeding and also smooth to rough coated too!


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

heartagram said:


> At least you found a good breeder shetland, I'm finding it a nightmare.
> I'm finding they're either totally scummy back yard breeders, or so precious with their little darlings they'd go mad if you ever planned to take them outside of a garden, let alone walk offlead in a field somewhere and godforbid let them interact with another dog that isn't a chihuahua, ugh  sadly anything that remotely looks like a chihuahua seems to fall into the second lot.


Dont think for one minute that it isnt a nightmare for breeders finding good homes. My pups papers are endorsed and go on strict contract to be pet only. I tell this to puppy enquirers from word go. They usually agree and more than happy....I do my detective work and more often than not find they have studs...litters or both advertised....of course unregistered or crossbred. Its scary that we live in a world with such dishonesty!


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

chichi said:


> Dont think for one minute that it isnt a nightmare for breeders finding good homes. My pups papers are endorsed and go on strict contract to be pet only. I tell this to puppy enquirers from word go. They usually agree and more than happy....I do my detective work and more often than not find they have studs...litters or both advertised....of course unregistered or crossbred. Its scary that we live in a world with such dishonesty!


And then of course when you are doing things as you see right- the stick you get from some potential owners  the things I've been called for endorsing my pups...


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Alice Childress said:


> And there could be a place in this world for this 'grey' area type of breeder IF rescues were not over flowing with dogs. If the rescue crisis was sorted out, and byb/puppy farms stopped for good, then I could see a place for very caring, thoughtful people, occasionally breeding health tested pups for no real reason besides wanting to - breeders that in every other way meet the standards of what we'd expect ethical breeders to meet today, all besides having a strong reason to breed. However, with the situation being as it is at the moment, I really feel that every litter produced needs to be ethically justified and have a point to it. To me, wanting a pup from your dog is not a good enough reason when there are so many dogs being produced.
> 
> It does sound as though Oliver's breeder was in many ways better than your average byb, and I respect a lot of what you've said about her, but without a really good reason for breeding, in my opinion she shouldn't have had the litter.


Should the ethical pet/hobby breeders move over and make more room for byb and puppy farmers to make a killing with poorly bred sickly puppies bred from adults kept in cruel and unsanitary conditions. Target them and get them to stop breeding. Not those of us that give our love and life to a breed.

You may not see a point in a puppy being bred that is healthy..well temperamented and an ideal family pet. I however would disagree if the breeder has morals and ethics.

I dont think Olivers breeder was a byb.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

kodakkuki said:


> And then of course when you are doing things as you see right- the stick you get from some potential owners  the things I've been called for endorsing my pups...


Aint that the truth. Ive been sworn at.....shouted at......and generally abused over endorsements and turning people away for a pup because their home circumstances were not suitable imo......and lets face it.....when it comes to finding homes.....if the breeder doesnt do all they can to protect those puppies....goodness knows what awful things could happen in their futures.

I sit and cry when I see some of the ads on the internet. You know they have been bred out of nothing other than greed.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Alice Childress said:


> And there could be a place in this world for this 'grey' area type of breeder IF rescues were not over flowing with dogs. If the rescue crisis was sorted out, and byb/puppy farms stopped for good, then I could see a place for very caring, thoughtful people, occasionally breeding health tested pups for no real reason besides wanting to - breeders that in every other way meet the standards of what we'd expect ethical breeders to meet today, all besides having a strong reason to breed. However, with the situation being as it is at the moment, I really feel that every litter produced needs to be ethically justified and have a point to it. To me, wanting a pup from your dog is not a good enough reason when there are so many dogs being produced.
> 
> It does sound as though Oliver's breeder was in many ways better than your average byb, and I respect a lot of what you've said about her, but without a really good reason for breeding, in my opinion she shouldn't have had the litter.


Following through with the idea that only pups 'justified' should be bred what you will end up with is thousands and thousands MORE coming in from outside the country and propping up the mills in Wales etc. that keep breeding animals by the hundreds and are propped up by their gov'ts to continue to do so.

I understand that is probably not the aim of those that post about curtailing breeding . . . but that is where it goes and I have seen it because where I am at we have not euthanized healthy and adoptable dogs for a decade and NOW what we see are MANY, MANY more mill mommas.

THAT was not a good bargain or the way to go IMHO.

Does anyone really think that was helpful to dogs overall? As long as substandard operations cannot be curtailed it is a pipe dream to pretend that discouraging pet breeders will affect ANY amount of euthanasias anywhere.

There will ALWAYS be rescues just like there will ALWAYS be foster care for human children.

We have catch systems for human children and for disgarded pets because there will always be an element in our population that can't care for what they initially take on and those in need of help due to that.

Having dogs in rescue does not mean there is an overpopulation of dogs.

Having dogs killed by shelter systems that are doing diddly squat to encourage their adoptions, and in many cases are discouraging adopters, does not mean there is an overpopulation of dogs.

http://www.doggedblog.com/doggedblo...s-nothing-to-do-with-pet-over-population.html

There are bodies in the UK which, I understand, take in great amounts of donations to help animals but CHOOSE to focus on spending that for political purposes instead of on helping rescue dogs.

The money is there to support EVERY animal that needs a home if it was turned their way. There are many more times the homes looking for dogs in the UK than the numbers made available through rescue.

The fact is the agencies and the bodies that CAN make a difference are turning a blind eye and not amount of caring breeders choosing to not breed a litter are going to resolve THAT problem.

As to the use of the word 'crises', the situation has seen great improvement over 30 years. How is the word 'crises' appliable?

There are still 1500 healthy put down in the UK, but that is while many who go for rescue dogs are turned away and while there are rescues IMPORTED from outside the country by the hundreds and while THOUSANDS are purchased from substandard operations outside the country.

--------------------------
For those of us on the North American side.

In the USA there are now over 78 million owned dogs. From 1973 to 2007 US cat and dog owning homes more than doubled and animal shelter euthanasia rates dropped by more than 60%. In 2012 less than 1.5 million dogs were euthanised and that is a drop from 6-7 million in 1973. Keep in mind from studies in the 90s about 24% of relinquishments for dogs and 17% for cats are pets for which euthanasia has been requested, and as well those numbers include animals the shelters CHOOSE to not allow for adoption, many being 'type' dogs in areas where those are illegal to adopt out.

The rate of pets killed in shelters per 1000 people has dropped from 115 to 9.7.

ANIMAL PEOPLE ONLINE » U.S. animal shelter toll appears to drop below three million

THIS improvement is something we should be celebrating.

CC


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

Alice Childress said:


> And there could be a place in this world for this 'grey' area type of breeder IF rescues were not over flowing with dogs. If the rescue crisis was sorted out, and byb/puppy farms stopped for good, then I could see a place for very caring, thoughtful people, occasionally breeding health tested pups for no real reason besides wanting to - breeders that in every other way meet the standards of what we'd expect ethical breeders to meet today, all besides having a strong reason to breed. However, with the situation being as it is at the moment, I really feel that every litter produced needs to be ethically justified and have a point to it. To me, wanting a pup from your dog is not a good enough reason when there are so many dogs being produced.
> 
> It does sound as though Oliver's breeder was in many ways better than your average byb, and I respect a lot of what you've said about her, but without a really good reason for breeding, in my opinion she shouldn't have had the litter.


I don't think you can honestly blame people like Olivers breeder for the rescue crisis, she's had 2 litters 1 was 3 pups and Oliver's litter was 2 pups all are in the original homes she sold too (I know because she proudly told me how she keeps in regular contact with all of them).

I think that ANY dog bred by show breeders or pet breeders (pedigree or cross) has a good chance of ending up in a rescue if the breeder is lazy about who they sell too, I know when I had my litter I vetted the two homes extensively, questioned, investigated over the internet (you'd be surprised how many people who wanted puppies from me lied in their questionnaire).

I had 1 woman who said she was home pretty much all the time, only her and her child in the house and it was a quiet home perfect for a puppy only to find she had parties at her home every weekend with drugs (yes in pictures!), loads of Alcohol and took frequent holidays over sea's as in every 2-3 months.

Or "I don't own any other dogs but would love a bitch from you" only to find they have an entire male of a different breed that they are offering out to stud on free ad sites to ANY BREED.

I think between breeders who don't care (which is often back yard breeders) where their pups go to as long as they get the cash and breeders like a kennel only 15 miles from me who pumps out puppies all year round of different breeds and owners who don't research their dogs before getting them, I think that's what makes the rescue crisis.



kodakkuki said:


> What would you class as a good reason for a litter?
> 
> I've never understood why cross coat matings in chis aren't allowe tbh- if it was only the one variety it would certainly make the toy breed ring move faster at shows!
> Also, Oliver's an absolute doll! :001_wub: Not that you need telling of course!


Thank you hun. :001_wub:

I understand the coat classes but I don't understand why a mix between the coats can't be registered like in the states.



heartagram said:


> At least you found a good breeder shetland, I'm finding it a nightmare.
> I'm finding they're either totally scummy back yard breeders, or so precious with their little darlings they'd go mad if you ever planned to take them outside of a garden, let alone walk offlead in a field somewhere and godforbid let them interact with another dog that isn't a chihuahua, ugh  sadly anything that remotely looks like a chihuahua seems to fall into the second lot.


Have you checked Champdogs? x



chichi said:


> I dont think Olivers breeder was a byb.


Neither do I.
I believe she falls in the grey area as she is a caring breeder who follows all ethics apart from KC registering this accidental litter.


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

kodakkuki said:


> What would you class as a good reason for a litter?
> 
> I've never understood why cross coat matings in chis aren't allowe tbh- if it was only the one variety it would certainly make the toy breed ring move faster at shows!
> Also, Oliver's an absolute doll! :001_wub: Not that you need telling of course!





kodakkuki said:


> What would you class as a good reason for a litter?


This is a good question and one that is annoyingly very subjective and difficult to answer absolutely. For me, the only good reason is to be trying to improve on previous generations - to breed for healthier, stronger, happier dogs - but then there is the question of what exactly does that mean? It's a difficult one to pin down when we are talking about this "grey area" sort of breeder, who in many ways seems to be doing a good job. Nevertheles, breeding two of your dogs together because you want a pup is not a good enough reason _to me_. Was 'dad' the best possible dog for her girl? Because, although possible, this does seem like rather a coincidence to me given how hard ethical breeders work at finding a stud dog that compliments their girls faults.

I don't personally have a problem with two coats being crossed as long as the litter is not carelessly breed.



chichi said:


> *Should the ethical pet/hobby breeders move over and make more room for byb and puppy farmers to make a killing with poorly bred sickly puppies bred from adults kept in cruel and unsanitary conditions. *Target them and get them to stop breeding. Not those of us that give our love and life to a breed.
> 
> You may not see a point in a puppy being bred that is healthy..well temperamented and an ideal family pet. I however would disagree if the breeder has morals and ethics.
> 
> I dont think Olivers breeder was a byb.


Of course, I do not think any ethical breeder should move out of the way for byb  That is my point. Given the current climate I think ONLY ethical breeders should be breeding and as shetlandlover herself states, she would not class Oliver's breeder as a ethical breeder (nor a byb in her opinion). I agree with shetlandlover that Oliver's breeder fits into a grey area. What I do not agree with is that given the current climate, 'grey area' breeders are good enough. If I could make every byb as good as Oliver's then I would in a second. It doesn't stop me feeling uncomfortable with the litter being bred in the first place though.

What do you mean by "You may not see a point in a puppy being bred that is healthy..well temperamented and an ideal family pet. I however would disagree if the breeder has morals and ethics"?

You would disagree with what is a breeder has morals? Of course I see the point in a puppy being bred that is health with a good temperament


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I don't think you can honestly blame people like Olivers breeder for the rescue crisis, she's had 2 litters 1 was 3 pups and Oliver's litter was 2 pups all are in the original homes she sold too (I know because she proudly told me how she keeps in regular contact with all of them).
> 
> I am not blaming her for it and as I said, if the rescue crisis were not in such a state I think there would be a place for people like her. As you said, this is a grey area, and I have grey feelings about it. I can see your point of view but personally, I would not have supported this breeder because the reasons she seems to have given for breeding this litter are not enough to make me feel comfortable. Clearly for you they were enough and we just have a different view on this.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Alice Childress said:


> This is a good question and one that is annoyingly very subjective and difficult to answer absolutely. For me, the only good reason is to be trying to improve on previous generations - to breed for healthier, stronger, happier dogs - but then there is the question of what exactly does that mean? It's a difficult one to pin down when we are talking about this "grey area" sort of breeder, who in many ways seems to be doing a good job. Nevertheles, breeding two of your dogs together because you want a pup is not a good enough reason _to me_. Was 'dad' the best possible dog for her girl? Because, although possible, this does seem like rather a coincidence to me given how hard ethical breeders work at finding a stud dog that compliments their girls faults.
> 
> I don't personally have a problem with two coats being crossed as long as the litter is not carelessly breed.
> 
> You would disagree with what is a breeder has morals? *Of course I see the point in a puppy being bred that is health with a good temperament*


Even if its from a pet mother?

(Incase it comes across wrong, I'm not trying to be confrontational; it is simply an innocent question)


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

kodakkuki said:


> Even if its from a pet mother?
> 
> (Incase it comes across wrong, I'm not trying to be confrontational; it is simply an innocent question)


I agree that quality pet dogs should be produced, for sure.

But does that mean throwing your two pet dogs together because they are both there and both yours?


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

AC forgive me for saying that your posts are somewhat contradicting one another.

One minute you say that there isnt really a place for breeders such as Olivers because of the rescue crisis....

The next you say that you have no problem with cross coats.....

The next you say you wouldnt feel comfortable buying a puppy from Os breeder.

The only thing that is "contraversial" about Olivers litter is the cross coat situation...other than that....Oliver is a well loved pet in what I imagine will be his forever home.....which was thoroughly vetted by his caring breeder....who gives lifetime support to puppy owners.....


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> I agree that quality pet dogs should be produced, for sure.
> 
> But does that mean throwing your two pet dogs together because they are both there and both yours?


If the two pet dogs are of quality...healthy and of good temperament and you are going to take responsibility for the pups you produce.....then it isnt a terrible thing.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

chichi said:


> If the two pet dogs are of quality...healthy and of good temperament and you are going to take responsibility for the pups you produce.....then it isnt a terrible thing.


as with all things you have to believe what the breeders says is the truth.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

chichi said:


> If the two pet dogs are of quality...healthy and of good temperament and you are going to take responsibility for the pups you produce.....then it isnt a terrible thing.


But then everyones view of quality is different and everyone believes their pet to be of a quality anyway.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

dexter said:


> as with all things you have to believe what the breeders says is the truth.


That is true but anyone that has an idea a breeder is being anything other than completely honest should walk away.

I think some people buy pups knowing that the breeder is the scum of the earth and then get all upset when they ask for help and advice and are never answered.

When I vet new owners...if theres so much as a nagging feeling that something isnt right....cant even put my finger on what it is.....they dont even get as far as a viewing. I trust a lot on google and gut instinct....maybe some puppy buyers should be as careful when choosing a breeder.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> But then everyones view of quality is different and everyone believes their pet to be of a quality anyway.


I think somebody experienced in breeding will be objective about their pets quality/weaknesses.

If the pups produced arent show ring rosette collectors....its not the end of the world....so long as the breeder has not put poorly dogs/bad temperamented dogs together for the sake of it.....and of course so long as the breeder is honest and makes sure puppy buyers are aware that the pup is pet only.

It makes me mad when I see poorly bred....unregistered pups advertised as having "show potential" .....only in the world of puppy sales could such blatent lies be allowed!!!


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> I agree that quality pet dogs should be produced, for sure.
> 
> But does that mean throwing your two pet dogs together because they are both there and both yours?


i was thinking of the likes of the mating of my wee kuki... i am sourcing the best stud i can find for her (even though i did pick with type-iness in mind which is for the appearance) to have a litter that i may possibly keep a puppy for myself from to have a go at showing; i say have a go as it is fairly possible that i won't be able to wrap the coat, keep the dog from rolling in mud etc and therefore it wouldn't be likely to get placed a lot at champ shows anyway... 
so it's very possible that there will be no 'point' to this litter at all- except to have a litter of healthy, happy, beautiful lap terrors to spend their days in contractually forever safe homes. (and if the chip database does make a place for breeder details then this would be a 100% certainty rather than a 99.9999'%)
its possible that the home stud could be the best though. if a breeder likes and breeds a specific type of the breed then it's likely all the dogs they own will be the same conformation. if i do keep a boy to show then i may end up buying in a typey girl- if they are both what i had wanted then its possible they would have a Great litter together.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Great thread and thank you all for the lesson I have learned today, never knew that about Chi's. That's what PF should be about - education and not arguments.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

Slightly off the original thread but I think Oliver's breeder has done a Good Thing.

Clearly the breeder has great ethics and good dogs which are fit for breeding. Crossing the two types _should_ improve the puppies' COI and hence their chances of a decent immune system.

Given that the pups are for pets and NOT to be bred there's no problem within the "pedigree issues" involved in the two coat types. I mean there's no problem with showing or breeding; they're pet dogs. I think that the breeder may have (accidentally) produced PET dogs that have an excellent chance of a healthy life and being fabulous little pets.

I - personally - feel that as most dogs ARE pet dogs there would be an enthusiastic market for true-to-type pedigree dogs with all that predictability and a better chance of good health.

I think it's a very happy story and wish Oliver all the best. I think it's great that he happened.

Agree with you totally, Malmum.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

ozrex said:


> Slightly off the original thread but I think Oliver's breeder has done a Good Thing.
> 
> Clearly the breeder has great ethics and good dogs which are fit for breeding. Crossing the two types _should_ improve the puppies' COI and hence their chances of a decent immune system.
> 
> ...


I actually didn't consider the COI but yes, mixing short/long coat would give a much bigger gene pool.

Oliver say's thank you for the kind words.:001_tt1:


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> She stated as she was working towards "accredited" status with the KC she was limited to the number of litters she could have.


Mmmm.... you don't 'work towards' it  You simply comply with the requirements and apply! Sounds very fishy to me. The restrictions on numbers of litters are plenty for any breeder other than those who breed purely for financial gain!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> Mmmm.... you don't 'work towards' it  You simply comply with the requirements and apply! Sounds very fishy to me. The restrictions on numbers of litters are plenty for any breeder other than those who breed purely for financial gain!


Yes - you could be forgiven for thinking they've been thrown off the scheme and are "working to get back on it!!!!"

People don't seem to grasp that for hobby breeders, even ABS members, the same limitations do not apply as they do to licensed breeders (Champdogs rules are probably some of the the strictest for hobby breeders for advertising litters)


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

swarthy said:


> Yes - you could be forgiven for thinking they've been thrown off the scheme and are "working to get back on it!!!!"
> 
> People don't seem to grasp that for hobby breeders, even ABS members, the same limitations do not apply as they do to licensed breeders (Champdogs rules are probably some of the the strictest for hobby breeders for advertising litters)


Saying that, I saw a litter on champdogs recently I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, the woman who bred them, well, what can I say?!!


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> Saying that, I saw a litter on champdogs recently I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, the woman who bred them, well, what can I say?!!


The only difference with Champdogs as opposed to any other site that you can advertise pups on is (I believe.....happy to be corrected if I am wrong) that you have to have a Kennel Name (KC AFFIX) to be a part of CD.

To get that status you only need apply for a Kennel Name with KC...pay your fee....bobs your uncle.....so long as the name chosen doesnt affect in any way any other Kennel Names already granted....etc.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

chichi said:


> The only difference with Champdogs as opposed to any other site that you can advertise pups on is (I believe.....happy to be corrected if I am wrong) that you have to have a Kennel Name (KC AFFIX) to be a part of CD.
> 
> To get that status you only need apply for a Kennel Name with KC...pay your fee....bobs your uncle.....so long as the name chosen doesnt affect in any way any other Kennel Names already granted....etc.


Is that it a KC name?

But anyone can apply for one!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> She didn't want it to achieve anything, she wanted a bitch from her two dogs.


But she didn't keep one? So is she going to repeat the mating  Seems a pretty pointless risk to me?



ozrex said:


> Slightly off the original thread but I think Oliver's breeder has done a Good Thing.
> 
> Clearly the breeder has great ethics and good dogs which are fit for breeding. Crossing the two types _should_ improve the puppies' COI and hence their chances of a decent immune system.
> 
> ...


How will crossing long haired and smooth coated chihuahua's benefit the breed if they're not KC registered? 

If it were proven that the gene pool of *each* needed to be widened, and the KC allowed the two gene pools to mix, then yes, but not when the pups aren't even KC registered and there isn't any plan to *breed on* from the pups??

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as CD goes, I'm sure I've seen dog names on there that do not have an affix, like any other place, you pay your money and are/aren't accepted. Those litters with health tested parents are highlighted.

As far as the ABS is concerned, you apply online, pay your money, and are either accepted or not, you don't need to build up to applying, you just need to state what measures you would take to achieve what they require of an ABS.

I don't see any point in KC pups without KC papers at all, they're not traceable, you can't tell what good or bad they do to the world of dogs overall. The only reason people would charge extra for them is because they simply find money more attractive than the care and wellbeing of their dogs. Any breeder that offered pups from the same litter for different prices, with or without papers, I wouldn't touch with a very long barge pole. I simply don't like dishonest people, and for me, lying by omission is dishonest.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> Is that it a KC name?
> 
> But anyone can apply for one!


Tbh I am not even sure if that is necessary. It was some time ago that I registered an account on CD. I seem to remember being asked my Kennel name but I am not really sure if it was an absolute requirement that you had one.

With regard advertising litters....I havent done this on CD but I believe you have to agree to adhere to certain ethics (as you do with the KC) and give KC details of Parents and Pedigree of pups but all of that is easily accessible if you are breeding KC reg dogs (which doesnt necessarily mean you are an ethical breeder of course).

I agree that CD is a lot more desirable than say Gumtree as an advertising site but still not anywhere near a guarantee of ethics of breeder or quality of pups.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> . . . How will crossing long haired and smooth coated chihuahua's benefit the breed if they're not KC registered?  . . .


I don't believe the point being made was about benefitting the breed. It was rather about giving the pups better chances as a pet produced litter.

However from what I read on early threads no testing of anything was confirmed as the explanation was that no tests were required so conversation in this area seems to have been remiss.

With the knowledge tests were not asked about (they may well have been done and pedigrees scoured but not been spoken of) I don't believe we can make any determination about the intentions of the breeder one way or the other. She sounds to be great in her care for her pups and follow up on them.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I actually didn't consider the COI but yes, mixing short/long coat would give a much bigger gene pool.
> 
> Oliver say's thank you for the kind words.:001_tt1:





comfortcreature said:


> I don't believe the point being made was about benefitting the breed. It was rather about giving the pups better chances as a pet produced litter.
> 
> However from what I read on early threads no testing of anything was confirmed as the explanation was that no tests were required so conversation in this area seems to have been remiss.
> 
> ...


Possibly read out of context, but I was reading the CoI bit and the response from the OP (now quoted above) which seems to imply *this mating* contributes towards a broader gene pool, but perhaps they meant that in general if this were accepted by the UK KC it would help broaden the gene pool.

I have no idea about chihuahuas, but do the gene pools need broadening? I know someone posted an article recently about syromingelia being present within some lines, a breeder had *come out* about it after having his dogs scanned I think??


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I don't know what the gene pool of Chihuahuas looks like with regard to founder effect etc. to make any comment about whether it, in particular, needs widening. I believe allowing longcoat/shortcoat pairings in the UK would be a sounder way to go, none the less.

In Chihuahuas top lines and top dogs in the USA and UK have produced SM in the pups that I know of . . . and the breeders in some of those lines have been open about it on discussion lists where this topic comes up.

I remember the details of at least one litter from the UK that produced at least one dog with CM2 and an SM syrinx by MRI, and it was a father/daughter longcoat pairing (COI 29.6% - KC database) producing a litter 23 June 2008 - UK. Many close relatives are on CDogs. Graham Foote mentions CM/SM is also in shortcoats and from lines all over the world.

The early advice by researchers in Cavaliers was that further close pairings and popular sire use was entrenching this in that breed. I do believe it would be the same for Chihuahuas but this is NOT predictable on a litter x litter comparison basis - just overall averages.

This letter was originally posted here by JAChihuahua.



> 'Update on Syringomyeli' from BCC Newsletter 2012
> 
> All was looking well with Flash who had his problem with this disease in 2006 and has been clear of any obvious symptoms since then. The son that I mentioned in last year's Newsletter had been imported from the States to Denmark, and was being scanned as a precaution before being used at stud, however the results were not available when we went to print. The scan, which was only performed because I made a great fuss with the American Breeders, was diagnosed as positive with the disease in exactly the same position of his spinal cord as Flash.
> 
> ...


CC


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

OH NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! devastating; CC.

For those wondering, I _was_ assuming that the cross of the the two types had resulted in pet dogs only and was not for a moment thinking that they would have any impact on the Breed. I understood from what was posted that they were NOT breeding/showing dogs just pets.

I'm not thinking that it would in any way broaden the gene pool just that it _might_ add a bit of diversity for those pups while retaining the chihuahua traits.


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

There is someone who Blackpool in my breed who tells owners they would charge more if they wanted the pup KC reg, what they neglect to tell them is in many cases they couldnt such as the latest stud dog she has bought originaly by someone else and sold to her as he has endorsements on that the breeder of the stud dog put on and would only lift if he had been health tested and satisfactory results, he has no health tests

RE CD you need to be careful as some breeders deliberately register wrong pedigrees
if you know your breed well and you see a wrong pedigree contact CDs with correct info and Leigh will contact the owner/breeder of dog/bitch to correct.


----------



## SharonM (Mar 2, 2010)

£15 to register a pup with the KC how the heck people justify adding £500 on top of the price of the pup is beyond me. I recently heard about a lady who bought a cocker spaniel bitch, with intentions of breeding, pups parents hadn't been health tested in any shape or form, the breeder agreed to lifting the endorsments on the conditions ALL health tests were done at the additional cost of £700!! So her pup from untested parents would have ended up costing her £1450 plus cost of all tests...:yikes: Wasn't even from show quality parents


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

SharonM said:


> £15 to register a pup with the KC how the heck people justify adding £500 on top of the price of the pup is beyond me. I recently heard about a lady who bought a cocker spaniel bitch, with intentions of breeding, pups parents hadn't been health tested in any shape or form, the breeder agreed to lifting the endorsments on the conditions ALL health tests were done at the additional cost of £700!! So her pup from untested parents would have ended up costing her £1450 plus cost of all tests...:yikes: Wasn't even from show quality parents


DOUBLE STANDARDS ...........MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

chichi said:


> The only difference with Champdogs as opposed to any other site that you can advertise pups on is (I believe.....happy to be corrected if I am wrong) that you have to have a Kennel Name (KC AFFIX) to be a part of CD.


Where do people get these ideas from?

You don't need a kennel affix to be a member of CD. My friend has been a member for years and it is only now she has updated her site and put her affix on it - CD weren't any the wiser whether she had a kennel affix or not until she told them.

There will always be exceptions to every rule, and people are ALWAYS advised to do their home-work and not make assumptions.

There are responsible breeders who don't / won't use CD to advertise their litter - but it doesn't mean their litters are poorly bred -in many instances actually - it can mean quite the opposite - although often, it can be a very good place to start.

Wherever someone is looking for a pup, they should always do their research first - there's no point in whinging after the event when things have gone wrong because the puppy buyer didn't research what they were buying.

ETA Champdogs have an automatic validation facility for dog health tests - thus - if they are on the KC database when the dogs details are entered (dogs correct kennel name and registration or stud book number) - then the results automatically appear against the dog - so there is little hiding there.

I doubt very much that someone would deliberately enter an incorrect pedigree - information is simply too easy to find these days - but mistakes can be made when typing - we nearly did the other night when I was helping a friend set their CD account up - it was an honest error that we spotted and put right as her account was being created - it could however have easily been missed - no deceptive intention, merely a simple error


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

dexter said:


> DOUBLE STANDARDS ...........MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL


Sadly, there are breeders out there charging for lifting endorsements, a friend of mine got caught in that trap - the dam was health-tested and her boy has passed all the main tests and some with flying colours - now the breeder wants the price of a pup to lift the endorsements.

The breeder even denied knowing she was intending to show and told her she would have charged her even more had she known this


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

swarthy said:


> Where do people get these ideas from?


Like I said.....I believed that to be the case as I have some recollection of being asked my Kennel Name when I registered with CD. It was some time ago and as I also said....I have never advertised a litter on there so maybe the Kennel Name was asked for being a Member/Breeder. Was a long time ago.

My point was that CD was not a lot different from most other advertising sites and if you are saying that you dont have to have a Kennel Name then the difference between CD and other animal advertising sites is even less than I thought.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

I thought to advertise on CD you had to have health tests completed with results and pedigrees input?

If I'm correct that does place it above other advertising sites....but only if the details are checked out by the site to confirm they're correct.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Darth said:


> I thought to advertise on CD you had to have health tests completed with results and pedigrees input?
> 
> If I'm correct that does place it above other advertising sites....but only if the details are checked out by the site to confirm they're correct.


I was just going by this....taken from CD:

Before you Start

Before you add your litter to Champdogs you will need the following information to hand:The Kennel Club registration number of the sire of the litter.The Kennel Club registration number of the dam of the litter.A 3 or 4 generation pedigree for the sire of the litter.A 3 or 4 generation pedigree for the dam of the litter.If you are missing any of the above information you will be unable to advertise your litter on Champdogs.

Advertising your Litter

You must complete the following steps in order to advertise your litter on ChampdogsJoin Champdogs and add details about yourself (If you are already a member please*Click Here to Login).Add the dam of the litter to Champdogs.Add details of the litter to Champdogs.Make a Payment of £35.95.

It is*very important*that you complete each step fully before starting the next. Failure to do so will result in a delay to your litter being processed.All litters are reviewed before they are added to the litter register. You may make reference to the litter on your main page or the dams own page but only after your litter has been reviewed and approved.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

chichi said:


> Like I said.....I believed that to be the case as I have some recollection of being asked my Kennel Name when I registered with CD. It was some time ago and as I also said....I have never advertised a litter on there so maybe the Kennel Name was asked for being a Member/Breeder. Was a long time ago.
> 
> My point was that CD was not a lot different from most other advertising sites and if you are saying that you dont have to have a Kennel Name then the difference between CD and other animal advertising sites is even less than I thought.


You are asked for your kennel name yes - but it isn't a mandatory unless something has changed very recently as only last week - I helped my friend set up her account - her kennel name is "technically" still provisional unless someone objects to it in the KC gazette - but there are more than a few full accounts on the site without kennel names.

Certainly when registering dogs, you have to put their KC reg or stud book number in and the dogs registered name, then it will call all valid health results from the KC database over which is very clever - owners can also add results to Chanpdogs which may not be stored on the KC database and they will also be added to their profile.

However - they don't lay down what tests should be done for a breed, simply note that a dog is health-tested.

In the world of recessive DNA genes it isn't vital to test both parents - so you will often find that the sire has all the tests done - or the dog has some and the bitch others (this was my last litter - both parents were PRA clear - my bitch was CNM clear and the stud turned out to be EIC Clear - although at the time I registered the litter, EIC testing had literally only just begun and results weren't being recorded on the KC database - then it switched (as with previous DNA tests) to owner submission for inclusion on the dogs records, and more recently it became automatic submission.

Voluntary submission has caused headaches for more than a few breeders when discovering they can't declare their dog clear by parentage because the results aren't on the database (this happened to me with my first litter - fortunately, I had copies of both parents results and was given approval by the stud dog owner to submit both sets of results.

But I do know of people who have bought CBP dogs in good faith and then discovered they've had to get their dog re-tested - I can't speak for other companies, but I do know Optigen offer a heavily discounted test for g-PRA for dogs where both parents have been tested clear at their lab.

Then of course, you have those using Labs whereby the KC won't accept the results - so clear or otherwise, they will never be added to the database

The same applies for ECVO and AHT eye tests - which can be added by owners and published in the BRS - but they will never show up on the dogs KC record.


----------



## Chloef (Feb 23, 2011)

You don't have to put your Kennel Name on CD, but if you want to add it to an existing account as I did (and I presume they would do the same for a new account) they will ask for the Kennel Club referance number for the Kennel name


----------



## SharonM (Mar 2, 2010)

_ I do know Optigen offer a heavily discounted test for g-PRA for dogs where both parents have been tested clear at their lab._

I've just had my new boy pra tested at Optigen, he came back carrier - from two *CLEAR* parents angry isn't the way I'm feeling at this moment bl**dy livid is! He was bought for stud, had him tested to double check his hereditary clear status :angry:


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

It is an odd result and if both parents were hereditarily clear you're looking at one of four dogs behind given the wrong result. I'd be in a snit over it as well.

I've already seen a Cavalier announced as 'clear' (for EFS) in a discussion (not by his owner) when the only information given by his owner was that he was 'tested'. His family is very risky and I'd never make the presumption but it seems some do.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

SharonM said:


> _ I do know Optigen offer a heavily discounted test for g-PRA for dogs where both parents have been tested clear at their lab._
> 
> I've just had my new boy pra tested at Optigen, he came back carrier - from two *CLEAR* parents angry isn't the way I'm feeling at this moment bl**dy livid is! He was bought for stud, had him tested to double check his hereditary clear status :angry:


My bitch came back clear from a cbp result, I haven't a clue which Laboratories were used, I *think* Optigen on her dam's side, no idea on the sire's side but am guessing Optigen were the only people offering the test when he was done. Unfortunately his results weren't on the KC database, which is why I tested, although I am thinking more these days that I will test each generation, just to be on the safe side, in case of human/test error.


----------



## heartagram (Oct 12, 2012)

Regarding the mixing of smooth coats and long coats, I think it should be done it is else where in the world and in my opinion it produces alot more attractive and healthy chi's.
I think there is more badly bred chihuahuas in the UK than there is not to be honest, I was told we have the best lines in the world but tbh I disagree.. alot of some chihuahuas are started to become pug faced or are not remotely to standard at all, they just don't have what I associate a chi face to look like anymore.


----------



## Kchi (Dec 14, 2012)

Cross coating not being allowed to be registered was a decision by the breed club. It's very political but there are loop holes. For example a foreign dog from smooth x long makings can get its ATC and compete and be used t stud. I have a lot of smooth breeding behind my longs, it improves type.

I'm on a lot of the chi groups on fb.. Left half of them because of the lack of ethics and state of the dogs they are breeding. It is horrific. One breeder has had 5 litters in a year, no license and breeding for reasons I'm unsure of.

Some breeders won't give kc papers now. Sadly a lot of people have been royally screwed over by puppy buyers, who are using their affix to sell at ridiculous prices!! Obviously they can endorse (I do) but choose not to give papers.

Btw £1500 is a lot even for a reg pup!! Most exhibitors sell their pups for a lot less. I turned down about 20 people for a pup, they just weren't good enough and couldn't understand why I wouldn't allow my boy to be shown or bred from... I don't understand why the breed has suddenly attracted all these idiots really. With apparent new colours we can't even register lol *sigh*. Lovely breed though, I adore mine


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

SharonM said:


> _ I do know Optigen offer a heavily discounted test for g-PRA for dogs where both parents have been tested clear at their lab._
> 
> I've just had my new boy pra tested at Optigen, he came back carrier - from two *CLEAR* parents angry isn't the way I'm feeling at this moment bl**dy livid is! He was bought for stud, had him tested to double check his hereditary clear status :angry:


Were his parents tested through Optigen? Did you see the paperwork? was the information on the KC database?

Did you submit by blood or swab? if swab - is there any risk of cross contamination with any of your other dogs?

Have any other progeny declared CBP been tested and found errors in the results

Could there be "other errors"?

Yes - there could be a mistake somewhere down the line - but there are also other reasons why things might have gone wrong


----------

