# Selling puppies as pedigree but not kc reg...why??



## FickleFeet

its all in the title really 

why are there so many breeders advertising puppies for sale saying they are 'full pedigree but not kennel club registered'?

many state that mum and dad are both kc but puppies wont be...

also seen lots of adverts that say 'not kc reg, hence the price'....it doesnt cost much at all to register pups! 

i have contacted some asking if its possible to register a pup for me and every one has said no...wonder why not if (apparently) mum and dad are 

why do you think they are not registering the pups with the kc?

i have only ever owned dogs that are kc reg so for me its just a standard thing to look for


----------



## HueManatee

I'm not a breeder, but about to get a purebred dog, so have been reading up. My understanding it that there is a limit to the number of litters which can be registered to any given bitch per year. It's possible that this is an extra litter over that allowance.

I hope someone will come and set me straight if I'm wrong.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS

Usually because the parents are endorsed and they are not allowed to register the puppies, or because the bitch is too young, or too old or she's had too many litters.

To me, Kennel Club Registration is something I'd always want in a puppy. If I was buying a breeder puppy, I wouldn't have a puppy that wasn't KC reg.


----------



## FickleFeet

I'm also concerned about getting what you pay for, when puppies are so young its not always as easy to see if it is crossed with a similar breed.

slightly different thing but....
I saw an advert recently for Chihuahua puppies, when reading through the advert it said something along the lines of 'dad is full chihuahua, mum is chihuahua with a tiny bit of maltese' REALLY?!?! they shouldnt be advertised as as chihuahuas then!!! this is why kc is handy


----------



## Sled dog hotel

FickleFeet said:


> its all in the title really
> 
> why are there so many breeders advertising puppies for sale saying they are 'full pedigree but not kennel club registered'?
> 
> many state that mum and dad are both kc but puppies wont be...
> 
> also seen lots of adverts that say 'not kc reg, hence the price'....it doesnt cost much at all to register pups!
> 
> i have contacted some asking if its possible to register a pup for me and every one has said no...wonder why not if (apparently) mum and dad are
> 
> why do you think they are not registering the pups with the kc?
> 
> i have only ever owned dogs that are kc reg so for me its just a standard thing to look for


Both Parents do have to be KC registered for the pups to be, so in the case of some parents wont be either.

There are other reasons too even if both parents are KC registered why pups might not be able to be. Some breeders when KC registering their pups they are going to sell put on restrictions like Progeny not eligible for registration.
This means that although the puppies themselves are registered any pups that they may produce cant be. Sometimes the breeder will lift the restriction but often it is put on for a reason and the breeder wont. if doesnt stop the owner of the pup breeding them, but they cant register any puppies that they breed from the dog, so that is a likely explanation.

There have been other criteria put in place too more recently, certain close matings that were once acceptable can no longer be registered if the dogs are too closely related father to daughter mother to son etc. I think also bitches below and above a certain age pups cant be registered either, or if they are bred too often. I think in some breeds even certain colours bred with certain colours where that colour is known to carry a genetic defect cannot be registered. From memory its Merle to Merle, in some breeds and I have an idea "Blue" in chihuahuas.


----------



## Shrap

The normal reason would be that the parents' KC paperwork is endorsed, which means that the people they bought the parent dogs from didn't want them to breed. But they've gone ahead and done it anyway. The endorsements could be in place because of a genetic defect that has been found by the breeder of parent dogs and doesn't want that to be passed on, but the owners clearly felt they could make money out of their bitch. Stay away from anyone who does this. Anyone breeding should have full support of their bitch's breeder and also the sire.
It could also in fact be that the dogs don't have endorsements, but they are closely related and so puppies are not allowed to be registered. Or the reasons mentioned above by other posters - normally puppy farms.

There is NO good reason for puppies not to be registered. It really is the only way you can follow genetic defects!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

There are certain criteria the KC have as to whether they will register a litter, it's on their website in detail if you just have a quick google. It costs £13 per pup, so no, there's no real reason why they shouldn't be registered, providing they can be. 

Just as a footnote (about to go and feed dogs) I do know of *pure* bred dogs that are working, not registered simply because the owners don't show or compete, and have no intention to. That type of breeding isn't as uncommon as many would think, the number one reason I'd say for not registering pups is pure ignorance.


----------



## snoopydo

Like as been said above if a Breeder will Not not K.C reg a litter..maybe The Breeder has something to hide.


----------



## Shrap

FickleFeet said:


> I'm also concerned about getting what you pay for, when puppies are so young its not always as easy to see if it is crossed with a similar breed.
> 
> slightly different thing but....
> I saw an advert recently for Chihuahua puppies, when reading through the advert it said something along the lines of 'dad is full chihuahua, mum is chihuahua with a tiny bit of maltese' REALLY?!?! they shouldnt be advertised as as chihuahuas then!!! this is why kc is handy


I wouldn't be looking at the ads for a well bred chihuahua. Get on the phone to the breed club, make sure you know all health tests that are available for the breed. Get someone who breeds to continue their lines, not for money or for "cute fuzzy puppy syndrome".


----------



## FickleFeet

oh dont get me wrong, i dont have any intention of buying a dog from these kind of adverts...i just browse different sites to see what is being advertised and what 'breeders' are saying! my dogs come from well trusted, well known breeders 

a friend of mine bought a 'pure bred full pedigree' chihuahua only to find out it was crossed with a jack russel! she has kept the dog because she loves her dearly but it wasnt actually what she wanted


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Unfortunately, so many people buying puppies do not do any research, there's a thread going in dog chat atm, about unwanted Christmas present adverts for pups, where people have bought them for others, and they're just not wanted, unbelievable!


----------



## FickleFeet

i saw a thread about someone selling an unwanted dog....its dreadful 

i was on my local netmums message board yesterday and they have a section for items sale, wanted items and things that are free to a good home....to my horror the first advert in the free section (the advert was posted on boxing day) is a 7 year old pedigree female shih tzu who needs a new home as she needs more attention. when i have looked through local adverts for shih tzu puppies pictures of this female have been shown so imguessing the owners have bred the life out of her and now its time to get rid


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

That's so sad  

Unfortunately, many dogs given away free are just do not end up in the right homes, some even end up being used as dog fighting bait. But the sort of person to give a dog away, or to churn out puppies, just doesn't care once they've gone, it's not their problem, and they'll never feel guilty for what happens to the dog in the future, because they simply won't know.


----------



## swarthy

Unfortunately - there are few good reasons (if any) why the pups won't be registered if the parents are.

It could be a genuine and missed accidental litter - but that aside - more likely reasons include

a) The bitch is too old or too young
b) The breeder is licensed and not permitted to have more than one litter from a bitch in a 12 month period (the KC won't register them if the breeder is license)
c) The breeder(s) of the parents placed endorsements on the dogs with a specific criteria for lifting, and those criteria have not been met (usually health test results unsatisfactory or not done ) 
d) The bitch has already had the maximum permitted number of litters and hence no more pups can be registered
e) the parentage is in question - maybe the KC refused to register a litter without DNA testing (for example - two yellow labradors can only produce yellow progeny) 

I don't see why 'breeders' feel the need to specify both parents are KC registered if the pups can't be (the exception could be a first generation cross from health-tested parents).

It's very frustrating and puppy buyers KEEP falling for it


----------



## FickleFeet

in so many cases there are non kc reg puppies being sold for just as much money as kc reg pups...seems there must be buyers who have no idea what it means...


----------



## dexter

FickleFeet said:


> in so many cases there are non kc reg puppies being sold for just as much money as kc reg pups...seems there must be buyers who have no idea what it means...


and despite all efforts t educate and internet research people still unbelievably paying over the odds for unregistered dogs.


----------



## astro2011

I agree with everyone else. My understanding is the mother or father will usually have a breeding restriction which states they cannot breed. What happens is they do breed either the mother or father, and because of the restriction on the parent the litter cannot be KC registered. I would not buy any dog/puppy without KC papers as not only does it prove it is a purebred, it normally also means the parents have had some sort of health test to prove they are of breeding quality.


----------



## swarthy

astro2011 said:


> I agree with everyone else. My understanding is the mother or father will usually have a breeding restriction which states they cannot breed. What happens is they do breed either the mother or father, and because of the restriction on the parent the litter cannot be KC registered.


Breeding endorsements are just one of a number of reasons why pups may not be registered.



astro2011 said:


> it normally also means the parents have had some sort of health test to prove they are of breeding quality.


NO NO NO - this is a common and incorrect assumption.

Parents do NOT have to be health-tested in order for the breeder to register the pups.

Good health results alone are not sufficient to say a dog is of breeding quality - conformation / working instinct and temperament are also paramount and all inextricably linked.

KC registering pups in isolation does not make a good breeder - neither does the fact they use some or all of the breed health-tests - they are just two of a number of factors that make up a good breeder and it is essential that people look at the whole picture.

People should research their chosen breed and know which health-tests they deem essential before even contacting the breeder;

they should know the results before going to visit the pups -

and most importantly,

They should have the courage of their convictions to walk away if they are not happy (sadly, this is where things tend to fail  with people almost sometimes 'rescuing' pups from what are clearly puppy farmers 

Trouble is - for as long as people keep doing this, then these breeder will keep breeding with the cycle never ending, consigning more and more dogs and their progeny to often uncertain and sometimes painful and short lives


----------



## astro2011

swarthy said:


> Breeding endorsements are just one of a number of reasons why pups may not be registered.
> 
> NO NO NO - this is a common and incorrect assumption.
> 
> Parents do NOT have to be health-tested in order for the breeder to register the pups.
> 
> Good health results alone are not sufficient to say a dog is of breeding quality - conformation / working instinct and temperament are also paramount and all inextricably linked.
> 
> KC registering pups in isolation does not make a good breeder - neither does the fact they use some or all of the breed health-tests - they are just two of a number of factors that make up a good breeder and it is essential that people look at the whole picture.
> 
> People should research their chosen breed and know which health-tests they deem essential before even contacting the breeder;
> 
> they should know the results before going to visit the pups -
> 
> and most importantly,
> 
> They should have the courage of their convictions to walk away if they are not happy (sadly, this is where things tend to fail  with people almost sometimes 'rescuing' pups from what are clearly puppy farmers
> 
> Trouble is - for as long as people keep doing this, then these breeder will keep breeding with the cycle never ending, consigning more and more dogs and their progeny to often uncertain and sometimes painful and short lives


Hence why I said - They "normally" have had some sort of health testing.


----------



## Shrap

astro2011 said:


> Hence why I said - They "normally" have had some sort of health testing.


They normally haven't  But I agree there aren't any unregistered health tested dogs around. The only health tested dogs will be registered, but not all registered will be health tested, if that makes sense. So registration is the starting block kinda thing


----------



## swarthy

astro2011 said:


> Hence why I said - They "normally" have had some sort of health testing.


They don't 'normally' have some form of health-testing - I think you might be surprised if you started looking at some of actual data - this is why it is unwise to correlate KC registration with health-testing - they are not inextricably linked, but far too many people still assume they are 

I know of dogs on the working side who are not KC registered but have literally used every available health-test for their breed.

KC registration is one contributory factor to being a good breeder of pedigree dogs (we now believe that cross-breeds can be put on the activity register and health-test results recorded), health testing is another - but there are many other factors which also come into play.

The only time health-tests can safely be associated with KC registration is if there are mandatory requirements for Assured Breeder scheme members.


----------



## swarthy

Shrap said:


> They normally haven't  But I agree there aren't any unregistered health tested dogs around. The only health tested dogs will be registered, but not all registered will be health tested, if that makes sense. So registration is the starting block kinda thing


Confusingly - that's not strictly correct either - I know of more than one 'breeder' breeding from unregistered dogs and using every single possible health-test under the sun 

And just to confuse the issue further - the KC have now 'technically' re-opened the gene pools - so over time, in some breeds, we will undoubtedly see first generation registered dogs


----------



## Shrap

swarthy said:


> Confusingly - that's not strictly correct either - I know of more than one 'breeder' breeding from unregistered dogs and using every single possible health-test under the sun
> 
> And just to confuse the issue further - the KC have now 'technically' re-opened the gene pools - so over time, in some breeds, we will undoubtedly see first generation registered dogs


Only in SOME working breeds, but not the likes of chihuahuas. And in your breed the number of unregistered health testers will be a minscule percentage of the rest.


----------



## swarthy

Shrap said:


> And in your breed the number of unregistered health testers will be a minscule percentage of the rest.


Oh I know - and I don't condone the breeding of unregistered dogs - but it does happen and with a surprisingly high number of at least one health tested parent and sometimes both 

I don''t know if any of them have tried pursuing the route of trying to get registered - I wonder whether the KC will publish the information at some point in the future - I can certainly see the potential benefits (and downsides) for some breeds - but not so much for numerically large breeds


----------



## Shrap

swarthy said:


> Oh I know - and I don't condone the breeding of unregistered dogs - but it does happen and with a surprisingly high number of at least one health tested parent and sometimes both
> 
> I don''t know if any of them have tried pursuing the route of trying to get registered - I wonder whether the KC will publish the information at some point in the future - I can certainly see the potential benefits (and downsides) for some breeds - but not so much for numerically large breeds


I think we'll just have to resign ourselves to the fact they're all a bunch of nutcases


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

I've known of a few unregistered bitches, where they've done the health tests, and used KC registered dogs, because they've fulfilled the requirements of the stud dog owner in their breeding aims. It's certainly not unheard of, these have been working bred type dogs, where the owners simply aren't interested in KC registration. The pups go to those who've seen the dogs working, usually to be worked themselves, and the aim of a litter is usually to keep the bitch line going for the owners.


----------



## Shrap

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've known of a few unregistered bitches, where they've done the health tests, and used KC registered dogs, because they've fulfilled the requirements of the stud dog owner in their breeding aims. It's certainly not unheard of, these have been working bred type dogs, where the owners simply aren't interested in KC registration. The pups go to those who've seen the dogs working, usually to be worked themselves, and the aim of a litter is usually to keep the bitch line going for the owners.


Do they keep track of pedigrees? Genetic problems that can't be tested for?


----------



## PennyGC

The only valid reason for selling 'pedigree' but not KC registered is if they're either not recognised by the KC - Welsh sheepdogs, many terriers, working kelpies etc or the breeder prefers them not to be KC registered... eg ISDS border collies. For these reasons it's perfectly valid for them not to be KC registered (the latter are eligible anyway for purchasers to register them), they are 'proven' pedigree with organisations just as valid as the KC. Other breeds there is no valid reason for them not to be KC registered.


----------



## Burrowzig

Shrap said:


> They normally haven't  But I agree there aren't any unregistered health tested dogs around. The only health tested dogs will be registered, but not all registered will be health tested, if that makes sense. So registration is the starting block kinda thing


Wrong. My dog is not registered but has been hip scored, and will be having Optigen DNA and MDR1 tests before I decide fully if I'm going to breed from her. She's of a breed that is not KC recognised so I won't even be able to register her results but I'm doing it anyway because it's the right thing to do.


----------



## Shrap

Burrowzig said:


> Wrong. My dog is not registered but has been hip scored, and will be having Optigen DNA and MDR1 tests before I decide fully if I'm going to breed from her. She's of a breed that is not KC recognised so I won't even be able to register her results but I'm doing it anyway because it's the right thing to do.


Do I really have to edit that to say "of breeds that are recognised"? There are not many unregistered dogs of recognised breeds that are fully health tested with good results that are mated to dogs with good results. And even then with my breed I expect a full 5 gens of low hip scored dogs.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Shrap said:


> Do they keep track of pedigrees? Genetic problems that can't be tested for?


Yes they do (as much as anyone can), and consistently breed to type, to get the sort of dogs they like. I'm not sure how anyone can consistently track all health problems, I wouldn't have a foggiest about all of the relatives of my KC registered dogs, because not all health problems will be recorded where I could have access to them. One such litter I'm thinking of was simply to keep the bitch line going, a family that is into shooting, and wanted to take one litter to carry on with, keeping a bitch pup back. They did some of the health tests, bitch was a nice *type* and so they went ahead, using a stud dog with health tests in place. As far as they know, they've had the same line of dog in their family for many years, without encountering any problems, and no-one has come back to them with any problems with pups. The difficulty is with this sort of breeding, ensuring you keep track of pups and endeavouring to make sure people don't then breed on without at least health testing and bearing in mind all the other issues related to dog breeding.

As far as I'm aware, the only reason in that instance was the KC registration simply slipped, I'm sure if the family applied to the KC to have their dog(s) registered, it would most likely go through ok, despite the number of years it has lapsed. It is still possible for those with dogs that are unregistered, to apply for their dogs to become registered, I've been reading with interest, someone's experience of this with their ESS.


----------



## catlove844

I contacted a breeder for my mum, she sent me the advert, it said mum & dad kc reg but pups not, not health tests, so I asked if they can be registered she said that 'mum is endorsed as not to breed her, but we wanted her to have litters' 

So im guessing that people just lie or arent meant to breed them or already had a litter that year that they registered and dont want to seem like they are breeding alot...


----------



## swarthy

catlove844 said:


> I contacted a breeder for my mum, she sent me the advert, it said mum & dad kc reg but pups not, not health tests, so I asked if they can be registered she said that 'mum is endorsed as not to breed her, but we wanted her to have litters'
> 
> So im guessing that people just lie or arent meant to breed them or already had a litter that year that they registered and dont want to seem like they are breeding alot...


Well - the people you spoke to clearly didn't lie - as there is no reason to make something like that up (and shows them in quite a negative light).

Most breeders who endorse their pups will lift the endorsements providing a certain criteria are met (there may be some exceptions if a pup is known to have a condition which could affect future generations, then the breeder might ask the owners to neuter - and not lift the endorsements)

All my pups leave here with a list of what I require in order to lift the endorsements free of charge and providing those conditions are met, then I will lift them no problem at all.


----------



## catlove844

swarthy said:


> Well - the people you spoke to clearly didn't lie - as there is no reason to make something like that up (and shows them in quite a negative light).
> 
> Most breeders who endorse their pups will lift the endorsements providing a certain criteria are met (there may be some exceptions if a pup is known to have a condition which could affect future generations, then the breeder might ask the owners to neuter - and not lift the endorsements)
> 
> All my pups leave here with a list of what I require in order to lift the endorsements free of charge and providing those conditions are met, then I will lift them no problem at all.


I wasnt talking about those people 

Im talking about people who may say 'parents are kc reg but pups not' They maybe lying and the parents may not be registered at all, so they can get more money by saying this, recently see a advert for siberian husky x malamute pups £700 each, says 'both parents registered, pups not' no reason for it, however in the pictures you can quite cleary see that dad is a german shepherd cross husky dog, no way is it a pedigree malamute!


----------



## Blitz

Sleeping_Lion said:


> There are certain criteria the KC have as to whether they will register a litter, it's on their website in detail if you just have a quick google. It costs £13 per pup, so no, there's no real reason why they shouldn't be registered, providing they can be.
> 
> Just as a footnote (about to go and feed dogs) I do know of *pure* bred dogs that are working, not registered simply because the owners don't show or compete, and have no intention to. That type of breeding isn't as uncommon as many would think, the number one reason I'd say for not registering pups is pure ignorance.


I would agree that ignorance is the number one reason. A lot of pet breeders will have no idea how to do it and will not see the importance of it.



astro2011 said:


> Hence why I said - They "normally" have had some sort of health testing.


I would have thought very few registered litters have health tested parents - I would not say it was at all normal.



catlove844 said:


> I wasnt talking about those people
> 
> Im talking about people who may say 'parents are kc reg but pups not' They maybe lying and the parents may not be registered at all, so they can get more money by saying this, recently see a advert for siberian husky x malamute pups £700 each, says 'both parents registered, pups not' no reason for it, however in the pictures you can quite cleary see that dad is a german shepherd cross husky dog, no way is it a pedigree malamute!


But it would not matter if the parents were both registered, you cannot register crossbreed puppies.

Neither of my current dogs are registered and I have had a mixture of registered and unregistered in the past. All litters I have bred have been registered.
One of mine was an 'accidental litter' from registered parents. I think it was more of a trial litter actually - and since then the mother has been health tested and has had a planned litter. I was more than happy as the litter was extremely well reared and was within my price range, which a registered pup would not have been.
The other one was purely pet breeding. I knew both the parents and I knew they would be well reared. It was not the breeding I would have recommended but I have exactly the dog I wanted - I could not have found a better one however hard I had looked.
The first one has health problems,but nothing that would have been tested for, the second has no problems at all (so far anyway).
I have never had a dog from health tested parents anyway, and have never had a single problem until Candy, whose parents are now tested and her problems are unrelated to testing.


----------



## swarthy

catlove844 said:


> I wasnt talking about those people
> 
> Im talking about people who may say 'parents are kc reg but pups not' They maybe lying and the parents may not be registered at all, so they can get more money by saying this, recently see a advert for siberian husky x malamute pups £700 each, says 'both parents registered, pups not' no reason for it, however in the pictures you can quite cleary see that dad is a german shepherd cross husky dog, no way is it a pedigree malamute!


In that instance they weren't registered because the pups were crosses.

However, I can't for the life of me remember who highlighted it now (it was a PF member) - the KC now publish health-test results for dogs on their activity register - which includes non KC recognised breeds and crosses.

Whilst criteria is not 100% clear, the KC appears to indicate that even litters can be registered this way - although the breeder of the parents would need to complete their registration.

If the few genuine cross-breeders that are around opted for this route, you could then start to build up a picture of a pups ancestry in pretty much the same way as you could for a pedigree dog.

I don't support cross-breeding unless for a specific purpose (e.g. guide dogs for the blind) - however, I am a realist and recognise that some people really do like the 'unexpected' when buying these cross-breeds and that there is a demand for such pups - and if it is going to happen, then I would sooner people did it responsibly than further line the pockets of puppy farmers and back yard breeders who really are just doing it for the money


----------



## dexter

i fail to see why anyone would advertise pups from kc reg parents , pups not reg'd but could be for extra £50.


----------



## swarthy

Blitz said:


> I would agree that ignorance is the number one reason. A lot of pet breeders will have no idea how to do it and will not see the importance of it.


I beg to differ on that front - the large majority know exactly how KC registration is perceived - and if they had no recognition of it's importance, then why would they even bother mentioning the parents are KC registered and why would some refuse point blank to register the pups when asked by prospective owners


----------



## Blitz

swarthy said:


> I beg to differ on that front - the large majority know exactly how KC registration is perceived - and if they had no recognition of it's importance, then why would they even bother mentioning the parents are KC registered and why would some refuse point blank to register the pups when asked by prospective owners


Because they are lazy. they would have to research how to do it and remember to do it. And they do not see a need to do it. Probably too they have lost track of the stud dog owner by the time they realise they need a service certificate or whatever it is called. It just is not on their list of priorities because it takes a bit of effort.
Obviously there will be some with endorsements but it would be interesting to know how many.


----------



## astro2011

swarthy said:


> They don't 'normally' have some form of health-testing - I think you might be surprised if you started looking at some of actual data - this is why it is unwise to correlate KC registration with health-testing - they are not inextricably linked, but far too many people still assume they are
> 
> I know of dogs on the working side who are not KC registered but have literally used every available health-test for their breed.
> 
> KC registration is one contributory factor to being a good breeder of pedigree dogs (we now believe that cross-breeds can be put on the activity register and health-test results recorded), health testing is another - but there are many other factors which also come into play.
> 
> The only time health-tests can safely be associated with KC registration is if there are mandatory requirements for Assured Breeder scheme members.


My apologies I didn't realise that. I'll leave this to the breeders


----------



## FickleFeet

I contacted the kennel club and asked if (hypothetically) it was possible for me to register an unregistered dog that I had purchased if both of its parents were kc registered and the lady on the phone said no, only the breeder can register pups.

I thought perhaps if it was a cost issue preventing the breeder from registering the pups then a person could register their own dog and cover the cost.


----------



## FickleFeet

also, when they say the puppy will not be registered but will come with a 5 generation pedigree, how do you know its correct??


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

FickleFeet said:


> I contacted the kennel club and asked if (hypothetically) it was possible for me to register an unregistered dog that I had purchased if both of its parents were kc registered and the lady on the phone said no, only the breeder can register pups.
> 
> I thought perhaps if it was a cost issue preventing the breeder from registering the pups then a person could register their own dog and cover the cost.





FickleFeet said:


> also, when they say the puppy will not be registered but will come with a 5 generation pedigree, how do you know its correct??


Taken from the forum thread I mentioned earlier:
_
I contacted the KC and they informed me of the Unverified Dog process. So, how does it work.

Firstly download the form for an Unverified dog from the KC website fill it in along with a covering letter with as much detail as you can about the dog. Put everything that you know, the more the better. After a couple of weeks you will be informed that a panel will sit to consider your application and letter will be sent to you to confirm weather or not they have decided to allow you to continue on the process. Holly and I have just had our letter back, confirming that we may proceed!

We now go onto the next stage of having two judges look the dog over to see if she is representative of the breed. As I intend to work Holly one of the judges is a FT judge. The dog dosent have to be of sufficent quality to show, just that she is representative of the breed! I am seeing two judges next weekend. Its up to you to agree a price for the judges services. One is doing it for free, the other for £25.00

Next, a DNA Test through the KC, £25.00, followed by an eye test, £98.00, three more DNA tests to check for disese, Im not sure but Im guessing £25.00 each, followed by hip scoring, around the £200 mark. Then and only then can you send all of the results to the KC, who will then sit on a comittee and decided if your dog is to be KC registerd. I understand that there is a furthir £100 to pay at the end! So all up about £500 and even then you may fail at the last hurdle. _

Just to turn that question on it's head, how do you know the KC pedigree you are given is completely true? Unfortunately the system is open to abuse, and there are people dishonest enough to name different dogs, even different breeds of dog used to get what they want. It's one reason I'd like to see DNA profiling come in, to stop the *cheats*.


----------



## swarthy

astro2011 said:


> My apologies I didn't realise that. I'll leave this to the breeders


No worries - it's a common misconception and one that sadly can be confusing for puppy buyers - on one hand we recommend that ALL puppies (of recognised breed) should be KC registered - whilst also saying that KC registration in isolation is not enough 

Unfortunately, 'that programme' did more harm than good to what people now perceive as the correct way to buy a puppy - and campaigns such as the one now running with the RSPCA could inadvertently serve to further the businesses and line the pockets of puppy farmers and BYB who don't health test - very frustrating.

That's not saying there aren't problems in some breeds that need sorting - I am not close enough to those breeds to comment - however, some issues are obvious and in fairness in some breeds, the breeders are working hard to correct these issues - but these breeds are still in the minority of dogs registered with the KC and by enlarge - you have a better chance of getting a healthy pup if buying from a show / working or ethical pet breeder (or dare I say it - a responsible commercial breeder and yes whether you approve or not, they do exist) of KC registered pups who uses the recommended health-tests for their breed.

There are also individuals, groups and organisations working very hard to educate puppy buyers on how to buy puppies of the more common crosses responsibly - and it is hoped that this will quickly impact on such breeders who don't currently use the health-testing schemes to either do so or stop breeding - it isn't possible to stop these crosses being produced - therefore - we need to educate both puppy buyers and breeders on what they should be doing.

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



FickleFeet said:


> also, when they say the puppy will not be registered but will come with a 5 generation pedigree, how do you know its correct??


You don't - only the KC pedigree is verifiable to the best of the knowledge provided and their database.



FickleFeet said:


> I contacted the kennel club and asked if (hypothetically) it was possible for me to register an unregistered dog that I had purchased if both of its parents were kc registered and the lady on the phone said no, only the breeder can register pups.
> 
> I thought perhaps if it was a cost issue preventing the breeder from registering the pups then a person could register their own dog and cover the cost.


The 'cost' of registering a pup is just £13 (£60 if registered at over 12 months of age) - so hardly a showstopper.

The KC response is no longer strictly correct as pointed out by SL (unless it is the breeder who has to apply for the registration) - now dogs can be registered although they do have to go through quite a stringent procedure at a cost of £100 (non refundable I believe if it fails).

The opening up of the gene pool will undoubtedly be of value for some of the numerically smaller and 'at risk' breeds - I can vaguely recall seeing a (somewhat heated) thread on here about an unregistered Sharpei from overseas which some people fell in love with - dogs such as this could potentially add value and much needed new blood lines to previously closed gene pools - conversely - in breeds such as Labs, Goldies etc, at present, I can see very little value in including unregistered dogs.

When opening up a gene pool, you also run the risk that a dog may not be a full pedigree - which might benefit conformation but could also potentially see a cross-over of genetic conditions between breeds as initially, it would only be tested for the known conditions of that breed - with new issues only probably coming to light a few generations down the line


----------



## Taylorbaby

the cost is nothing to register compare to other money spent (if dont correctly!) no reason not to register, only bad reasons, walk away! esop if no health tests are done! GRRRrr!!


----------



## FickleFeet

thank you all for taking the time to reply, your replies are very much appreciated 
xx


----------

