# Preloved surprise



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

Received the following from Preloved:


> We have been contacted by the GCCF who have brought your advert to our attention.
> 
> They tell us that no kitten should be permitted to go to a new home before 13 weeks of age. At least seven days prior to this the kitten should have completed a full course of vaccinations, including a health check, given by a Veterinary Surgeon or by a listed Veterinary nurse given under the direction of a Veterinary Surgeon. The breeder should ensure that the kittens are house trained, inoculated and in good general health. The GCCF have therefore requested that we remove your advert as there is no mention on vaccinations.


Amazed. If only they would apply the same to all kittens sold there. I had put 'etc' meaning vaccinated etc. so just changed the one word.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Such a shame they can't stop all the bybs that advertise on there


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

This doesn't ring true to me. I don't believe the GCCF have contacted Preloved at all.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

Who knows who it really was. I have to ring to the GCCF anyway and will ask.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I have to ring to the GCCF anyway and will ask.


Good. If this had happened to me I'd be writing in and making sure it was all formalised but I quite understand others would consider that OTT  If GCCF employees have the time to trawl through ads or even acting ultra vires if an ad is brought to their attention then *we* are wasting money on too many staff. It's far more likely that someone who has set themselves up as the kitten police doesn't understand the rules and recommendations. Wouldn't be the first example of such a thing


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I had the same message, glad I am not the only one, but there was a message in the email I got to contact someone, forgot the name now,until I look again ,to contact,which I have not done yet
I too wondered if it was genuine, or someone with not doing well with a grudge against other breeders


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Please do make that contact and find out what's going on. If the GCCF really have set themselves up to police ads then they're about to lose a lot of long time members. It's nothing to do with them. They are a private members club and have no power to do such a thing.

I'd also be interested to know if other sites are doing the same. Presumably those of you with ads have them on more than one site, have any others contacted you over your ads?


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

No but my wording varies a bit between the various ads.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I can't believe the GCCF would be so selective over picking out wording from their Code of Ethics - somebody has been. The section actually reads



> *The GCCF strongly recommends* that no kitten should be permitted to go to a new home before 13 weeks of age. A least seven days prior to this.........


Now why leave that first bit out of what they quoted?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm tempted to put up a spoof ad on Preloved to see if I can provoke the same response  Do you suppose I'd need to put GCCF registered and not include the word 'vaccinated' to get the reaction?


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

This also just happened to a breeder I know. She placed an ad on a sister site to this one and they supposedly received contact from GCCF asking them to remove it as the terms of the kittens' sale didn't meet GCCF recommendations.

Doesn't ring true to me either on many different levels!


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

The GCCF doesn't (can't) specify 'terms of sale'. What's more, an ad isn't terms of sale. Somebody is stirring.

What was the sister site? Amazing how it's happening within one ad group and not any of the others.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

It says please remove GCCF or add vaccinations, you can contact Holly Haysmore at gccf on [email protected]
I have ads on other sites but no messages from gccf there
I was fuming as the ads were removed until rectified


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

It was Pets 4 Homes (which I think is) the sister site to Petforums. I cannot believe GCCF are paying someone a wage to trawl through ad sites for this sort of thing. If it turned out to they were.... well.. speechless.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

There is a Holly on GCCF staff.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Surely there must be lots of breeders this is happening to, maybe someone else will post soon
I wonder if this Holly is doing this off her own bat, 
I cant believe either someone would go through all the ad sites checking the hundreds of ads


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

If they are why aren't they insisting that all ads state the things that are rules? Why insist it says 'vaccinations' but not that a (minimum) three generation pedigree will be supplied? Something VERY funny is going on here.


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

Im sure i remember something simular happening to a member on here and they got blocked and wasnt allowed to post any more ads and it was all innocent on the members account.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

Yes, it's Holly in my message.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

OrientalSlave said:


> Yes, it's Holly in my message.


So the request to reword the ad came directly (apparently) from GCCF office and not the ad site?


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

The email was from Preloved but the mover behind it seems to be Holly.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

OrientalSlave said:


> The email was from Preloved but the mover behind it seems to be Holly.


I see, thanks.


----------



## Lisac27 (Jun 8, 2012)

I received an email from Holly today about paying for a kitten reg as I was paying by card, that is not her email address! 
The plot thickens


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

jaycee05 said:


> It says please remove GCCF or add vaccinations, you can contact Holly Haysmore at gccf on [email protected]
> I have ads on other sites but no messages from gccf there
> I was fuming as the ads were removed until rectified


Can I ask, the email address above... is it correct as per how you received it? Whilst there is a Holly on the staff at GCCF office all their email contacts are [email protected]


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

It was [email protected] so a valid address.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

OrientalSlave said:


> It was [email protected] so a valid address.


Okay. I asked because the address that jaycee05 showed was similar but minus the 'cats' part.


----------



## Lisac27 (Jun 8, 2012)

Oriental slave is correct, and the previous email was minus the cats. But Holly is described as cash office assistant in the email. 
I am intrigued by this thread!


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

She isn't in mine. It does give her second name.


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

Lisac27 said:


> I received an email from Holly today about paying for a kitten reg as I was paying by card, that is not her email address!
> The plot thickens


yee shes emailed me before regarding registrations.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I will check the email address again, I could have missed some of it off as I was trying to remember it,will post again when I have checked
I wonder if it someone pretending to be Holly, if so it must be someone who knows the GCCF s details
I couldn't believe it, it doesn't sound right, and never happened before plus there are loads of ads on preloved and pets4homes with no vaccinations, very young kittens[6 weeks old etc] and they don't seem to have been targetted


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Very sorry  I did miss cats out of the email address trying to remember the rest of it


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

jaycee05 said:


> I couldn't believe it, it doesn't sound right, and never happened before plus there are loads of ads on preloved and pets4homes with no vaccinations, very young kittens[6 weeks old etc] and they don't seem to have been targetted


Do they mention GCCF? Usually those already doing the right thing are hassled for minor things while those byb's who let kittens go underage and minus vet work continue to be allowed to do so.


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

spotty cats said:


> Do they mention GCCF? Usually those already doing the right thing are hassled for minor things while those byb's who let kittens go underage and minus vet work continue to be allowed to do so.


:thumbup1: exactly


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Can someone who was affected by this tell me how quickly your ads were restored after you changed the wording to suit whoever is doing this. The timing of this 'ad attack' is highly suspicious, just before a bank holiday w/e when breeders could expect a lot of views and possible responses.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

Mine is back, not sure when from.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Mine were off the site overnight, and after an angry email from me they said they are now live again on the site, but I couldn't see them so emailed again, when I looked again after that they were back on, 
After I coirrected the ads they were taken off again to be reviewed, and I had to email again, I only updated which is usual, but they were taken completely off 
I am so angry,going to ring gccf on Monday and find out why
Has anyone else contacted them yet? I would have done yesterday but had a busy day and out a lot


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I just checked my emails to find out when they were supposed to be back on, and when they actually were ,and definitely overnight
Who do the GCCF think they are,i am still fuming


----------



## Cosmills (Oct 3, 2012)

Well let us know if it is them doing this ... I smell a rat to be honest .. 

If hard enough this time of year without this ... 

:incazzato:


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Would those of you who were contacted about this kindly tell me what exactly it was about their ad(s) that GCCF apparently objected to and how the site team(s) wanted the ad worded to comply with GCCF's request? If you'd rather, by pm would be fine.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I am so angry,going to ring gccf on Monday and find out why


It's a Bank Holiday so make it Tuesday but do please ring and please ensure you give word for word the reason it was taken down. Somebody has deliberately misled the ad sites by leaving off the first four words of the recommendation on vaccination in order to cause this trouble. Have to say, I'm pretty unimpressed with the ad sites for going along with this malicious behaviour. I can't see that the GCCF should have any influence over them.


----------



## Cosmills (Oct 3, 2012)

I have just put an advert on ... So will let ppl know if it gets rejected


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

If it gets rejected over the w/e you'll at least know it wasn't because of direct action from the GCCF as they aren't in the office. Problem is we don't know if the sites themselves now believe it's GCCF 'policy' to require certain wording on ads and will pull them without intervention from a third party


----------



## Cosmills (Oct 3, 2012)

I cannot see how they can do this, as 13 weeks is only a recommendation ... 

It's not a must do.. Yes I agree with it ... But if it is them they are going OTT policing in 

Recommendation
The GCCF strongly recommends that no kitten should be permitted to go to a new home before 13 weeks of age. A least seven days prior to this the kitten should have completed a full course of vaccinations, including a health check, given by a Veterinary Surgeon or by a listed Veterinary nurse given under the direction of a Veterinary Surgeon. The breeder should ensure that the kittens are house trained, inoculated and in good general health.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

gskinner123 said:


> Would those of you who were contacted about this kindly tell me what exactly it was about their ad(s) that GCCF apparently objected to and how the site team(s) wanted the ad worded to comply with GCCF's request? If you'd rather, by pm would be fine.


I put "I have 5 Oriental kittens, ready mid_October. They will be GCCF registered (non-active), neutered, chipped, wormed, etc." meaning 'vaccinated' by etc. I've changed it.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

OrientalSlave said:


> I put "I have 5 Oriental kittens, ready mid_October. They will be GCCF registered (non-active), neutered, chipped, wormed, etc." meaning 'vaccinated' by etc. I've changed it.


Thank you.

Not that, in my opinion, it should make a jot of difference what it says anyone's ad for the purpose of what we're talking about. Just want to ensure I have my 'facts' correct.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> It's not a must do.. Yes I agree with it ... But if it is them they are going OTT policing in


This isn't as simple as a policing issue though. This isn't about whether breeders are vaccinating their kittens, it's about what they put in their ads - which is nothing to do with the GCCF as long as there is no misrepresentation using the GCCF name. If a kitten will be sold GCCF registered then that's a statement of fact. If somebody is putting up ads saying the kittens are registered and it's obvious they can't be then I could understand the GCCF asking for ad to be pulled. Other than that I'm baffled over this and will remain so until Tuesday when we can find out if it really is the GCCF or someone claiming to be them. If it is them then I'm extremely unimpressed and will be putting in a formal complaint through my club's rep.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

So has anyone rung the GCCF about this today? I rung them about getting my online stuff working and Holly apparently deals with it and wasn't in.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I forgot it was bank holiday yesterday, and so intended ringing today, I didn't get round to it again, had a rush on, had to go to a drs appointment, and had 2 people due to come and see the kittens,neither of which turned up, 
Neither rang to cancel either, by this time it was 5-30, so b----y annoyed


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Has anyone sent an email to Holly's official email address, stating they have received informationsupposedly given in her name in which a different address is mentioned, and asked her if this is a valid email alias of hers?


----------



## sharonbee (Aug 3, 2011)

It does seem very strange, I can't see that GCCF are behind it all, especially Holly, she is a really nice person and has helped us lots in the past...she is very helpful if you ever need any advise.

I think it must be someone pretending to be from the GCCF. Shame they remove ads from good breeders yet keep the ones from bybs...there are so many bybs advertising on all sites.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

Spoke to Holly today to sort out my online access as I have to register Lola's kittens soon. Didn't want to mix the two issues so didn't mention this to her. However I think I might forward the email from Preloved to see what she says, that is if I still have it.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I have emailed the address for Holly on the preloved ad, but not had a reply yet
I think someone on this thread said that wasn't Hollys usual email address,but cant find it on GCCFs website, does anyone else have it please?


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

With doubts over the email address it might be worth emailing the office manager instead whose address is on GCCF contacts page.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Thank you I will do that, not sure who to speak to if I had rung


----------



## Taylorbaby (Jan 10, 2009)

With the amount of non registered, pretend pedigrees and kittens leaving at 6weeks on that site I would have thought they would have their hands full trying to sort that out and not breeders who do it properly! How odd? 

Did anyone get to the bottom of it?


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I am once again b----y fuming with preloved, I updated an ad yesterday, only the price,and my ad has gone again, I have just emailed preloved and asked WHY also told them I had emailed Holly at the email address given and had no reply, told them I wasn't sure it was genuineand that the GCCF only RECOMMEND that kittens go at 13 weeks, don't say they are not permitted to go before that age, 
Oriental shorthairs,; did you get any response to the spoof ad you put on, 
I think others should also contact preloved to let them know the same as I have said
Anyway still not had a reply from [HOLLY]


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

jaycee05 said:


> GCCF only RECOMMEND that kittens go at 13 weeks


What was their response when you mentioned it was a recommendation and not a rule?


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I have only emailed this morning so not had a reply yet, but the ads used to be back on straight away, so its annoying that it has been taken off, it doesn't even say it is being reviewed, 
I will let you know when I have had a response
Going off preloved rapidly, and told them so


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Taylorbaby said:


> With the amount of non registered, pretend pedigrees and kittens leaving at 6weeks on that site I would have thought they would have their hands full trying to sort that out and not breeders who do it properly! How odd?
> 
> Did anyone get to the bottom of it?


The GCCF aren't interested in unregistered cats/kittens being offered for sale. It appears as though they are targetting those ads that state GCCF registered but where, for example, full vaccinations aren't mentioned or where it's stated that the kittens are available unvaccinated or partly vaccinated prior to 13 weeks old.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> It appears as though they are targetting those ads that state GCCF registered but where, for example, full vaccinations aren't mentioned


So they are targeting one particular recommendation and not any breaches of the rules?


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Right, I have spoken to Holly, she said she did instruct preloved and other websites to remove ads, [I am still b----y mad, I asked why they wre told it was not permitted to sell kittens before 13 weeks of age when it was only a recommendation, she said "well its a strong recommendation" I said that is different to not being permitted, 
How do you feel about it? 
I asked if she was trawling all the website doing this and she said" that's correct"
She said all ads would be removed until they were amended with the correct information that complies with the GCCF rules grrr, I am madder than ever, and will now contact preloved again, telling them it is a "strong recommendation"


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> She said all ads would be removed until they were amended with the correct information that complies with the GCCF rules grrr,


Does this mean we will need to include ALL information re GCCF rules in our ads ie all details on paperwork supplied etc? It's going to make for some long ads.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Does anyone know if Preloved and Pets4homes are the only sites which take ads down without question because Holly says so?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

There is something quite funny about this. As a GCCF employee obviously has a remit to do this *it is absolute confirmation that the breeder scheme is pointless*. The only extra thing the breeder scheme offers is a guarantee of vaccination as opposed to it being a recommendation. As the GCCF have now decided we cannot advertise kittens without guaranteeing vaccination they created a situation where there's no difference between a breeder in the scheme and not.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I have ads on pets4homes and others eg; kittenlist,up to now none have been touched apart from the preloved one
Kittenlist will not remove ads I believe, as I have spoken to one of the admins there,
I would like others to complain about this,as it seems I am the only one who has dared to ring ,as far as I know:shocked:
I don't think it will make much difference just 1 person complaining:frown2:
Oh, and emailed preloved again to let them know what was said in my phone call to Holly, and suggested they contact her themselves re; not permitted and strongly recommend, and are they going to be dictated to on THEIR WEBSITE


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I think Kittenlist is run by people who know what they're doing as it's cat specific. The other sites aren't.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

havoc said:


> So they are targeting one particular recommendation and not any breaches of the rules?


I haven't read the rest of this thread yet so perhaps someone has subsequently said different but, yes, it would appear (judging by what's been said here only) that that's the case.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

havoc said:


> The only extra thing the breeder scheme offers is a guarantee of vaccination as opposed to it being a recommendation


You're forgetting... it's a *strong* recommendation


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I really can't work out what good they think they're doing. I mean, con artists and BYBs will happily say anything and couldn't care while the GCCF are alienating their own membership through these high handed actions. 

I wonder if the new IT systems are working well and have left office staff with too much time on their hands. If so then it's time for some 'rationalisation' and they can pay back the money they borrowed from clubs with the savings on staff costs.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

jaycee05 said:


> I would like others to complain about this,as it seems I am the only one who has dared to ring ,as far as I know:shocked:
> I don't think it will make much difference just 1 person complaining


To be clear from the off, I am totally against GCCF doing this - as far as I am concerned, whilst other breeders may do things differently to me, they are perfectly within their rights to do so and particularly when it is recommendations they might not be complying with and not breaking any rules - rules which the GCCF themselves say they cannot put into place for all breeders who register their kittens.

However, to play devil's advocate, I do think that breeders who register their kittens but choose to let kittens go without being fully vaccinated and rehomed earlier than the recommended age are going to come in for criticism.

In my opinion GCCF need to decide where they stand on this and if it's on the side of fully vac'd/13 weeks, etc, etc, then make the necessary changes. Until that time they should stop meddling.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> In my opinion GCCF need to decide where they stand on this and if it's on the side of fully vac'd/13 weeks, etc, etc, then make the necessary changes. Until that time they should stop meddling.


Completely agree with this. I do think the timing is utterly weird though considering the setting up of the breeder scheme. Surely it would make more sense to play up the difference if they want people to join rather than creating a situation where there is none.

Maybe this was always on the cards which would explain the lack of PR for the scheme.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

havoc said:


> Completely agree with this. I do think the timing is utterly weird though considering the setting up of the breeder scheme. Surely it would make more sense to play up the difference if they want people to join rather than creating a situation where there is none.
> 
> Maybe this was always on the cards which would explain the lack of PR for the scheme.


I wondered that. It's a peculiar way of going about "encouraging" people to sign up to the scheme. Also wondering if they have a publicity officer who might like to come and make some comments here. You'd imagine they'd be only too keen to defend their position and explain the why's and wherefore's on a forum which gets lots of 'target market' traffic.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

After emailing preloved to ask why my ad has again been removed I got one back just telling me to contact Holly again at that email address, I have not yet had a reply back to the one telling them I have spoken to Holly
I have though got a reply back from the email I sent to Holly yesterday
Badically saying the same as she said on the phone, but I am not happy and will cancel all ties with GCCF then I will do as I like or go with TICA [Looking into that now
It is annoying that anyone else can advertise what they like ,even kittens at 6 weeks etc, and get away with it, 
Has anyone contacted the GCCF yet? might help to let them know we are not happy about GCCF police


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Before they come on here I would have liked some sort of announcement through the member clubs. I have heard nothing through 'official' channels on this requirement on the wording of ads.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I am NOT going to be dictated to by them or preloved, and I wouldn't care but all I have done this time is changed the price on my ad


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

jaycee05 said:


> I am NOT going to be dictated to by them or preloved, and I wouldn't care but all I have done this time is changed the price on my ad


Have you thought about complaining through your club's representative?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Off at a bit of a tangent, I thought Pets4homes was considered a reasonably respectable site whereas Preloved was considered equivalent to ones like Gumtree. Am now wondering why the GCCF are targeting these two very different sites - or is it just these two which do what Holly wants?


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I have not had any word back from preloved after my last email rant, but just checked and my ad is back on
Also emailed pets4homes about the text I [we] got re, microchipping, I am in the mood now for ranting lol 
At the moment I am too annoyed to do anything else
As I said earlier,it would be good if others complained to GCCF
I was trying to give up smoking, but that is on the back burner for now,too aggravated lol


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

jaycee05 said:


> I have not had any word back from preloved after my last email rant, but just checked and my ad is back on
> Also emailed pets4homes about the text I [we] got re, microchipping, I am in the mood now for ranting lol
> At the moment I am too annoyed to do anything else
> As I said earlier,it would be good if others complained to GCCF
> I was trying to give up smoking, but that is on the back burner for now,too aggravated lol


Wouldn't like to say for certain but I think complaints put through the clubs might carry more weight than half a dozen or so people complaining directly to GCCF.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

It's certainly worthwhile contacting you club sec or GCCF rep. Maybe the information was put out to clubs and committees have not seen fit to inform members. In a way that wouldn't surprise me as I'd imagine committees would be hell bent on pushing the breeder scheme and this latest development is at odds with that.


----------



## Taylorbaby (Jan 10, 2009)

gskinner123 said:


> The GCCF aren't interested in unregistered cats/kittens being offered for sale. It appears as though they are targetting those ads that state GCCF registered but where, for example, full vaccinations aren't mentioned or where it's stated that the kittens are available unvaccinated or partly vaccinated prior to 13 weeks old.


Sorry, I meant preloved, I did used to advertise on there but I told them with links the amount of byb, but they said they put things in place to make sure it doesn't happen?!  I was like erm ok, but I wont advertise on here again!

But Im so shocked the the gccf have time to go through adverts if they don't state '13weeks' when they don't even have it as a rule 



jaycee05 said:


> Right, I have spoken to Holly, she said she did instruct preloved and other websites to remove ads, [I am still b----y mad, I asked why they wre told it was not permitted to sell kittens before 13 weeks of age when it was only a recommendation, she said "well its a strong recommendation" I said that is different to not being permitted,
> How do you feel about it?
> I asked if she was trawling all the website doing this and she said" that's correct"
> She said all ads would be removed until they were amended with the correct information that complies with the GCCF rules grrr, I am madder than ever, and will now contact preloved again, telling them it is a "strong recommendation"


lol strong  I wonder if the gccf would like to go on kittenlist and find the breeders that are gccf registered that sell kittens at 8 & 9weeks old fully registered!! Just a few I have found: One states they don't believe in vaccinations, but kittens are full price! One gives holistic vacs, and the other 2 just say they believe kittens should go earlier and don't email them to have a go at them and to get a life if you think they should stay later... all gccf prefixs aswell! 



havoc said:


> There is something quite funny about this. As a GCCF employee obviously has a remit to do this *it is absolute confirmation that the breeder scheme is pointless*. The only extra thing the breeder scheme offers is a guarantee of vaccination as opposed to it being a recommendation. As the GCCF have now decided we cannot advertise kittens without guaranteeing vaccination they created a situation where there's no difference between a breeder in the scheme and not.


I wont join the breeder scheme, I really think its pointless to pay for a badge when I have been doing all of that and more! For years anyway  And one of their questions I believe was something like 'was you encouraged to put the kitten into your name' 

you would have thought top questions would be 'were they kept in a clean environment with mum' 'neutered fully vac' did the breeder answer questions etc etc etc but no, just encouraged to put the card in your name?!

I looked it up not one person has done it in any of my litters (apart from 2 breeding cats and a couple of show neuters) and TICA puts it in new owners names for free!



havoc said:


> I really can't work out what good they think they're doing. I mean, con artists and BYBs will happily say anything and couldn't care while the GCCF are alienating their own membership through these high handed actions.
> 
> I wonder if the new IT systems are working well and have left office staff with too much time on their hands. If so then it's time for some 'rationalisation' and they can pay back the money they borrowed from clubs with the savings on staff costs.


lol :laugh: it isn't really helping anyone, I don't get why they are doing it either!

So if my kittens go neutered fully vac health tested at 12weeks 6days I will be told off?! 



jaycee05 said:


> I am NOT going to be dictated to by them or preloved, and I wouldn't care but all I have done this time is changed the price on my ad


esp preloved, the name says it all really :frown2:


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

My kittens' new servants will be getting preloved kittens - preloved by me!


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Why has the wording been changed though, from "strongly recommend" to not permitted, a whole new meaning 
I am not contacting anyone else, finished with it, I did tell preloved that only them and pets4homes have been targeted as far as I know,but my ad on p4h has not been removed and I put exactly the same wording


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> So if my kittens go neutered fully vac health tested at 12weeks 6days I will be told off?!


Well this is the really weird thing. Currently you will not be 'told off' because you didn't do anything wrong. You didn't break any rule and can't face any GCCF action. This is true even if you don't vaccinate your kittens. The only action being taken here is someone called Holly who is an employee of the GCCF office has decided that adverts must be worded in a particular way. Presumably if a breeder includes the word 'vaccinated' in their ads it would still be fine even if they let the kittens go before the second vaccination. All Holly seems to care about is the word 'vaccinated' appearing in an ad if it is stated the kittens are GCCF reg.

Have to say I have always thought it _should_ be more than a recommendation but it isn't.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Why has the wording been changed though, from "strongly recommend" to not permitted


It hasn't!!!!! The wording has always been -
*The GCCF strongly recommends that* no kitten should be permitted to go to a new home before 13 weeks of age.
That first part, bolded by me, appears to have been conveniently omitted in Holly's demand to the sites that ads were pulled.


----------



## Taylorbaby (Jan 10, 2009)

How does she have the power to get sites to take off the adverts? 

I remember years ago I tried to advertise on a kitten/puppy site, it was full of scams and cheap kittens, but I was just starting out, I had a proper advert, but they took my advert off and asked me to call them, when I did they said the reason they took my advert off was because I said 'Gorgeous kittens'  :shocked: and apparently scammers use the term gorgeous lol!!! :001_huh:

I said even with all the other information, and I sent them links to all the scams on the site (never removed) for £200 delivered to you pedigrees, all in broken English kitten fed kibble, pups gcff registered etc which were never removed, I never put a advert on there again!


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Just had a flash of inspiration. Maybe this semantic obsession is designed to make them money as perfectly good breeders pay for certified pedigrees in order to transfer their breeding queens to TICA :lol:


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

jaycee05 said:


> Right, I have spoken to Holly, she said she did instruct preloved and other websites to remove ads, [I am still b----y mad, I asked why they wre told it was not permitted to sell kittens before 13 weeks of age when it was only a recommendation, she said "well its a strong recommendation" I said that is different to not being permitted,
> How do you feel about it?
> I asked if she was trawling all the website doing this and she said" that's correct"
> She said all ads would be removed until they were amended with the correct information that complies with the GCCF rules grrr, I am madder than ever, and will now contact preloved again, telling them it is a "strong recommendation"


Have you considered threatening the ad sites and the GCCF to sue them for removing ads on NO legal basis? After all, a recommendation is not a rule, and a rule is not a law.
If GCCF will not allow people to sell kittens that do not meet all their requirements, they should kick those who do out of their club and recall their right to mention the club registration and prefix AT ALL. Or at least refuse to register any kittens that do not meet the requirements.
Obviously they, themselves, are breaking their own rules by accepting registrations for kittens without proof of being vaccinated, and without proof of their being kept with mother till 13 weeks.
As long as they accept the registrations, they have NO right to have ads removed, as they are obviously allowing breeders who do not comply to their recommendations to remain members of their club and register their 'illegally sold' kittens with them.

The only legally valid reason they would have for having ads removed is if the advertisers are ILLEGALLY using their name, which is not the case.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Before the GCCF became a limited company I'd have said this stupidity could have been stamped on quickly. The GCCF was its membership and it was the membership which made decisions, recommendations and rules. I'm not sure what the situation is now. I do know that increasingly the tail seems to be wagging the dog.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

I think someone should directly and bluntly ask this Holly on whose order she is performing this illegitimate action.
As the GCCF does regiter these kittens, the owner/seller is legally permitted to advertize them as such, and the GCCF is performing an illegal act in claiming they are not.

If they do not want people to advertize unvaccinated kittens as GCCF registered, they should not register them unless proof of vaccination is being handed over.

If they do not want people to sell kittens under 13 weeks, they should revoke the membership of breeders who do.

Then, and only then, do they have a case.

But they do not, so the only conlusion can be:
what they are doing here is illegitimate.. 
Case closed.


EDIT
Are there any lawyers in the house who can flaunt their legal knowledge and authority in convincing her of this????


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

I've forwarded the email from Preloved on to the office manager, and included the relevent quote from the code of ethics from their own web page. If Holly has been told to do this then there is no point in talking to her about it, and if she hasn't and gets in trouble she should have thought before doing it.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

havoc said:


> It hasn't!!!!! The wording has always been -
> *The GCCF strongly recommends that* no kitten should be permitted to go to a new home before 13 weeks of age.
> That first part, bolded by me, appears to have been conveniently omitted in Holly's demand to the sites that ads were pulled.


The entire paragraph reads:



> *Recommendation*
> The GCCF strongly recommends that no kitten should be permitted to go to a new home before 13 weeks of age. A least seven days prior to this the kitten should have completed a full course of vaccinations, including a health check, given by a Veterinary Surgeon or by a listed Veterinary nurse given under the direction of a Veterinary Surgeon. The breeder should ensure that the kittens are house trained, inoculated and in good general health.


http://www.gccfcats.org/pdf/ethics.pdf

If it was required, the word recommendation shouldn't be used.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Moreover, if it was required,* they **should not accept* registrations of kittens not meeting the requirements.

They cannot legally forbid people to advertize registrations THEY have accepted in the first place. If GCCF accepts the registration, it is valid and can be quoted wherever you like.

What they are really saying is that they are giving out invalid registrations.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

It isn't required and the issue isn't whether vaccinations are required. The issue is that the GCCF office appear to 'require' certain wording in ads or they will 'persuade' the sites to take them down. This wouldn't be anywhere near so bad if this information was disseminated to those who need to know. Many breeders who do everything right and vaccinate their kittens could fall foul of this because they don't word their ads the way Holly wants. This time it was vaccinations. Next week she could pick on something else and a whole further raft of ads will be pulled. Nobody will have broken any rules or recommendations but as the criteria appear to remain secret until she starts a campaign we are all at risk.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

Is Holly simply doing what she has been told to do? Quite possible.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Sorry, might not have made it clear, I meant why had * Holly* changed the wording from strongly recommend, to not permitted, 
She did say by the way that she had authorization to ask for ads to be removed, she didn't say who by
I have not looked yet, but I was informed this morning that any kittens not registered will be considered to have been *abandoned*


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> but I was informed this morning that any kittens not registered will be considered to have been abandoned


What?? I have no idea what is meant by that. Any chance you could explain a bit more.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Is Holly simply doing what she has been told to do? Quite possible.


It is, but by whom? It is the secretive and arbitrary nature of this whole thing which stinks. I have followed every rule and recommendation for many years. Never have I had anything from the GCCF which said I must word any advertising in a particular way. Never have I seen any information, either directly from them or through the clubs, saying that they have particular criteria for the wording of ads. There are all sorts of things I do which I don't mention on ads.


----------



## Soupie (Sep 2, 2008)

There is now a discussion about this on the GCCF Yahoo list. Disappointingly the reaction seems to me that this is not happening and it's rumour etc got out of hand.

Please can I urge those who Holly has spoken to, to report this to the Board so they will take action.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I cant find anything in the GCCF code of ethics about abandonment, so I have asked the person who told me exactly where she saw this,will let you know when I do
I spoke to Holly, and basically she just answered my questions with "that's correct" she didn't go into any conversation with me, except to say she was authorised to ask for ads to be taken off
I wonder if she has been authorised to put something on websites about recommendation,and gone above what she was supposed to say
Which is the yahoo site this is discussed on, and how can it be rumour when a few of us have proof
I suggested to preloved that they get in touch with Holly too, they said they would to clarify things


----------



## Soupie (Sep 2, 2008)

The GCCFCats chat list on Yahoo! Groups.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Thank you I will look now, I had an email from preloved, so did oriental slave, so obviously not a rumour, if Holly has missed out the proper wording she will be in trouble, and quite rightly so


----------



## Soupie (Sep 2, 2008)

I know you did. But please report it to the board as unless you do no action will be taken


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I can only second what Soupie says and ask that those affected by this report it to their club reps or directly to the board. Only those with direct evidence can do so.


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

This from an email on the list.

GCCF has no power to intervene in private advertising. The Board has not
even discussed any guidelines for advertising.

So IF a member of GCCF staff has done what is being suggested here (and it's
a big IF), the way to deal with it is to contact a member of the Board, and
to provide the details.

That from someone pretty highly placed.

Please folks, report this. Sounds as though Holly is going way beyond what she should be doing, or there's been a mix up somewhere. Either way, it needs to be sorted pronto, but as Haovc says, only those of you with evidence can do this.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I will report it to the board, but I cant find any discussion about it on GCCF chat on yahoo groups


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Reporting it is more important than chatting about it on Yahoo groups though this is one instance where I believe an internet forum has proved invaluable. If this had happened to me when I was younger and newer to breeding I would have curled up in a ball and sobbed. At least those on the receiving end have been able to let people know it's going on and gain some support.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

I did forward the email from Preloved to the GCCF and have received a very satisfactory email which acknowledges the wording of the code of ethics and will sort this out with Holly. Think too much is being read into this - I see it as an employee carrying out what she thought she was required to do, having misunderstood it.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I have an email all ready to send but for some reason it wont go, could you please let me know the gccf email thank you
I agree I don't think this has been sent to preloved in malice, maybe Holly is very young or new and misunderstood


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I see it as an employee carrying out what she thought she was required to do, having misunderstood it.


I'd go along with that - except that it takes a darn sight more effort to misquote the Code of Ethics than it does to copy and paste the whole of the relevant passage. I will agree that if Holly is junior staff then whoever tasked her with this should have supervised her more closely.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

jaycee05 said:


> I have an email all ready to send but for some reason it wont go, could you please let me know the gccf email thank you
> I agree I don't think this has been sent to preloved in malice, maybe Holly is very young or new and misunderstood


Suggest you hang fire until I hear back again about the outcome.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Suggest you hang fire until I hear back again about the outcome.


Why? The outcome could be very different if they think it's only affected one breeder.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

The abandonment is mentioned under advice for breeders, about halfway down page 2, the part which mentions declaring kittens only,not registering them
I will try to send this email again, there is the name of the office manager, with "email beside his name, but no actual email address, and wont open


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

havoc said:


> Why? The outcome could be very different if they think it's only affected one breeder.


Because I think the person I emailed will deal with it fully. Please give it a couple of days.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Because I think the person I emailed will deal with it fully


I understand you believe they will deal with your case fully and I'm sure you will end up with a satisfactory outcome. You were not the only person affected though and presumably have not been asked to act on behalf of others. Asking other people not to complain is assisting the office staff in glossing over this and may give the impression they will get away with acting ultra vires in the future.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I have emailed the GCCF, and forwarded the email from preloved
I think its only right that other people affected should complain, my ads were taken off twice,and when I asked why the second time was advised to email Holly again, no way
So will see what happens now, maybe Holly got it wrong, but if she works there she should know the code of ethics herself,and make sure she gets it right,


----------



## Mayday (Sep 1, 2013)

The governing bodies have jurisdiction over the breeders that have a prefix logged with them, however they do not have any jurisdiction over public websites. If they want a breeder to change their advertising they would need to contact the breeder directley and ask them to amend their advertising if an error has been found, They do not have the authority to tell public websites to remove the adverts until they have been altered.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> The governing bodies have jurisdiction over the breeders that have a prefix logged with them


And in the case of the GCCF every owner with a cat registered in their name - as stated at the very beginning of the Code of Ethics.



> If they want a breeder to change their advertising they would need to contact the breeder directley and ask them to amend their advertising if an error has been found


Love the theory. What sort of 'errors' would cause them to do this and do you know of a case where it has happened?



> They do not have the authority to tell public websites to remove the adverts until they have been altered


And yet that's exactly what they have been doing and some websites have been happy to do exactly as they were told without question. This time it seems someone was a little over enthusiastic so it became public knowledge.


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

The thing is, whether they have durisdiction or not, there was no error made. Kittens are not REQUIRED to be vaccinated. It is RECOMMENDED that they are, and until it becomes a requirement, GCCF have no cause to use this as a reason to even contact a breeder to suggest or demand rewording of an advert. And that, in my opinion, is the crux of the matter.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Agreed Carly, but it seems the GCCF didn't have anything to do with these emails, seems like Holly took it on herself to contact these websites, 
I am just surprised there have been no more complaints,


----------



## Mayday (Sep 1, 2013)

Havoc...The error I had in mind was any mention in regarding to GCCF in a detrimental way . 
Before GCCF can change the wording in their rule structure it would need to go before the board. 
This applies to all change of rules and regulations.
What is Hollys position of employment at GCCF,why is it alleged to have been an error on her part, surely these offices are shared and actions like this would have been discussed in house before e-mails were sent.
Once again I must point out that none of the governing bodies have any jurisdiction over public websites.
Their is one very vindictive website set up in the US that is masquerading as being part of a governing body,breeders name and shame dept,they have nothing to go with the governing body they are impersonating in any shape or form other than they were thrown out of the governing body,for misdemeanours and attacking other breeders.Which they are now successfully doing. The governing body cannot do a thing about it.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

jaycee05 said:


> it seems the GCCF didn't have anything to do with these emails, seems like Holly took it on herself to contact these websites,


I don't believe that is the case at all.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> but it seems the GCCF didn't have anything to do with these emails, seems like Holly took it on herself to contact these websites,


Do we know this? We do know the board have no policy on this and did not authorise it but this doesn't mean Holly was acting on her own. She may have been acting on instruction from other office staff. There is an issue of terminology here as there's the GCCF which is us the membership who through our representatives supposedly make policy and the GCCF office staffed by employees. It's pretty difficult to know sometimes who is running the show


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Originally Posted by jaycee05 View Post
> it seems the GCCF didn't have anything to do with these emails, seems like Holly took it on herself to contact these websites,
> 
> I don't believe that is the case at all.


Neither do I but I guess there will be a wonderful 'explanation' put out very soon which will satisfy those affected


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> What is Hollys position of employment at GCCF,why is it alleged to have been an error on her part, surely these offices are shared and actions like this would have been discussed in house before e-mails were sent.


I'm sure it was.



> Once again I must point out that none of the governing bodies have any jurisdiction over public websites.


As far as I'm aware there have been no attempts to influence 'public' websites. The sites involved are privately run and their owners have, for whatever reason, chosen to do as someone from the GCCF office asked. They are perfectly entitled to do so.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

carly87 said:


> This from an email on the list.
> 
> GCCF has no power to intervene in private advertising. The Board has not
> even discussed any guidelines for advertising.
> ...


I am only quoting what was said in this discussion


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> The thing is, whether they have durisdiction or not, there was no error made. Kittens are not REQUIRED to be vaccinated. It is RECOMMENDED that they are, and until it becomes a requirement, GCCF have no cause to use this as a reason to even contact a breeder to suggest or demand rewording of an advert. And that, in my opinion, is the crux of the matter.


It absolutely is the crux of it. There is no GCCF policy on the wording of adverts. There may well be GCCF office policy - subtle difference  There may have been unofficial agreement on such policy from individuals, who knows?


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

The GCCF has a right to make sure it's name isn't being used in vain, just as all other organisations do. Beyond that then yes, they would have to change the code of ethics to be able to police further.

BTW I had every intention of making it clear to them that it wasn't just me that was unhappy with what Holly has been doing.

The reply I have received makes it clear that 1) Preloved asked the GCCF to check adverts following Preloved receiving complaints from some breeders, 2) Holly is the liason with Preloved, 3) Holly has had some training, 4) the person who emailed me isn't sure if Holly's instructions were incorrect or the interpretation is the problem and 5) the person who emailed me will be talking to Holly on Monday.

It is because of the last point that I suggested that we hang fire until Monday has happened and I have another email back. Since it's a private email to me I don't think I should be sharing it.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Since it's a private email to me I don't think I should be sharing it.


Completely understandable and I agree you shouldn't. You are not the only person not sharing private correspondence. Unfortunately keeping everything private isn't going to help members in knowing how to comply with some 'confidential' office policy. I have no problem with the GCCF deciding to protect the brand. All they need to do is ensure members are properly informed of their criteria. This information can quite easily be disseminated to members through the clubs


----------



## Cosmills (Oct 3, 2012)

OrientalSlave said:


> The GCCF has a right to make sure it's name isn't being used in vain, just as all other organisations do. Beyond that then yes, they would have to change the code of ethics to be able to police further.
> 
> BTW I had every intention of making it clear to them that it wasn't just me that was unhappy with what Holly has been doing.
> 
> ...


Am just catching up after a busy few days .... Am pleased this is getting sorted and ppl are just not letting it go over there Heads

Wot a to do ... I have not read the full thread I really hope the ppl involved get a good telling off for all the stress they have cause with ads , and I hope all of you involved get a written apology from GCCF and some kind of discount when it come to registering with them again ... Well done guys


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

I really don't care if I get an apology or not - I just want them to sort out what is going on.


----------



## carly87 (Feb 11, 2011)

Nope, OS, nobody's expecting you to share that private email, but if you're speaking to who I think you are, then it's a good bet that this will all be sorted on Monday. Hopefully so!


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Who said preloved got in touch with the GCCF ?,because other breeders were complaining to preloved about adverts,? sounds like some breeders are not selling kittens and don't like the competition if that's the case
Whatever the reason, preloved should put any ads on they want, its their website
I cant wait to see the outcome of this,and get to the truth


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

Customers of the gccf (breeders?) complained (to the gccf?), after that preloved asked the gccf to look at ads for gccf kittens.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Customers of the gccf (breeders?)


Customers or members? The very use of the word customers gives the impression this has not been a member led initiative.



> complained (to the gccf?),


Complained to the GCCF or to the GCCF office staff?



> after that preloved asked the gccf to look at ads for gccf kittens.


As above. Who exactly did they ask and who made the policy on acceptable advertising?


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

There's something else that surprises me (aside from being astonished that GCCF staff appear to be doing this AT all) about all this, at least as far as this thread goes. This forum is usually full of criticism for breeders who choose not to fully vaccinate and keep kittens until an (apparently) appropriate age. The majority of threads concerning the purchase of pedigree kittens will always see members chipping in with 'only buy from a breeder who fully vaccinate, etc, etc' to the point where a lot of threads go off at a tangent and end up up as a tirade against breeders who register but go against GCCF recommendations. Yet here we have a thread on that very subject... and not a single comment in that regard.

I know they are two separate issues and I still couldn't condone what GCCF staff appear to have been doing but lack of comment on this thread seems peculiar.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least that these actions have been prompted by breeders complaining to GCCF.. they complain all the time about it here.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> It wouldn't surprise me in the least that these actions have been prompted by breeders complaining to GCCF.. they complain all the time about it here.


I t wouldn't surprise me either but what worries me is who the office staff believe they are answerable to - if anyone. I don't know if the change to a limited company means the membership and the board no longer have any say in the GCCF. Have we turned control of OUR organisation over to the admin staff? If so then I see little point in paying my dues and continuing membership. I may as well become a 'customer' as it seems to carry more weight.

As to the lack of comment on vaccinating kittens, I think the point is that there has never been any suggestion that a breeder doesn't vaccinate just because they don't mention it in an ad. Many ads make big of kitten packs. I'd not mention them but it doesn't mean I don't supply them. I probably wouldn't mention insurance either but my kittens go off insured.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

In the very small company I am a Director of, the Board makes policy and the office staff (and sometimes some of the Directors) implement it. This is a sports club and in effect every member has a share, so it's not dissimilar to the GCCF.

It's the same in every company - the Board makes policy, not the office staff. Even before the GCCF was a limited company, I suspect it would have operated in this manner.

But being practical the office staff have to field a lot of issues and decide what to do otherwise the Directors would be overwhelmed with minutia. So, at a low level, office staff do decide how the company will operate which in my view is fair enough - after all they are the ones that have to actually implement operational procedures and policy.

I have sent another email asking who the 'customers' were and who they complained to. Suspect the one I have received so far was sent in a hurry (it was sent on Saturday to my surprise) and the person who sent it won't think much of their wording today. I also mentioned that Holly was very helpful when I was having problems getting signed up to register my kittens online.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

havoc said:


> I t wouldn't surprise me either but what worries me is who the office staff believe they are answerable to - if anyone. I don't know if the change to a limited company means the membership and the board no longer have any say in the GCCF. Have we turned control of OUR organisation over to the admin staff? If so then I see little point in paying my dues and continuing membership. I may as well become a 'customer' as it seems to carry more weight.
> 
> As to the lack of comment on vaccinating kittens, I think the point is that there has never been any suggestion that a breeder doesn't vaccinate just because they don't mention it in an ad. Many ads make big of kitten packs. I'd not mention them but it doesn't mean I don't supply them. I probably wouldn't mention insurance either but my kittens go off insured.


I have little clue how the change to a limited company might have affected many things. There have been a few (separate) issues I have questioned but have generally had the answer 'we can't do this, that or the other because we are just a registering body; we cannot police breeders'. Those issues I'd raised since the change to a limited company so...

Perhaps I've got my wires crossed reading this thread but (with one exception) I thought the focus was on ads which said GCCF registered but clearly stated that kittens would not be fully vaccinated... or at least that was the obvious conclusion to be drawn because it was stated that the kittens were available before 12 weeks old. Not sure, will have to go back and re-read.

In the absence of hearing back from one person who I had asked about it all, I've just emailed the office manager.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

gskinner123 said:


> I have little clue how the change to a limited company might have affected many things. There have been a few (separate) issues I have questioned but have generally had the answer 'we can't do this, that or the other because we are just a registering body; we cannot police breeders'. Those issues I'd raised since the change to a limited company so...
> 
> Perhaps I've got my wires crossed reading this thread but (with one exception) I thought the focus was on ads which said GCCF but clearly stated that kittens would not be fully vaccinated... or at least that was the obvious conclusion to be drawn because it was stated that the kittens were available before 12 weeks old. Not sure, will have to go back and re-read.
> 
> In the absence of hearing back from one person who I had asked about it all, I've just emailed the office manager.


My ad with Preloved had 'etc' which I changed to 'vaccinated'. I didn't explicitly say if they would be vaccinated or not. I think it was clear they would be at least 14 weeks old - what I filled in said they were 8 weeks old, and would be 14 weeks when they left.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I could understand it if anyone was complaining about the wrong kind of ads, say underage kittens, or dealers, as there used to be a few ads on preloved for people advertising foe kittens that people didn't want or couldn't sell
It has really annoyed me that preloved[if its true] are listening to complaints from other breeders, who are putting 2+2 together and coming up with 5,just because some ads are not what they think they should be,and not knowing all details
Someone is advertising kittens as pedigree when they are selling for £150 with no papers, obviously no one has complained about thatI am wondering how many more breeders are affected,
I cant get into that google chat to see if there are others,and how many


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

OrientalSlave said:


> My ad with Preloved had 'etc' which I changed to 'vaccinated'. I didn't explicitly say if they would be vaccinated or not. I think it was clear they would be at least 14 weeks old - what I filled in said they were 8 weeks old, and would be 14 weeks when they left.


Yours was the 'with one exception' I was thinking of.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Well my ad has gone again, it looks from my account that it is still there, but its not on the site,so have emailed preloved again to ask why?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Jaycee, forgive me for asking but do you abide by GCCF protocols including recommendations? The suggestion is that the GCCF only ask for the removal of ads where it is obvious, even stated, they are not being followed.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

Reply from the GCCF:

Instructions to Holly were not clear enough.

They cannot determine if the complaints were from breeders or owners so used customers to try to cover both.

The complaints were made to the GCCF - 'we received'.

Seems it should all be OK now.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

OrientalSlave said:


> Reply from the GCCF:
> 
> The complaints were made to the GCCF - 'we received'.


What does this mean please?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> They cannot determine if the complaints were from breeders or owners so used customers to try to cover both.


So not GCCF members? Just random public?


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I have just received an email from Mark Goadby saying his instructions to Holly were not very clear [so sounds like she WAS instructed to do this] but I have contacted preloved and asked them to reinstate your ad which should not have been reported,[and a copy of email to preloved]
Doesn't make it clear who complained in the first place though in my email


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Who said it was preloved who contacted GCCF, ? i emailed them last night about this,but not got a reply, and i still think it wrong that someone was instructed to have ads removed, not knowing all the details
Some people write a basic ad, saying please contact for further details
Does anyone have any idea how many breeders were affected?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Who said it was preloved who contacted GCCF


I believe the GCCF office have said both that they got complaints directly and that they were asked by Preloved to check ads. Depends which explanation you're sent.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

jaycee05 said:


> Who said it was preloved who contacted GCCF, ? i emailed them last night about this,but not got a reply, and i still think it wrong that someone was instructed to have ads removed, not knowing all the details
> Some people write a basic ad, saying please contact for further details
> Does anyone have any idea how many breeders were affected?


The reply I received from GCCF office manager stated that complaints had been received about specific ads which broke GCCF rules. He goes on to mention Preloved, saying "we have been looking over ads on Preloved at their request". I took the "their" to mean those who complained - not 'their' as in Preloved. Perhaps that's where confusion is arising.. though having just read Havoc's comment I'm not so sure.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I took the "their" to mean those who complained - not 'their' as in Preloved. Perhaps that's where confusion is arising..


You could be right. Clarity has not been a feature of this whole episode  I'd sort of assumed it had been at the behest of Preloved because they had been so quick to take ads down. If it were my site I wouldn't react quite so favourably to such interference if it came out of the blue.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

havoc said:


> You could be right. Clarity has not been a feature of this whole episode  I'd sort of assumed it had been at the behest of Preloved because they had been so quick to take ads down. If it were my site I wouldn't react quite so favourably to such interference if it came out of the blue.


Quite  I'm still trying to think what these broken GCCF rules re selling kittens actually are. Considering there, uh, doesn't appear to be any rules.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Just seen an ad on preloved which makes me think this might be the person reporting these ads, with the wording and warnings, hmm


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

jaycee05 said:


> Just seen an ad on preloved which makes me think this might be the person reporting these ads, with the wording and warnings, hmm


Go on, don't keep it to youself!


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

gskinner123 said:


> The reply I received from GCCF office manager stated that complaints had been received about specific ads which broke GCCF rules.  He goes on to mention Preloved, saying "we have been looking over ads on Preloved at their request". I took the "their" to mean those who complained - not 'their' as in Preloved. Perhaps that's where confusion is arising.. though having just read Havoc's comment I'm not so sure.


He also said to me that one thing complained about were people saying they would register breeds not recognised by the GCCF.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Sorry as you all know I am useless at copy and pasting, Paul Wilson from Doncaster .it does send ring warning bells [kind of] it occurred to me as soon as I read his post
If I remember rightly his name sounds familiar,as to something he has posted on preloved before


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Meant to say his name rings a bell,seen it before complaining about ads


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

You don't have to look far to find troublemakers for goodness sake. There's already yet another new thread on PF banging on about reporting supposedly misleading ads to Preloved and threatening Trading Standards. Some people have nothing better to do than look for trouble.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

I really can't be bothered to try to find the ad.


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

OrientalSlave said:


> I really can't be bothered to try to find the ad.


haha i tried  but not much to go on and im just getting footballers.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I have not seen any ads saying they would register breeds not known to the GCCF
For the ad I mean, its under Ragdolls, Doncaster South Yorkshire area
I don't know why you were told all that, I wasn't, was that in a phone call


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

jaycee05 said:


> I have not seen any ads saying they would register breeds not known to the GCCF
> For the ad I mean, its under Ragdolls, Doncaster South Yorkshire area
> I don't know why you were told all that, I wasn't, was that in a phone call


This one?

Preloved | ragdoll kittens gccf registered. for sale in Doncaster, South Yorkshire


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

It was in an email.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

OrientalSlave said:


> It was in an email.[/QUOTE
> Oh, right, my email didn't say anything like that


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

we love bsh's said:


> This one?
> 
> Preloved | ragdoll kittens gccf registered. for sale in Doncaster, South Yorkshire


Yes that one


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Updated 6 days ago, ties in with our emails from preloved too
Might be wrong of course, but seemed to jump out at me when I read it,


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

we love bsh's said:


> This one?
> 
> Preloved | ragdoll kittens gccf registered. for sale in Doncaster, South Yorkshire


So what's the problem?


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

OrientalSlave said:


> So what's the problem?


I dont know just helping JC with the link.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Having read the ad I don't see a problem with it. I personally wouldn't choose to say all that in an ad I'd placed but it's no different to something I might say (in the appropriate circumstances) to a prospective owner who had emailed or rung me regarding kittens.


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

gskinner123 said:


> Having read the ad I don't see a problem with it. I personally wouldn't choose to say all that in an ad I'd placed but it's no different to something I might say (in the appropriate circumstances) to a prospective owner who had emailed or rung me regarding kittens.


I tthink jc is trying to say with everything wrote in his ad ,*maybe* he was the one reporting to gccf.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

we love bsh's said:


> I tthink jc is trying to say with everything wrote in his ad ,*maybe* he was the one reporting to gccf.


I know  I didn't draw that conclusion myself but who knows? He has a breed that suffers terribly at the hands of byb types and it sometimes seems that every other ad you see for Ragdolls is dodgy in some way and they often clearly aren't Ragdolls at all. I can half understand, in those circumstances, why he's giving chapter and verse in his ad.


----------



## Cosmills (Oct 3, 2012)

I looked at this ad the other day ... I think he is just getting peeved with the amount of BYB in his breed .. He is right but I feel he could have put it better in his ad... As this all he talks about ... Not the kittens he is advertising


----------



## we love bsh's (Mar 28, 2011)

gskinner123 said:


> I know  I didn't draw that conclusion myself but who knows? He has a breed that suffers terribly at the hands of byb types and it sometimes seems that every other ad you see for Ragdolls is dodgy in some way and they often clearly aren't Ragdolls at all. I can half understand, in those circumstances, why he's giving chapter and verse in his ad.


arrh right sorry


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Yes, that is what I was getting at, * someone *who advertises on preloved has obviously reported some ads they think shouldn't be on there, and this mans ad says everything that we were told off about, and had ads taken off for, trouble causer I think, 
Fair enough I do understand he wants to make clear that he does everything by the book, and correctly, but seem to want to make out he does it right and others dont
Seems that way to me anyway


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

I have seen another breeder of a different breed post in a similar vein on a different site within the last week. Maybe they are just very tired of BYBs, and who can blame them. One thing I think you need to be careful of though is naming people on a site with no evidence, and implying they have done something wrong.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Yes I did think about that, after I had posted


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

Can't really complain about bybs if you don't early neuter, the ad writer is clearly fed up but not doing anything to help the situation


----------



## petforum (Oct 30, 2007)

Hi, as you probably know, we also run and own the Pets4Homes classifieds site, I can try and find out if we are contacted by holly to remove gccf ads if they don't state the ages of 13 weeks.

Regards
Mark


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Can't really complain about bybs if you don't early neuter


That's harsh considering it's still the exception rather than the norm with British vets.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

we love bsh's said:


> I tthink jc is trying to say with everything wrote in his ad ,*maybe* he was the one reporting to gccf.


Or maybe he was someone else whose ad was pulled and he has put everything in. Can't see any reason to imply he was reporting adverts.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

jaycee05 said:


> I do understand he wants to make clear that he does everything by the book, and correctly, but seem to want to make out he does it right and others dont
> Seems that way to me anyway


That's the point though, isn't it? Many other people, particularly in his breed (and my own), don't. Believe me, I frequently moan behind the scenes about breeders who want whatever benefit they perceive of registering kittens but cannot be bothered to keep kittens a little longer and fully vaccinate them. It could just have easily have been me, complaining to GCCF about it.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> It could just have easily have been me, complaining to GCCF about it.


Complain about what though? The GCCF is a registration body without any real teeth and it can't make rules on something which is effectively a veterinary matter. What's more, revenue is a primary concern so it can't afford to alienate people who are prepared to pay it money. I'd take a wild guess that the majority of revenue is collected from breeders who are not members of any club. Instead of introducing the breeder scheme I wish the GCCF had made it mandatory to register three litters, all raised and sold within all rules and recommendations before a novice breeder could even apply for a prefix. The buying public believe (wrongly) that they are buying from some sort of approved breeder when they buy from a prefix holder. It would be nice if we could at least ensure they were buying from one with experience of doing the right thing.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

havoc said:


> Complain about what though? The GCCF is a registration body without any real teeth and it can't make rules on something which is effectively a veterinary matter. What's more, revenue is a primary concern so it can't afford to alienate people who are prepared to pay it money. I'd take a wild guess that the majority of revenue is collected from breeders who are not members of any club. Instead of introducing the breeder scheme I wish the GCCF had made it mandatory to register three litters, all raised and sold within all rules and recommendations before a novice breeder could even apply for a prefix. The buying public believe (wrongly) that they are buying from some sort of approved breeder when they buy from a prefix holder. It would be nice if we could at least ensure they were buying from one with experience of doing the right thing.


Bear with me, there is a point to me asking this  Do you think it possible for clubs to have, as part of their membership rules, a rule that requires all members who breed to own a GCCF prefix and to comply with all the (strong  ) recommendations regarding sale of kittens?


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I doubt if his ad was pulled,if you look at his website all the necessary info is there
Its the wording of his ad on preloved, this *warning*omes from his concern about the breed
Also as has been said, he is concentrating on the *warning* not on his kittens
I know he has said something like this before, because I remember being annoyed by what he said,and recognised straight away his name

Only just seen the post from pets forum about checking pets4homes


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Do you think it possible for clubs to have, as part of their membership rules, a rule that requires all members who breed to own a GCCF prefix and to comply with all the (strong ) recommendations regarding sale of kittens?


I can see what you are asking. I would hope against hope that my breed club would expel any breeder selling totally unvaccinated kittens. I know committee members who do let kittens go pre 13 weeks though and I have done it myself. If a kitten was born on a Monday and vacs are done on Mondays I would let kittens go the following w/e. So, where do we draw the line? Is it really sensible to make a buyer wait until the kitten is nearly 14 weeks old for the sake of one day? There's also the issue on wording with vacs. What does 'fully vaccinated' mean? Does it mean two doses of core vaccines at a minimum? The idea of a dose at 16 weeks is starting to creep in over here. If the GCCF started recommending FeLV too and clubs therefore insist on it what's the situation when a cat gets a vaccine site sarcoma? Who is responsible - or even liable? What if a breeder's vet advises against it? The GCCF is in no position to gainsay veterinary advice which is presumably why these recommendations are so vague and can't be made into rules.

Don't really understand the bit about a prefix. I may be reading it wrong but you can't get a prefix without belonging to a club and if you can't be a member of a club without a prefix it's a bit of a catch 22. It also makes no difference at all to disciplinary matters. It is owning/breeding from registered cats that puts the breeder under the jusrisdiction of the GCCF.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

I agree that, it, the wording, needs re-jigging and may well need further re-wording to keep pace with vaccination proctols, etc, but taking it purely as an example for the moment....

I don't and never did like the idea of a two-tier system; i.e. some breeders within the scheme, some without. I'd always argued that all breeders with a registered prefix who want to register kittens under that prefix should be required to comply with GCCF recommendations on kitten sales; ie. they are rules not rec's.

At times when I've discussed this with other breeders and judges (some of whom sit on various GCCF committees and/or were instrumental in putting the scheme together) I'm told that GCCF cannot impose certain rules as 'we' are not its members; the constituent clubs are. Currently, to become and remain a scheme member you must maintain membership of at least one constituent club. Personally, I would like to see the scheme done away with and instead require every breeder who wants/has a registered prefix (and who register kittens under it) to maintain membership of at least one club and for the clubs themselves to have in a place a rule requiring breeder members to.. etc... etc...



havoc said:


> I can see what you are asking. I would hope against hope that my breed club would expel any breeder selling totally unvaccinated kittens. I know committee members who do let kittens go pre 13 weeks though and I have done it myself. If a kitten was born on a Monday and vacs are done on Mondays I would let kittens go the following w/e. So, where do we draw the line? Is it really sensible to make a buyer wait until the kitten is nearly 14 weeks old for the sake of one day? There's also the issue on wording with vacs. What does 'fully vaccinated' mean? Does it mean two doses of core vaccines at a minimum? The idea of a dose at 16 weeks is starting to creep in over here. If the GCCF started recommending FeLV too and clubs therefore insist on it what's the situation when a cat gets a vaccine site sarcoma? Who is responsible - or even liable? What if a breeder's vet advises against it? The GCCF is in no position to gainsay veterinary advice which is presumably why these recommendations are so vague and can't be made into rules.
> 
> Don't really understand the bit about a prefix. I may be reading it wrong but you can't get a prefix without belonging to a club and if you can't be a member of a club without a prefix it's a bit of a catch 22. It also makes no difference at all to disciplinary matters. It is owning/breeding from registered cats that puts the breeder under the jusrisdiction of the GCCF.


----------



## petforum (Oct 30, 2007)

Hi All, just an update from my previous email regarding the Pets4Homes site. We do not get regular emails from anyone from the GCCF regarding GCCF kittens advertised on Pets4Homes, even though lots of GCCF cat breeders do advertise with our site. But if someone was advertising kittens less than 13 weeks old and we were contacted by the GCCF, we would not ban your account, all that we would do would be to email you and ask you to update your advert to reflect that the kittens shouldn't leave until they are 13 weeks of age.

If you don't currently advertise your kittens or cats with our Pets4Homes website, please give it a try, its free and its ranked the UKs most popular pet/animal website for the past 2 years, with just under 2 Million unique visitors every month.

Regards
Mark


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I'd always argued that all breeders with a registered prefix who want to register kittens under that prefix should be required to comply with GCCF recommendations on kitten sales; ie. they are rules not rec's.


I couldn't agree more, especially as the notion of a 'registered' breeder has gained ground with the internet. If a prefix is to be viewed as a mark of quality then it should be made so. The downside is that the GCCF would still have to register kittens from all GCCF registered cats if asked - they are first and foremost a registration body. There would still be a two tier system and I would prefer that the right to apply for a prefix had to be earned. Bringing in an extra scheme isn't (wasn't)the answer.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> the wording, needs re-jigging and may well need further re-wording to keep pace with vaccination proctols


That in itself is the big problem. You can't assume all vets will change things at once and breeders HAVE to comply with veterinary advice. Not doing so can be against the law. There's also the issue of getting the information out when changes are made. I do know breeders who don't have access to the internet and it would be a heavy burden on clubs to have to inform members of every change in writing.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I'm told that GCCF cannot impose certain rules as 'we' are not its members; the constituent clubs are


If you are a member of a club then you are a member of the GCCF. You have a vote at your club AGM and therefore a vote through your rep for GCCF matters.


----------



## wicket (Aug 22, 2012)

havoc said:


> I couldn't agree more, especially as the notion of a 'registered' breeder has gained ground with the internet. If a prefix is to be viewed as a mark of quality then it should be made so. The downside is that the GCCF would still have to register kittens from all GCCF registered cats if asked - they are first and foremost a registration body. There would still be a two tier system and I would prefer that the right to apply for a prefix had to be earned. Bringing in an extra scheme isn't (wasn't)the answer.


But is a prefix viewed as a mark of quality? The buyers I have dealt with understand registration but not a prefix. I was very proud to get my prefix this year so my second litter can be registered in my prefix instead of the admin one, I am proud of my kittens and want people to know where they came from and that I adhere to GCCF recommendations.. I agree with the idea that a prefix should be "earned" but it still comes back to the fact that o a breeder can still sell kittens at 9 weeks one vaccination etc if they chose to do so whether they have earned a prefix or not - I know a couple of established breeders who do this.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

havoc said:


> If you are a member of a club then you are a member of the GCCF. You have a vote at your club AGM and therefore a vote through your rep for GCCF matters.


Then why am I constantly told that GCCF do not have members and that this is the reason why rules cannot be enforced upon them (i.e. breeders) ? I debated this point with.. let's just say 'someone'. The example she used was the Kennel Club - they have members and so can impose whatever rules they see fit upon those members. GCCF do not, she says, have members and that is why, for example, the breeder scheme and all it requires of its members is purely voluntary.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

Breeders are _indirect _members. If we were direct members of the GCCF I would expect to pay them some money each year.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Breeders are indirect members. If we were direct members of the GCCF I would expect to pay them some money each year.


You do through your membership fees of your club. Clubs pay the GCCF a membership fee. The members are the club and the clubs are the GCCF.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

I mean I would pay them not an affiliated club. I don't have an individual vote, I only have one with the club I belong to who will vote according to their membership. It's like union members being members of the Labour party.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Then why am I constantly told that GCCF do not have members and that this is the reason why rules cannot be enforced upon them (i.e. breeders)


The rules are enforced. I'm not really sure why someone is telling you they aren't. What can't be 'enforced' are recommendations and personal gripes. It's sometimes the case that a breeder only ends up on the suspension list because they refuse to accept a 'lesser' punishment. If you look at the list it quite often says something like "until the correct paperwork is provided and fine paid". Those who make honest mistakes hold their hands up, supply the paperwork pronto and fork out the £50 fine so never get suspended


----------



## prada (Nov 3, 2007)

I read this post yesterday and since then have thought about it long and hard. My first reaction was one of outrage, like so many others of you. Nobody likes being told what to do but, as in so many other walks of life i.e. road speed limits, it's absolutely necessary for some people or else they will do as they please to the detriment of others. I believe that the GCCF is trying to set a standard. Quite rightly so. Viewers of our ads, probably potential owners of our GCCF registered kittens, should be able to expect a certain standard from us, setting us apart from the unscrupulous 'Breeders'. All of us who abide by the rules - full vaccinations, keeping kittens until 13 weeks etc.etc, can quite rightly say 'I am doing that anyway'. But many do not, as we have seen in some of the appalling ads. The GCCF apparently doesn't want to be associated with 'members' (for want of a better word) who choose to go against their wishes. People viewing the ads. should be able to feel safe in the knowledge that all the recommendations, which are there for a very good reason, are being carried out by those advertising under the GCCF banner. Unfortunately, because there are so many 'breeders' that are willing to cut corners, if mandatory requirements such as vaccinations are not listed in the ad. how are people expected to understand that it means they are vaccinated but for some unfathomable reason it just hasn't been pointed out. It's not very reassuring. If you do actually abide by all the rules why not say so, list everything that you do. When I am looking at ads. I want to know that the breeder is genuine, is not skipping anything, is being honest and forthright and I would like to think that when I see the GCCF brand that I would be dealing with a person of integrity and could rely on them to be doing all the right things for the sake of the kittens. If they are not then why do they want to be associated with the GCCF or, in fact, any registering body at all? In retrospect I think this whole business needs tightening up. I'm all for it and shall continue to list all the positive information in my advertisements, as I have always done, for the benefit of my customers who are putting their trust in me.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Whereas I'm inclined to agree with the general sentiment of your post it is the specifics which caused a problem in the first place. Vaccinations and keeping a kitten to 13 weeks are not mandatory. Certain other things are but are never listed in ads and apparently that doesn't raise the hackles of the GCCF. All we need is clear guidance if they do want ads to state certain things.


----------



## Time flies (Jul 23, 2013)

Yeah I don't understand why they want the ads to include some things but not bothered about other things. 
I could understand them making a fuss if they had made vaccinations mandatory but unless they do I just don't see the point. 
I do think it is unfair and annoying that breeders who cut corners every which way they can and don't put anywhere near the time, love, effort and care in as other breeders do get to register their kittens with the gccf.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I do think it is unfair and annoying that breeders who cut corners every which way they can and don't put anywhere near the time, love, effort and care in as other breeders do get to register their kittens with the gccf.


Currently there is no reason they shouldn't. The GCCF is first and foremost a registration body. The rules are all to do with admin and registration. It's against the rules for a breeder not to supply a 3 generation pedigree certificate. It isn't against the rules for a breeder to choose a vaccination protocol. The wording on those kind of things is deliberately vague for a reason. Veterinary protocol could change tomorrow and an organisation like the GCCF could not react quickly enough to follow suit and change its own rules to comply.


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

havoc said:


> Currently there is no reason they shouldn't. The GCCF is first and foremost a registration body. The rules are all to do with admin and registration. It's against the rules for a breeder not to supply a 3 generation pedigree certificate. It isn't against the rules for a breeder to choose a vaccination protocol. The wording on those kind of things is deliberately vague for a reason. Veterinary protocol could change tomorrow and an organisation like the GCCF could not react quickly enough to follow suit and change its own rules to comply.


As you say they are primarily a registration body, but requiring vaccination and stating what that should mean are two different things. There has to be some form of wording that requires core vaccinations but allows for changing vetinary practise. Possibly something like 'core vaccinations as per your vet'.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> There has to be some form of wording that requires core vaccinations but allows for changing vetinary practise. Possibly something like 'core vaccinations as per your vet'.


I don't disagree it would be nice if it could somehow be worked. However veterinary matters are not their concern. They do, as a registration body, refuse to register certain breeds and will not register very close matings for breeding. They do register such kittens on the non-active register though and I believe they should continue to do so. As a registration body their database is invaluable and I don't believe we should deter anyone from contributing to the continued collection of that information.


----------

