# Breeding bitch minimum age and KC restrictions



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

I'll start off by stating that I am not a breeder and have zero interest in breeding dogs. In fact all my current dogs up to now have been rehomes. 

I do have a query though and would be grateful if those with experience knowledge could answer. 

What is the minimum age that breeders should think about breeding their bitch from for the first time?

I ask because one of my rehomes was used for breeding in the past (with her previous owner). She was just over a year old when she was mated (supposedly "accidentally"- I'm very doubtful) to an 9 month old dog. 

The Kennel Club registered the litter since their restrictions state that the dam must be at least a year old at the date of mating. 
They make no suggestion/restriction about the age of the sire. 

I also have a question regarding "safeguarding"... if there is such a word. 
Does the KC have a duty of care in anyway to dogs that are listed as breeding dogs on its scheme. 
My bitch at her time with her previous owner, suffered in my mind a tremendous amount of undue stress (in a multitude of ways... very complicated). 
I realize there was nothing illegal about this activity (just immoral and irresponsible- and still occuring) but just wondered whether the KC ever dealt with that sort of thing?

My girl is with me now and has been spayed so will never be bred from or put through anything like that again (poor love will have found the whole thing very stressful). 

It's just something I've been wondering about?

Does the KC actually have anything in place to stop people who are essentially operating as BYB under bare minimum KC restrictions?

Thanks for reading


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

The sad response is no, the KC are not a gauge of ethics, they are a registration company. 

For my own girls I would always wait until they are fully mature before health testing. Rhuna will be three this year, I have yet to start her health testing.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The sad response is no, the KC are not a gauge of ethics, they are a registration company.
> 
> For my own girls I would always wait until they are fully mature before health testing. Rhuna will be three this year, I have yet to start her health testing.


Thank you for the reply. 

So far I have only had rehomes and rescues and have been feeling particularly disenchanted with the KC after what my poor girl went through.

If ever I was to actually get a puppy from a breeder, it would be an ethical one like yourself, thoroughly researched.

To go from bad to worse we recently discovered that my girl has an inherited condition. 
Although I have never met or dealt with them, I'm doing my very best to trace and contact all the owners of the pups from her litter to make them aware of this (although I have contacted the previous owner I am under no illusions that they will bother to do so).


----------



## Kinjilabs (Apr 15, 2009)

The Kennel club would register anything! as long as people pay


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Kinjilabs said:


> The Kennel club would register anything! as long as people pay


Feared as much


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

2 years is the minimum I would consider.

Pippa will probably be 3 or even 4 before hers though.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

2 years at a minimum except for I think the very tiny toys chis, poms etc. They need to be bred earlier because their pelvises fuse or something. The kc is just a registration body and if the bitch is over a year they'll register it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lemmsy said:


> Thank you for the reply.
> 
> So far I have only had rehomes and rescues and have been feeling particularly disenchanted with the KC after what my poor girl went through.
> 
> ...


If she is a pedigree there will be a list of her siblings on myKC with the registration numbers and colours. So you would at least know the number of pups registered, and if you can find a breed specific forum and post the info on there, you may find one or two.

This is why I am pushing, and will continue to push, for a sale of contract with the breeder responsible for the life of the pups. It may not be in the interests of breeders or puppy buyers to have such a contract in place, but it is in the interests of the pups, and would put a lot of people off *accidental* litters. It would also be nice if *stud dog* owners could be somehow held responsible for their actions, far too many just let their dog be used. One of the top flatcoat stud dogs was being used well before 12 months of age, so no health tests in place, and is still used prolifically. Add to that, some of the top kennels do absolutely no health tests whatsoever, is it any wonder the pedigree world is criticised left right and centre. And yet if you dare say anything, you are shot down in flames from either one side or another.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Kinjilabs said:


> The Kennel club would register anything! as long as people pay


This is not true. Puppies cannot be registered if the bitch was bred too young or if she had more than four litters in her lifetime. They will not register pups of , eg, a mother /son mating

This is why puppy buyers need to check that their pedigree puppy is registered.

The KC is just a Registration body, but by not registering pups bred unethically they are trying to do something.

Unfortunately people buying a pet dog often say they don't care about papers, and happily go to someone offering pups cheaper as they are not registered. If they are not registered there's not going to be a good reason why.

Different breeds have different ages when they should start breeding. In my breed it's two years old.

There are no restrictions on the sire.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

BessieDog said:


> This is not true. Puppies cannot be registered if the bitch was bred too young or if she had more than four litters in her lifetime. They will not register pups of , eg, a mother /son mating
> 
> This is why puppy buyers need to check that their pedigree puppy is registered.
> 
> ...


Although that's the recommendation of the breed clubs, sadly I suspect the KC would still register pups from a bitch under two years of age. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see them making any differentiation between breeds as long as they are over 12 months of age


----------



## cbrookman (Jun 12, 2011)

Would breeding from a bitch on a first season and under one year of age have a detrimental effect on the pups or is it mainly to safeguard the bitch? I think of it as being like a young teenage mum. Can health tests only be done once a certain age is reached?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

cbrookman said:


> Would breeding from a bitch on a first season and under one year of age have a detrimental effect on the pups or is it mainly to safeguard the bitch? I think of it as being like a young teenage mum. Can health tests only be done once a certain age is reached?


It may not have an obvious detrimental effect on the pups, however, at such a young age, the bitch's health, temperament and conformation cannot be assessed so yes, it could. The other problem is the immaturity of the bitch. Raising a litter is hard word and stressful for a bitch and could have detrimental psychological effects - much more common for a young bitch to be overwhelmed with a litter and not know what to do and even attack the puppies.

The problem is there isn't a one size fits all. Small toy breeds tend to be bred earlier because they mature earlier, large breeds may be three before they have matured both physically and mentally.


----------



## cbrookman (Jun 12, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> It may not have an obvious detrimental effect on the pups, however, at such a young age, the bitch's health, temperament and conformation cannot be assessed so yes, it could. The other problem is the immaturity of the bitch. Raising a litter is hard word and stressful for a bitch and could have detrimental psychological effects - much more common for a young bitch to be overwhelmed with a litter and not know what to do and even attack the puppies.
> 
> The problem is there isn't a one size fits all. Small toy breeds tend to be bred earlier because they mature earlier, large breeds may be three before they have matured both physically and mentally.


Thank you for the info


----------



## Linda Weasel (Mar 5, 2014)

The KC is a chocolate teapot...they take lots of money and do little for it other than supply forms/registrations to anyone who pays.
Their regulations regarding breeding are so full of loopholes for unscrupulous breeders, and so not dog welfare oriented.
Don't even get me started.......


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

cbrookman said:


> Would breeding from a bitch on a first season and under one year of age have a detrimental effect on the pups or is it mainly to safeguard the bitch? I think of it as being like a young teenage mum. Can health tests only be done once a certain age is reached?


For one thing that has just occured to me (from a behaviour POV as this is what I am most familiar with) and this is just one of I'm sure many concerns:

My girl was mated at one year of age, when she wasn't fully mature and no doubt going through (whether during earlier or later stages of) her secondary fear period.

Behaviour professionals will describe what is known as the building blocks of stress. In my girls case; secondary fear period + stressful environment + other factors (one being the then undiagnosed inherited condition which is one that does affect anxiety levels)= one stressed out mother. 
This I hypothesize might well have had an effect on her unborn pups. 
Additionally the period between 2-6 weeks after birth is an incredibly important learning period for young pups. 
My bitch will have been an anxious mother, I have no doubt that this will have affected the pups during a very sensitive learning/socialization period.

All this is an aside to the fact that physiologically, she was not mature. The pregnancy will have had a negative impact on her growth and development.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> It may not have an obvious detrimental effect on the pups, however, at such a young age, the bitch's health, temperament and conformation cannot be assessed so yes, it could. The other problem is the immaturity of the bitch. Raising a litter is hard word and stressful for a bitch and could have detrimental psychological effects - much more common for a young bitch to be overwhelmed with a litter and not know what to do ...


This ^^^... from the information I have been able to piece together it seems that my bitch found the whole thing very stressful. 
As the pups grew older, she became rather conflicted and was showing lots of avoidance and stress related behaviours around them.

Poor love and poor pups


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If she is a pedigree there will be a list of her siblings on myKC with the registration numbers and colours. So you would at least know the number of pups registered, and if you can find a breed specific forum and post the info on there, you may find one or two.
> 
> This is why I am pushing, and will continue to push, for a sale of contract with the breeder responsible for the life of the pups. It may not be in the interests of breeders or puppy buyers to have such a contract in place, but it is in the interests of the pups, and would put a lot of people off *accidental* litters. It would also be nice if *stud dog* owners could be somehow held responsible for their actions, far too many just let their dog be used. One of the top flatcoat stud dogs was being used well before 12 months of age, so no health tests in place, and is still used prolifically. Add to that, some of the top kennels do absolutely no health tests whatsoever, is it any wonder the pedigree world is criticised left right and centre. And yet if you dare say anything, you are shot down in flames from either one side or another.


It's refreshing to hear someone speak honestly about the situation.

I want to have faith in the KC and its intentions but after what my poor bitch went through I am finding it very hard to do so.

Frankly as it stands using the KC as a standard for an ethical breeder is a complete lottery; pot luck.

KC reg BC are no more likely to be healthy than farm bred, unregistered ones.

My current two rehomes (one of each) are classic examples. 
My KC reg bitch has an inherited condition that the KC only "suggests" (not mandatory) testing for for certain breeds (not her breed anyway). 
My working bred dog, has cobalamin malaborsption/SCM (another condition that the KC "suggests" could be tested for prior to breeding but not mandatory).

I'm fortunate that both conditions whilst concerning are reasonably easy to treat.

You mention lack of health testing by many of the top kennels in the country- just seems appauling. 



BessieDog said:


> This is not true. Puppies cannot be registered if the bitch was bred too young or if she had more than four litters in her lifetime. They will not register pups of , eg, a mother /son mating
> 
> This is why puppy buyers need to check that their pedigree puppy is registered.
> 
> ...


I see where you are coming from but I think the comment you are refering to was not meant literally. Obviously there are some restrictions on registering litters but let's examine them, they're not exactly to a high standard are they?

Additionally the KC ARE registering pups unethically! My bitch's story is a classic example. 
She was mated at a year, to a dog that was still a pup. I'm doubtful whether sufficient health checks were completed (especially since, as I have pointed out she has an inherited condition, which she may well have passed on to pups). She was stressed during the pregnancy, which will have inevitably have affected her developing pups. How allowing such practice is going to better the breed I will never know?All this was hugely unethical and the KC registered the litter!

Do you see where I am coming from?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

It's not just the lack of health testing that's a problem, some people do fully health test their stud dogs, and then just let any bitch through the door with little or no health tests. Some even with the excuse that if they don't use my fully health tested stud dog, they will have no choice but to use a dog that may have less tests, or less good results even. People kid themselves they're doing the right thing, because their dog is good so it MUST be making a positive contribution to the gene pool. 

Until those breeding dogs, or any animal for that matter, take more responsibility for their actions I don't think anything will change I'm afraid.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It's not just the lack of health testing that's a problem, some people do fully health test their stud dogs, and then just let any bitch through the door with little or no health tests. Some even with the excuse that if they don't use my fully health tested stud dog, they will have no choice but to use a dog that may have less tests, or less good results even. People kid themselves they're doing the right thing, because their dog is good so it MUST be making a positive contribution to the gene pool.
> 
> Until those breeding dogs, or any animal for that matter, take more responsibility for their actions I don't think anything will change I'm afraid.


that's my bugbear SL. why health test your stud dog and then allow him to be used on any old crap that's untested ? . problem is some folks wont turn a stud down for the sake of a few hundred quid .


----------



## Tollisty (May 27, 2008)

This is what is recommended for tollers - 
Bitches under two years not to produce a litter
Bitches not to produce more than one litter in a twelve month period
Dogs under two years not to be used at stud


----------

