# how to stud



## emmakeo (Oct 26, 2008)

hi all
my sister has just recently got a 1 year old neo mastiff and he is not kc registered but she has the records from his line till his grt grt grt grandparents and they where registered the breeder said she could not be bothered but he is an excellent standard for his breed so should she stud him and if yes what do you do


----------



## Boston (Feb 6, 2008)

Hi
no unless he is kc reg and had the health tests she should not put him up for stud.
Even if she has his pedigree the breeder could have wrote any names on there and might not be telling the truth.
Just out of interest who said he is good example of the breed?


----------



## emmakeo (Oct 26, 2008)

a locally breeder who has been breeding for 20 years i know him personally he said he was a good example


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

To be brutally honest, if he isn't KC registered, the only people who would be interested in using him at stud would be puppy farmers, backyard breeders or naive/greedy pet breeders. The common denominator is that their primary interest would be in the money they could make from selling the pups, not in the welfare of the breed.
Not only that, but being a massive bull-type breed, it is unfortunately likely that many of those purchasing pups would be doing so, not from any love of the breed, but in order to have a "hard" looking dog to parade around the streets.

Mick


----------



## trekkiemo (Nov 8, 2008)

Boston said:


> Hi
> no unless he is kc reg and had the health tests she should not put him up for stud.
> Even if she has his pedigree the breeder could have wrote any names on there and might not be telling the truth.
> Just out of interest who said he is good example of the breed?


Totally agree enjoy your dog and forget about putting him up for stud.


----------



## Boston (Feb 6, 2008)

i would still advise against it sorry


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

I agree with what's been said. I would also be suspicious of what the breeders says too. I cannot understand how anyone 'can't be bothered' to register puppies if they have put a lot of effort and expense in breeding and rearing them properly. It only costs £12 to register a pup and can be done easily online - so hardly any effort.

It doesn't sound like his parents were health tested either, and it's important to have several generations of good health test results.


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

emmakeo said:


> a locally breeder who has been breeding for 20 years i know him personally he said he was a good example


Did you ask this person if he thought your sister should breed with him?


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

clueless said:


> Did you ask this person if he thought your sister should breed with him?


Now that sounds personal!!!:thumbup:


----------



## Monleish (Dec 29, 2008)

Although I agree in principal to the replys so far, why are so many people still holding the Kennel club in such High regard. Did no one watch the telly programne a few months back out the investigations done there??. I have been a breeder for many years of JRT's, although not recognised by the Kennel Club mine are all registered with PPRC. There are many ways to ensure that pups go to good pet homes only, and unless you put the effort and time in to ensuring this, then you should not breed at all. As for the Kennel Club, Well the Chairman himself openly stated on camara that he still Inter breeds his lines to obtain the PERFECT Breed standard of his dogs. Surely this is wrong.......


----------



## Boston (Feb 6, 2008)

yes but to breed he should still be kc reg.
Jack russels's are different their not recognised by the Kennel Club where as the mastiff is so to breed should be kc reg.

And as said before you don't go to all that problem breeding a good litter to then turn around and say you can't be bothered to kc them.

Some of the reasons could be the bitch was to young to breed or to old
she could have had restrictions on her papers all the reasons not to bother getting there kc papers.

And it isnt about holding the Kennel club in such High regard you can put restriction for breeding and exporting the dogs which stops a per cent (not all of them) of people breeding and with the kc papers you know you are getting a pure bred pup.

It wouldnt be wise for us all to go around breeding our un kc reg dogs just because the kennel club doesnt recognise them. 
No it doesn't stop people finding good homes for the pups i agree with that.


----------



## emmakeo (Oct 26, 2008)

Monleish said:


> Although I agree in principal to the replys so far, why are so many people still holding the Kennel club in such High regard. Did no one watch the telly programne a few months back out the investigations done there??. I have been a breeder for many years of JRT's, although not recognised by the Kennel Club mine are all registered with PPRC. There are many ways to ensure that pups go to good pet homes only, and unless you put the effort and time in to ensuring this, then you should not breed at all. As for the Kennel Club, Well the Chairman himself openly stated on camara that he still Inter breeds his lines to obtain the PERFECT Breed standard of his dogs. Surely this is wrong.......


i agree with this all i have ever heard about the kc is on this web site so i looked it up and i can`t seem to get any help from them atall you must understand that there is hardly anyone in my area that has kc reg dogs even if they are pure breeds because it has no meaning to us a dog is a dog we all know the lines and the dogs parents are also known by if not them then by people they know my oldest sisters dog was studed and we know who then all went to and there pups because we would not want interbreeding so we keep a very close eye on them all as most of them live in the same estate it is pretty easy (so far)


----------



## trekkiemo (Nov 8, 2008)

Regarding that programme the director has admitted to editting the good things the KENNEL CLUB does regarding promoting health tests and investigating and dicovering health issues in pedigree dogs.I agree the part of programme about the cavalier was an eye opener.
So as you can see I support Kennel club as it is only true database of real pedigree dogs and I am very grateful to them for uncovering Health issues in my breed and other breeds,and guiding us breeders of Pedigree Dogs on the way forward to help our breeds health.They have been doing this for many years NOT because of that terrible programme.

As your dog has no KC pedigree you will only be able to breed with BYB and puppy farmers.If you choose to breed please check with the KC as to what health issues there are and please do the health tests .I wouldn`t be able to live with myself if I breed without testing and getting the right result.The puppies could have a life of pain and suffering because of not testing .


----------



## trekkiemo (Nov 8, 2008)

Monleish said:


> Although I agree in principal to the replys so far, why are so many people still holding the Kennel club in such High regard. Did no one watch the telly programne a few months back out the investigations done there??. I have been a breeder for many years of JRT's, although not recognised by the Kennel Club mine are all registered with PPRC. There are many ways to ensure that pups go to good pet homes only, and unless you put the effort and time in to ensuring this, then you should not breed at all. As for the Kennel Club, Well the Chairman himself openly stated on camara that he still Inter breeds his lines to obtain the PERFECT Breed standard of his dogs. Surely this is wrong.......


What exactly is PPRC never heard of it ,as I have already said KENNEL CLUB is only TRUE database for REAL PEDIGREE DOGS


----------



## Monleish (Dec 29, 2008)

Pedigree Pets Registration Club,

Pedigree Pets Registration Club - Dog Breeders, Puppies, Litter registrations, Stud dog register, Pedigree dogs

My dogs may not be KC reg, but I pride myself in breeding healthy pet dogs. My Pups all go with a 5 generation ped. and all health certs. you won't see my pups up for sale at £200 like many others. There is to much importance placed on Looks and Breed standards. Surely as healthy happy dog is far more important that a pedigree with red ink all over it.


----------



## goldendance (Jan 23, 2009)

hi whats pprc?


----------



## goldendance (Jan 23, 2009)

hi its The Pedigree Pets Registration Club Ltd?
ive just had a quick look


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

hi whats pprc? 

Pedigree Pets registration Club????? - one of those 'alternative' registration companies that are set up to (a) make the owners money and (b) enable breeders to sell dogs that can't be regsitered to sell them at 'registered' prices and (c) to fool the public into thinking they are getting a KC registered dog. I'm not saying that all breeders that use these registries are doing it for the reasons above, but that is why they were established, and quite honestly, why bother getting them registered?


----------



## goldendance (Jan 23, 2009)

Dundee said:


> hi whats pprc?
> 
> Pedigree Pets registration Club????? - one of those 'alternative' registration companies that are set up to (a) make the owners money and (b) enable breeders to sell dogs that can't be regsitered to sell them at 'registered' prices and (c) to fool the public into thinking they are getting a KC registered dog. I'm not saying that all breeders that use these registries are doing it for the reasons above, but that is why they were established, and quite honestly, why bother getting them registered?


I AGREE WITH YOU, ive had a look, sorry but i do


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

PPRC 


The prices they charge are not much different to the KC,
Litter Registration £7.00 per puppy,KC Charges £10 or it used to be
Individual puppy £15.00 
Adult Dog £20.00
Transfer of ownership of dog/puppy into a new home £12.00 the same as the KC 
Change of pedigree name £5.00 Same as the KC
Duplicate papers £5.00 Same as the KC


So what are you actually gaining apart from the fact that you can register non reg dogs and sell there pups for more according to this quote,
Increase sales and profits Add value to your sales with professional documents.


----------



## trekkiemo (Nov 8, 2008)

sallyanne said:


> I agree,
> The prices they charge are not much different to the KC,
> Litter Registration £7.00 per puppy,KC Charges £10 or it used to be
> Individual puppy £15.00
> ...


Total con and there is always people who fall for it.Bye a pup from BYB or Puppy farmer no reg what to breed for whatever reason need to reg pups to help sell BINGO that no problem as there is a con ongoing you can use.


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

KC the be all and end all????

I think this is a popular misconception and misunderstanding. 

It has nothing to do with thinking the KC is the be all and end all. It is however, the ONLY valid registration that keeps proper records (and has done for decades so showing ancestry), works with the BVA to hold health records and keeps details of achievements/awards etc.

These other 'registers' provide NO purpose other than making money. If someone wants to breed a litter from unregistered dogs, then why bother to register them with one of these other registrations.... it doesn't make any sense - unless it's for the money. Instead, they are conned into thinking they are getting a kc registered puppy or that these 'other' registrations are the same and only find out later that it isn't and they aren't. I know of a number of people who have bought what they thought was a 'registered' puppy, fell in love with the breed and wanted to show only to find they couldn't. 

Jack russels can't be recognised, so will be sold unregistered anyway, so why then register with the spurious money making registration companies. Wouldn't it be better to educate your puppy buyers as to why they aren't registered while also telling them of the care and health checks that has gone into the breeding.


----------



## goldendance (Jan 23, 2009)

Dundee said:


> I think this is a popular misconception and misunderstanding.
> 
> It has nothing to do with thinking the KC is the be all and end all. It is however, the ONLY valid registration that keeps proper records (and has done for decades so showing ancestry), works with the BVA to hold health records and keeps details of achievements/awards etc.
> 
> ...


HERE HERE WELL SAID


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Dundee said:


> I think this is a popular misconception and misunderstanding.
> 
> It has nothing to do with thinking the KC is the be all and end all. It is however, the ONLY valid registration that keeps proper records (and has done for decades so showing ancestry), works with the BVA to hold health records and keeps details of achievements/awards etc.
> 
> ...


*I still can't see why dogs need to be kc reg...it might be 1 way of knowing the history of your dog...but not the only way...*


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dundee said:


> I think this is a popular misconception and misunderstanding.
> 
> It has nothing to do with thinking the KC is the be all and end all. It is however, the ONLY valid registration that keeps proper records (and has done for decades so showing ancestry), works with the BVA to hold health records and keeps details of achievements/awards etc.
> 
> ...


great post i totally agree.


----------



## Leah100 (Aug 17, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *I still can't see why dogs need to be kc reg...it might be 1 way of knowing the history of your dog...but not the only way...*


So far as health tests go it is the only way, now they have made results available for petowners.
I have already discovered that the breeders of my dog who told me 'of course' they hipscored, were not telling the truth. I wish I had known how to find this info when I first discovered his hip dysplasia and realised that he was going to suffer pain and discomfort his entire life, and end his days disabled by chronic arthiritis.

Anyone who keeps making excuses as to why tests are unecessary wants to really consider how they would feel if they discovered that a litter of pups they bred and sent out into the world was to be effectively disabled and subject to chronic pain and vet treatment. 
Careful consientious breeders do more than collect pedigrees, they are not a form of ornamentation, for those who study the lines in their breeds they are health records that help them decide the most compatible bitch and stud to mate for the welfare of the future puppies.
After living with Lucas's condition, I have no time or patience for anyone who says it's not necessary to research planned matings carefully, and health test their dogs.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

emmakeo said:


> hi all
> my sister has just recently got a 1 year old neo mastiff and he is not kc registered but she has the records from his line till his grt grt grt grandparents and they where registered the breeder said she could not be bothered but he is an excellent standard for his breed so should she stud him and if yes what do you do


good luck hun if you breed its your dog and your decision


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

> I still can't see why dogs need to be kc reg...it might be 1 way of knowing the history of your dog...but not the only way...


It's the canine equivalent of the register of Births, Deaths and Marriages that is held at Somerset House, or the DVLA that holds all details of cars registered in the UK. 
It is not the only way to know the history of your dog, but practically, is the only way to give the detail that is needed if breeding responsibly. A breeder may have their dogs history, but how many of it's parents/grandparents/great grandparents details will the have? THat is where the KC registry comes in - the details are kept and now available online. 
While it is not foolproof, it is a far more accurate record than these other registries that are nothing more than glorified pedigree certificate writing services. With the introduction of DNA testing and permanent identification it will be foolproof though.


----------



## Leah100 (Aug 17, 2008)

borderer said:


> good luck hun if you breed its your dog and your decision


It's her decision that will affect the wellbeing of the pups that are born, and the wellbeing of the potential owners too!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

borderer said:


> good luck hun if you breed its your dog and your decision


*God i'm glad i'm not the only one that thinks like this.*


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

> It's her decision that will affect the wellbeing of the pups that are born, and the wellbeing of the potential owners too!


I agree. Sadly it's a sad reflection on our society that people think everyone has the right to do what they want, but so frequently those who maintain this fail to see the consequences of their actions and the impact this has no others. A reflection of the me me me society.

So sorry to hear about your pup's health problems.


----------



## Leah100 (Aug 17, 2008)

Dundee said:


> I agree. Sadly it's a sad reflection on our society that people think everyone has the right to do what they want, but so frequently those who maintain this fail to see the consequences of their actions and the impact this has no others. A reflection of the me me me society.
> 
> So sorry to hear about your pup's health problems.


Thanks Dundee. He is a lovely dog, but this should never have happened to him. 
I kept him, thankfully I'd had him insured, so when the bills started rolling towards the thousands, I could cope.Not everyone would have. Hope that anyone considering breeding the 'quick and easy' way considers how they would manage if they end up with a litter of disabled puppies returning to the roost, with a lifetime of vet bills to pay for.


----------



## emmakeo (Oct 26, 2008)

Leah100 said:


> It's her decision that will affect the wellbeing of the pups that are born, and the wellbeing of the potential owners too!


i am sorry but there seems to be a misconception here i would never breed a dog or bitch that had`nt had all necessary health test as i do believe that if you do it is very stupid and you have no idea what will affect your puppies we would rather not breed if there was a chance the puppies would suffer and all new homes are always checked and if there is a problem in the future we would always take the dog back and personally care for it .to us a dog is not just money our dogs are FAMILY and always will be


----------



## Leah100 (Aug 17, 2008)

emmakeo said:


> i am sorry but there seems to be a misconception here i would never breed a dog or bitch that had`nt had all necessary health test as i do believe that if you do it is very stupid and you have no idea what will affect your puppies we would rather not breed if there was a chance the puppies would suffer and all new homes are always checked and if there is a problem in the future we would always take the dog back and personally care for it .to us a dog is not just money our dogs are FAMILY and always will be


Good to hear


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *God i'm glad i'm not the only one that thinks like this.*


bred dogs for 30 years no kc dont need it all pups i have bred live long and happy lives.if my dogs look well and i need to breed i just do it.great minds think alike :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

That's good to hear that you wouldn't breed from a dog without health problems. The problem is that without registration you are going to have a number of obstacles to producing healthy, well bred puppies.

Firstly, it is the bitch's owner who decides which stud to use and you will not attract owners of good health tested bitches. I'm sorry, that may seem unfair if you have a nice dog, but it's the way it is. They will go for the best stud and that means kc registered, health tested, proven.

Secondly, alarm bells ring when a breeder supposedly has all the paperwork but just 'cannot be bothered' to register them. There is usually something they are hiding. 

You say you have the papers for a number of generations. What papers do you have exactly?


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

> if my dogs look well and i need to breed i just do it.


How irresponsible... looks won't tell you much about the health of a dog and it will certainly tell you nothing of any inheritable conditions.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

Dundee said:


> I agree. Sadly it's a sad reflection on our society that people think everyone has the right to do what they want, but so frequently those who maintain this fail to see the consequences of their actions and the impact this has no others. A reflection of the me me me society.
> 
> So sorry to hear about your pup's health problems.


I agree,
Sad isn't it,with rescue stats showing the real problems of I will do what I want regardless.

I visited a breed forum this morning,from what I can gather our breed clubs are making proposals to the breed council who will then take them to the KC,they want all non tested litter applications refused by 2011.

Pity more breeder's don't see the pain they cause by breeding from substandard dogs with hereditary problems,Of course the majority are not interested anyway,as long as they get there money.

Those that don't breed and have never bred,(no offense intended)don't seem to grasp how hard it is,how many years of research and hard work has been put in by breeder's who have a real passion for their dogs and breed.This has been made easier to some extent by the KC now having a health check database and breeds having their own pedigree database to check back through.
It's not as easy as putting two dogs together and producing cute pups,it is alot of hard work,even then you may not get the results you are hoping for.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

Dundee said:


> How irresponsible...


i am well known and never had any prob.


----------



## emmakeo (Oct 26, 2008)

its like a booklet with loads of names on it they look like kc names but i did check on the kc web site (where you can check for a name for your puppy and they won`t let you have it if it has already gone to another dog) well some of them that i put in i could have so it has made me very suspicius doe`s anyone know what i can do to find out what this dogs parentage is i have vet papers but they also look strang as it has record of when he had stitches but shows no record of injections


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

Sallyanne, I don't think the majority care tbh.

I can understand the desire to only register litters from health tested parents, but sadly I don't think it will make that much difference.

Let's face it, a look through some of the posts on this forum alone demonstrates that those who don't care tend not to register them or breed from unregistered dogs anyway and many of those who don't care won't even bother to come on a forum unless it's to advertise their pups.


----------



## Monleish (Dec 29, 2008)

trekkiemo said:


> Regarding that programme the director has admitted to editting the good things the KENNEL CLUB does regarding promoting health tests and investigating and dicovering health issues in pedigree dogs.I agree the part of programme about the cavalier was an eye opener.
> So as you can see I support Kennel club as it is only true database of real pedigree dogs and I am very grateful to them for uncovering Health issues in my breed and other breeds,and guiding us breeders of Pedigree Dogs on the way forward to help our breeds health.They have been doing this for many years NOT because of that terrible programme.
> 
> As your dog has no KC pedigree you will only be able to breed with BYB and puppy farmers.If you choose to breed please check with the KC as to what health issues there are and please do the health tests .I wouldn`t be able to live with myself if I breed without testing and getting the right result.The puppies could have a life of pain and suffering because of not testing .


BYB and Puppy farmers.... I think not...Please do not make assumtions as to my Breeding Ethics.

As you so kindly pointed out My breed is not recognised by the Kennel Club so why would i check with them as to Health issues.........They surely would not waist there time now would they.....???????


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

Dundee said:


> Sallyanne, I don't think the majority care tbh.
> 
> I can understand the desire to only register litters from health tested parents, but sadly I don't think it will make that much difference.
> 
> Let's face it, a look through some of the posts on this forum alone demonstrates that those who don't care tend not to register them or breed from unregistered dogs anyway and many of those who don't care won't even bother to come on a forum unless it's to advertise their pups.


dont advertise my pups they go no problem


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

Dundee said:


> I don't think the majority care tbh.
> 
> I can understand the desire to only register litters from health tested parents, but sadly I don't think it will make that much difference.
> 
> Let's face it, a look through some of the posts on this forum alone demonstrates that those who don't care tend not to register them or breed from unregistered dogs anyway and many of those who don't care won't even bother to come on a forum unless it's to advertise their pups.


Very true.
Again it brings me make to the regulation of breeding,this is the only way to be going in my opinion.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Dundee said:


> Sallyanne, I don't think the majority care tbh.
> 
> I can understand the desire to only register litters from health tested parents, but sadly I don't think it will make that much difference.
> 
> Let's face it, a look through some of the posts on this forum alone demonstrates that those who don't care tend not to register them or breed from unregistered dogs anyway and many of those who don't care won't even bother to come on a forum unless it's to advertise their pups.


*It all boils down to personal choice...as for not caring that not true....
As for all the unwanted dogs,how many of them now are staffs? but people will continue to breed them.*


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

emma
There is now an online database where you can check if a dog is registered and what health tests have been done.
The Kennel Club â¢ Dog Health Test Search
put in the names and it will tell you - you can also see the sire and dam's details.

Sadly there is a high likelihood that the papers you have are not valid. It is not uncommon to make up pedigrees, or more recently, take them off the internet and pass them off as the puppy/dog's pedigree. If it does allow some of the names on the pedigree then I'm afraid it doesn't sound like his genuine pedigree. This is all too common and one reason why we recommend not to breed from unregistered dogs. Without knowing, you cannot know what health problems may be there. Puppies inherit their genes not just from their parents, but from their grandparents etc....


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

borderer said:


> dont advertise my pups they go no problem


just wondering what breeds of dogs you breed


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

Monleish said:


> BYB and Puppy farmers.... I think not...Please do not make assumtions as to my Breeding Ethics.
> 
> As you so kindly pointed out My breed is not recognised by the Kennel Club so why would i check with them as to Health issues.........They surely would not waist there time now would they.....???????


I think you are taking these posts a bit personally,your name was not mentioned and I saw it as a general post.
Nobody has mentioned your breeding ethics have they 

You have stated your dogs suffer from no genetic defects,without testing for specific conditions in any given breed there is no guarentee.
You certainly don't have to have a breed registered with the KC for it to have health issues, take the NI as an example.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

rona said:


> just wondering what breeds of dogs you breed


im not gonna start another argument


----------



## StolenkissGerbils (Aug 8, 2008)

Monleish said:


> BYB and Puppy farmers.... I think not...Please do not make assumtions as to my Breeding Ethics.
> 
> As you so kindly pointed out My breed is not recognised by the Kennel Club so why would i check with them as to Health issues.........They surely would not waist there time now would they.....???????


The Jack Russell Terrier is an FCI recognised breed with a full standard and show champions all over the world. You can register them with the Irish Kennel Club, this is a reputable registry, it requires microchips for all registered dogs and is an FCI member. If you want to work your dogs as proof of their worth rather than showing them that's fine, but stop giving this "paper registry" (PPRC) your money. You could draw up your own pedigrees on your computer for all they're giving you. At least if you IKC reg you have pups that are showable all over the world.


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

> My breed is not recognised by the Kennel Club so why would i check with them as to Health issues........


If you are breeding responsibly I would hope you check them for health issues regardless. Health problems do not exist only in KC registered dogs.
Sadly, that impression was given by the programme but it is not true.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

Dundee said:


> If you are breeding responsibly I would hope you check them for health issues regardless. Health problems do not exist only in KC registered dogs.
> Sadly, that impression was given by the programme but it is not true.


dont need to line vets pockets to tell me what i allready know


----------



## Leah100 (Aug 17, 2008)

borderer said:


> dont need to line vets pockets to tell me what i allready know


But of course.... just as the breeders of my poor dog 'knew' there were no problems in their lines......


----------



## Monleish (Dec 29, 2008)

Well i think its time i left this forum, thanks to all who welcomed me but its not for me. 
30 Yrs breeding, so i felt i could maybe pass on my knowledge, But as a so called "BYB/Puppy Farmer" its seems my knowledge is worhtless.....

Monleish Jack Russells

Enjoy


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

borderer said:


> im not gonna start another argument


I was just interested


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Monleish said:


> Well i think its time i left this forum, thanks to all who welcomed me but its not for me.
> 30 Yrs breeding, so i felt i could maybe pass on my knowledge, But as a so called "BYB/Puppy Farmer" its seems my knowledge is worhtless.....
> 
> Monleish Jack Russells
> ...


*Please don't let a few thoughtless idiots put you off....some people think they have all the knowledge and their way is allways right....but the majority of members are not like this...*


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

Monleish said:


> Well i think its time i left this forum, thanks to all who welcomed me but its not for me.
> 30 Yrs breeding, so i felt i could maybe pass on my knowledge, But as a so called "BYB/Puppy Farmer" its seems my knowledge is worhtless.....
> 
> Monleish Jack Russells
> ...


Not so, border collies have been bred successfully for many years without KC reg as well as JRT


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

> dont need to line vets pockets to tell me what i allready know


No I realise that - much better to save your money and line your own pocket eh 

Thankfully, there are breeders who have a sense of responsibility towards the puppies they produce and their future owners, there's just not enough of them.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

Dundee said:


> I'm sorry you're upset, I can't see where you have been called a BYB/Puppy farmer.


Niether do I,
I think the posts have been taken way too seriously, and not how they were mean't to come accross.

Maybe someone could highlight the offending post ?


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

Dundee said:


> No I realise that - much better to save your money and line your own eh
> 
> Thankfully, there are breeders who have a sense of responsibility towards the puppies they produce and their future owners, there's just not enough of them.


i have never had any health problems i know were all the dogs are.seems these kc reg dog have alot of problems read allot on here:thumbup1:


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

borderer said:


> i have never had any health problems i know were all the dogs are.seems these kc reg dog have alot of problems read allot on here:thumbup1:


As do the NI,they are not a registered breed.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

sallyanne said:


> Niether do I,
> I think the posts have been taken way too seriously, and not how they were mean't to come accross.
> 
> Maybe someone could highlight the offending post ?


*I might be wrong, but the use of byb and puppy farms was being used generaly for dogs that have not been health tested or not kc reg...*


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

Dundee said:


> No I realise that - much better to save your money and line your own eh
> 
> Thankfully, there are breeders who have a sense of responsibility towards the puppies they produce and their future owners, there's just not enough of them.


Dundee
I was just wondering if you show your dogs as well as work them.
Although I generally agree with most of your points and Sallyannes, there are communities of dog owners particularly in the working breeds that have successfully bred dogs for many years without them having to be Kc reg, as you know, a working dog has to be sound throughout it's life and I'm sure they would not breed from substandard stock.
However I do believe that all breeding dogs should be screened for any possible health problems within the breed


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

rona said:


> Dundee
> I was just wondering if you show your dogs as well as work them.
> Although I generally agree with most of your points and Sallyannes, there are communities of dog owners particularly in the working breeds that have successfully bred dogs for many years without them having to be Kc reg, as you know, a working dog has to be sound throughout it's life and I'm sure they would not breed from substandard stock.
> However I do believe that all breeding dogs should be screened for any possible health problems within the breed


I agree Rona,but most who own working dogs,take the ESS as an example very rarely health screen.
We looked into breeders of the ESS and very few health screen,they are more interested in the working ability of the dogs,which is in my opinion wrong.
Working lines can and do suffer the same as show lines.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

sallyanne said:


> I agree Rona,but most who own working dogs,take the ESS as an example very rarely health screen.
> We looked into breeders of the ESS and very few health screen,they are more interested in the working ability of the dogs,which is in my opinion wrong.
> Working lines can and do suffer the same as show lines.


Granted, but as a general rule, the health issues are far less common, If people don't health screen however, this situation may change rather rapidly


----------



## trekkiemo (Nov 8, 2008)

Dundee said:


> How irresponsible... looks won't tell you much about the health of a dog and it will certainly tell you nothing of any inheritable conditions.


I agree Dundee.I had a cocker who died in july who had a lifetime of vet visits due to someone who just wanted to breed .Yes she had a long life ,I tried to make it as good as possible for her but in the end she was blind and going deaf,one thing I learnt from my baby was NOT to breed without health testing. I support the KC and am thankful for all they do to improve the health of Pedigree dogs.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

Can you just tell me why you think JRT should be registered with the IKC, what knowledge have they got that is better than a breeder that has been in the breed for 30yrs. There is no advantage to this as far as I can see as there is no past records of the breed


----------



## goldendance (Jan 23, 2009)

what a theead this has been, full of information i really didnt realize about people who breed their dogs,
ive not been breeding too long, and thought really hard and long before i entered into it,ive studied the stud dogs kc paperwork and ancestors before even thinking about useing it,
i thought it was the norm to breed kc reg dogs and nothing else
to have the revelant health tests/screening according to the breed 
to regester all litters so the kc carries on etc
and to ensure the new owners had all the paperwork/information needed
i think ive become a little confused as to why all dogs are not kc/reg


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

goldendance said:


> what a theead this has been, full of information i really didnt realize about people who breed their dogs,
> ive not been breeding too long, and thought really hard and long before i entered into it,ive studied the stud dogs kc paperwork and ancestors before even thinking about useing it,
> i thought it was the norm to breed kc reg dogs and nothing else
> to have the revelant health tests/screening according to the breed
> ...


Nice post, nice to read about responsible breeding practises


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

:bored::bored::bored::bored:


goldendance said:


> what a theead this has been, full of information i really didnt realize about people who breed their dogs,
> ive not been breeding too long, and thought really hard and long before i entered into it,ive studied the stud dogs kc paperwork and ancestors before even thinking about useing it,
> i thought it was the norm to breed kc reg dogs and nothing else
> to have the revelant health tests/screening according to the breed
> ...


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

goldendance said:


> what a theead this has been, full of information i really didnt realize about people who breed their dogs,
> ive not been breeding too long, and thought really hard and long before i entered into it,ive studied the stud dogs kc paperwork and ancestors before even thinking about useing it,
> i thought it was the norm to breed kc reg dogs and nothing else
> to have the revelant health tests/screening according to the breed
> ...


nice to know you are doing things correctly . congrats! many reasons why dogs aren't kc reg'd i'm afraid.


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

I have KC Reg dogs and any health tests are printed on their doduments, so at least Buyers have it in Black and White not hearsay. How easy is it for Breeders of Non KC to tell buyers " Oh yes they are hip scored, eye tested etc... Oh and here is their Pedigree????!!!
The KC are not the be all and end all but they do give a bit of assurance when it comes to buying IMO
I have met a lot of "Ethical Breeders" over the years who actually were not.


----------



## goldendance (Jan 23, 2009)

i like to think ive done and will do everything according to the kc rules,
i wouldnt do it any other way, im also an accredited breeder AND VERY PROUD OF IT, so i know ive done the very best for the breed,my bitches and my very proud new puppy owners,


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

I don't think that you should put your dog to stud, OK the KC may have had some bad publicity of late - but they are still the only ones that keep breed records and breed supplements, if a dog is not KC registered it is very easy to doctor the paperwork and for unethical breeders to put what ever information they feel like onto the pedigree knowing full well that their is not a cat in hells chance of getting caught out, - OK so it's not foolproof with KC reg as a breeder with say two KC reg dogs could claim that either one were the mother - but sadly - it's the best system we have at the moment.

As for the pet lovers registration - sorry but I think its a load of rubbish!

You would definately find it difficult to get good bitches for your dog - as those wanting to build there own lines, or better the breed would only ever consider a KC reg dogs.
regards
DT


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

goldendance said:


> i like to think ive done and will do everything according to the kc rules,
> i wouldnt do it any other way, im also an accredited breeder AND VERY PROUD OF IT, so i know ive done the very best for the breed,my bitches and my very proud new puppy owners,


ye well done


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

But what about the JRT breeders, Lurcher breeders and until recently Collie breeders, are they to be ridiculed and penalised because they have no KC reg sometimes it's just a ridiculous argument for the sake of argument.
People have got to see all sides to be able to answer correctly


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

rona said:


> But what about the JRT breeders, Lurcher breeders and until recently Collie breeders, are they to be ridiculed and penalised because they have no KC reg sometimes it's just a ridiculous argument for the sake of argument.
> People have got to see all sides to be able to answer correctly


people will do what they think is right so endith this sermon:wink::wink:


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

Good point But those dogs were initially breed for working, and not recognised by the KC - until recently (don't know about the lurcher) there will always be owners who think they have a good working dog and couldn't care less about documentation .


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Good point But those dogs were initially breed for working, and not recognised by the KC - until recently (don't know about the lurcher) there will always be owners who think they have a good working dog and couldn't care less about documentation .


they dont think they have a good working dog they know they have:smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

> Dundee
> I was just wondering if you show your dogs as well as work them.
> Although I generally agree with most of your points and Sallyannes, there are communities of dog owners particularly in the working breeds that have successfully bred dogs for many years without them having to be Kc reg, as you know, a working dog has to be sound throughout it's life and I'm sure they would not breed from substandard stock.
> However I do believe that all breeding dogs should be screened for any possible health problems within the breed


No I don't show, as I'm sure you are aware, the gap between show and working in labradors is huge apart from a few dual purpose enthusiasts. Personally, show labradors are not to my taste and certainly have lost a lot of their drive - although that's another topic. 

While there are a fairly large number of unregistered working dogs, like their show counterparts, they do need to kc registered to enter working tests and field trials so mine are indeed kc registered. I think the old ideas that working dogs had to be fit anyway so didn't need to be tested is gradually becoming a thing of the past. There is one very influencial working stud who has since been found to be a carrier of PRA, The working breeders do test their dogs. My own bitch that I _may_ have a litter from next year is already hip elbow scored, eye tested, optigen and cmn tested. Indeed, it was the working folks who first started testing for cmn with the show folk thinking it didn't affect them. Now they know different.

Regardless, I can't recall having said anything against non kc registered dogs. In fact, there are quite a few breeds that are not eligible for registration and some that were and are no longer, because their popularity has declined. What I am against is these 'alternate' registers that mean nothing, are only out make money, and dupe the public into thinking they are buying a 'registered' puppy. Nor can I understand why a breeder would use one except that by and large, kc registered puppies cost more, and by claiming their puppies are 'registered' breeders are charging more money.

What I have also said (in a roundabout way) is that the only place where the results of health tests are kept and maintained is the kennel club, although some non-registered breeds also have their own registers too.

PS Border collies have ISDS


----------



## nicola1980 (Oct 5, 2008)

What i don't understand is if a dog is not kc reg or not eligible for kc registration why would some breeders bother registering them with an alternate company??


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

nicola1980 said:


> What i don't understand is if a dog is not kc reg or not eligible for kc registration why would some breeders bother registering them with an alternate company??


To dupe the general public into paying more for the pups


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

rona said:


> To dupe the general public into paying more for the pups


Or to try and convince potential punters that they have been lovingly breed!


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

Dundee said:


> No I don't show, as I'm sure you are aware, the gap between show and working in labradors is huge apart from a few dual purpose enthusiasts. Personally, show labradors are not to my taste and certainly have lost a lot of their drive - although that's another topic.
> 
> While there are a fairly large number of unregistered working dogs, like their show counterparts, they do need to kc registered to enter working tests and field trials so mine are indeed kc registered. I think the old ideas that working dogs had to be fit anyway so didn't need to be tested is gradually becoming a thing of the past. There is one very influencial working stud who has since been found to be a carrier of PRA, The working breeders do test their dogs. My own bitch that I _may_ have a litter from next year is already hip elbow scored, eye tested, optigen and cmn tested. Indeed, it was the working folks who first started testing for cmn with the show folk thinking it didn't affect them. Now they know different.
> 
> ...


Glad that we are on the same page, I thought we were going to have a disagreement there:smilewinkgrin:
I totally agree about the use of alternative registers. The ISDS has done a good job over the years with border collies
There has been criticism of the JRT breeder and I was just trying to put a different point of view
Although I would also agree That the OP should not even consider breeding from said dog, I do not think that just because you haven't got the relevant registration from the kc that it makes you a bad breeder, any more than if you have. by some miracle you instantly become a good breeder.
Good breeders are like yourself and many others on this forum people who make every effort to ensure that pups are healthy and homed well.
I have always owned kc registered dogs and will continue to do so, but I can't condemn just because of a piece of paper


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

rona said:


> Glad that we are on the same page, I thought we were going to have a disagreement there:smilewinkgrin:
> I totally agree about the use of alternative registers. The ISDS has done a good job over the years with border collies
> There has been criticism of the JRT breeder and I was just trying to put a different point of view
> Although I would also agree That the OP should not even consider breeding from said dog, I do not think that just because you haven't got the relevant registration from the kc that it makes you a bad breeder, any more than if you have. by some miracle you instantly become a good breeder.
> ...


I was not condemning the dogs. But the way some jumped in thinking that the OP's sister should go ahead imo was shocking. Especially after more info as in she does not really know if Ped is ligit now.
As for Monleith, he/ she took it upon themselves to be slightly paranoid imo as no one stated he/ she was a puppyfarmer.
Now I am going to be bad here as I kept the reply posts going re Monleith as after 30years of breeding and defending her Breeding Practices regarding her/ his JR. Also slating the KC, so why has he/she bought in a Stud dog that she/ he does not even know the DOB of. How can you get correct info on a Puppy register site if you do not even know yourself.
I may be out of order but I hate the Public being taken in


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2009)

I couldn't understand why a breeder of JRT should feel the need to register with the pet register, but there are still a lot of respectable high welfare breeders out there, that you and I will never hear of. A lot that have too advertise their dogs are not quite legit.
As to the OP, I was as horrified as anyone else at the thought of this dog being bred from


----------



## emmakeo (Oct 26, 2008)

i must also say that this dog was free same as my akita bother are unregistered


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

rona said:


> I couldn't understand why a breeder of JRT should feel the need to register with the pet register, but there are still a lot of respectable high welfare breeders out there, that you and I will never hear of. A lot that have too advertise their dogs are not quite legit.
> As to the OP, I was as horrified as anyone else at the thought of this dog being bred from


I agree Rona there is a LOT of good breeders out there. Unfortunately I cannot see why someone can come on here defending their breding practices as being Ethical, give out 4 Generation Ped from a dog that they did not know the age of when they got it.


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

emmakeo said:


> i must also say that this dog was free same as my akita bother are unregistered


I know I read back your posts. I also noted that you thought of breeding from your Akita and also your Jack Russell would make a good Mum. Can I ask why you are so set on breeding something?


----------



## emmakeo (Oct 26, 2008)

clueless said:


> I know I read back your posts. I also noted that you thought of breeding from your Akita and also your Jack Russell would make a good Mum. Can I ask why you are so set on breeding something?


hi i was thinking of breeding my bitches but everyone made it sound very dangerous and i don`t want to risk my baby but the neo is my sisters and she just wanted to now everything before she made up her mind personally i don`t like the thought of it as we don`t know the background


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

emmakeo said:


> hi i was thinking of breeding my bitches but everyone made it sound very dangerous and i don`t want to risk my baby but the neo is my sisters and she just wanted to now everything before she made up her mind personally i don`t like the thought of it as we don`t know the background


I am pleased that you have thought things through. Hopefully your sister will see things like yourself if you speak to her. I also hope your sister can find out more info regarding her dog as it may help in the future re health etc..


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

I'm pleased this thread has reopened, because it is an interesting and important subject that is surrounded by prejudices and misunderstanding.

Going back to the subject of breeding from non kc registered dogs (which are simply not registered rather than non kc registered dog that are non registered because the breed is not eligible for registration) there are a number of reasons why this is a bad idea, none of which have anything to do with snobbery, elitism or any other reason that those who think its an individual choice assume.

The most obvious problem is that there are no reliable records of the breeding. There may be a pedigree, but it is all too common for these to be inaccurate or falsified. Inherited problems (and I include poor temperament as well as health) are not exclusively passed on by parents, in fact, things that show up (both good and bad) can more often come from grandparents or even further back. For this reason it is necessary to check all the dogs in a potential breeding dog/bitchs pedigree. In a five generation pedigree that is 64 dogs. And not only do you need to look at those dogs, but you need to look at the health and temperament of their siblings and progeny. It is considerable work with a kc registered dog (although been made a lot easier recently with the online database), and near impossible (with any accuracy) of a non registered dog. You are therefore playing russian roulette by breeding from them as you have no idea what they will produce. Even health testing the dog itself (which is a step in the right direction) will not tell you what you need to know. It is not enough to assume because a dog is healthy then its ok. Genes are passed down and actual problems can not surface for many generations. In any one litter there may be clear, carriers and affecteds.

For this reason, you will not get good responsible breeders using such a stud. Why would they take the risk when there are plenty of good, quality studs that do have the records? So you are left with those breeders that either dont know any better, or dont care. Not only is it an irresponsible way to breed, it has a high risk of producing unhealthy, poor temperamented dogs.

Then, we get on to the reason why dogs arent kc registered and typically, those that arent will have had little care taken over the breeding either. Bred too young, bred too old, had too many litters, one of the parents were not kc registered (and so of indeterminate heritage) etc etc. All point to a high likelihood of little thought and care having gone into the breeding. 

Breeding should not be undertaken lightly. We do it for ourselves, not the dog, so the least we can do is ensure we do it properly. We now realise that, along with the many positive traits we have come to love in our various breeds, many conditions have been passed down to our dogs. Those who think it doesnt apply to their breed are simply hiding their heads in the sand. Those who think it doesnt apply to cross breeds are also ignoring it at their peril - the worst case of HD Ive ever come across was in a GSD/Collie cross. The breeders of the past took care to produce the breeds we love. In ignorance, they also caused problems to be passed on. Science has moved on so much since those days and we have the means to diminish and in some cases eliminate these diseases. Surely we owe it to our beloved dogs and to the future of these dogs to do this. 

The owners and breeders of the future will only have what we leave them. What a sad legacy it will be if all we leave them is a dog population of unhealthy, poorly put together breeds and cross breeds. And all because of the heads in the sand attitude and the attitude that we have the right to do what we want from todays breeders.


----------



## Leah100 (Aug 17, 2008)

Dundee said:


> I'm pleased this thread has reopened, because it is an interesting and important subject that is surrounded by prejudices and misunderstanding.
> 
> Going back to the subject of breeding from non kc registered dogs (which are simply not registered rather than non kc registered dog that are non registered because the breed is not eligible for registration) there are a number of reasons why this is a bad idea, none of which have anything to do with snobbery, elitism or any other reason that those who think its an individual choice assume.
> 
> ...


Wonderful post


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2009)

Excellent post as per usual Dundee
My main concern, certainly in some breeds, is the use of a popular stud dog.
I believe that there should be a restriction on the amount of bitches a dog can cover in his lifetime.
My next statement could be well of track as my memory is hazy so tell me if I'm wrong
Going back to the poodles, a few years ago I remember a very prominent stud dog that at 5years old going blind from PRA, nobody had any idea that he was even a carrier as he had tested negative. A lot of his progeny also went blind. Now I know testing has improved since then but it still concerns me, the huge percentage of a breed that one stud dog can influence


----------



## clueless (May 26, 2008)

rona said:


> Excellent post as per usual Dundee
> My main concern, certainly in some breeds, is the use of a popular stud dog.
> I believe that there should be a restriction on the amount of bitches a dog can cover in his lifetime.
> My next statement could be well of track as my memory is hazy so tell me if I'm wrong
> Going back to the poodles, a few years ago I remember a very prominent stud dog that at 5years old going blind from PRA, nobody had any idea that he was even a carrier as he had tested negative. A lot of his progeny also went blind. Now I know testing has improved since then but it still concerns me, the huge percentage of a breed that one stud dog can influence


I think you may be correct. PRA is rife in a lot of Breeds. I believe its the PRA prcd (thats what my breed are tested for)that usually causes blindness from age 4 upwards. Optigen now do a DNA test for PRA prcd so it has helped eliminate Affected/ Carriers from Responsable Breeders Plans. Some Breeders still annually cerf test as well as there is a lot of different strains of PRA out there, plus the annual test also lets the dogs get tested for other eye problems that may be there

ps Great post Dundee


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2009)

clueless said:


> I think you may be correct. PRA is rife in a lot of Breeds. I believe its the PRA prcd (thats what my breed are tested for)that usually causes blindness from age 4 upwards. Optigen now do a DNA test for PRA prcd so it has helped eliminate Affected/ Carriers from Responsable Breeders Plans. Some Breeders still annually cerf test as well as there is a lot of different strains of PRA out there, plus the annual test also lets the dogs get tested for other eye problems that may be there
> 
> ps Great post Dundee


Again, this is just one example of one disease there must be the possibility of it happening in many different ways. I find this quite worrying as a whole breed in the minor breeds could be affected with the use of the favoured stud of the moment


----------



## bee112 (Apr 12, 2008)

I think you are missing the point Natasha, people arn't saying that all KC reg dogs are in perfect health.

But being KC Reg is a start, at least you know the pedigree is correct. What is most important is that the relevant health checks for a particular breed are carried out on any breeding stock.

The dogs in question here, the Neopolitan Mastiff, are prone to hip and elbow dysplacia and with them being such big heavy dogs, need to be free of this condition in order to have a decent quality of life. No doubt there are more breed specific health tests that would need to be carried out before breeding.

As an owner of a GSD we rescued (had gone from a puppy farm in Wales straight into rescue) we know how poorly bred dogs suffer.. our Kia has hip and elbow dysplacia and suffers immensly at times, it's very heart breaking.


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2009)

rona said:


> Excellent post as per usual Dundee
> My main concern, certainly in some breeds, is the use of a popular stud dog.
> I believe that there should be a restriction on the amount of bitches a dog can cover in his lifetime.
> My next statement could be well of track as my memory is hazy so tell me if I'm wrong
> Going back to the poodles, a few years ago I remember a very prominent stud dog that at 5years old going blind from PRA, nobody had any idea that he was even a carrier as he had tested negative. A lot of his progeny also went blind. Now I know testing has improved since then but it still concerns me, the huge percentage of a breed that one stud dog can influence


Good post Rona
A question I would like to ask - Dundee if you are reading - There is a promient dog (weimarener) thats genes are in most of the weims today - he died (3 years ago I think) 2 years ago they are still using his sperm - What are your thoughts/opinions on this???
regards
Dt


----------



## xpalaboyx (Jun 17, 2008)

Boston said:


> Hi
> no unless he is kc reg and had the health tests she should not put him up for stud.
> Even if she has his pedigree the breeder could have wrote any names on there and might not be telling the truth.
> Just out of interest who said he is good example of the breed?


I totally agree... KC registration is one way you can be sure that the breed came from a good breed and dont forget to check the health tests...


----------



## *Ragdoll* (Jan 21, 2009)

Just as a question, is there a risk that the stud could catch something from the bitch if she has not been properly tested?


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

*Ragdoll* said:


> Just as a question, is there a risk that the stud could catch something from the bitch if she has not been properly tested?


We ask for bitches to be swabbed when they come into season, they can then be given if necessary a course of anti-biotics for any infections.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

*Ragdoll* said:


> Just as a question, is there a risk that the stud could catch something from the bitch if she has not been properly tested?


dogs can transmit brucellosis, some breeders test their dogs for it, i believe its a sexually transmitted disease & is very dangerous.


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

Just a note from the moderator on this thread, it took quite a bit of time last night to sort this one out, IF it should get out of hand again it will be closed and not reopened, some of the useful posts on here have been moved to what I deem to be the most appropriate place to put them :thumbup1:

Please try to keep on topic and if in doubt go back and read what the original post was about.

Thankyou for your co-operation and understanding 

Tashi


----------



## trekkiemo (Nov 8, 2008)

Monleish said:


> BYB and Puppy farmers.... I think not...Please do not make assumtions as to my Breeding Ethics.
> 
> As you so kindly pointed out My breed is not recognised by the Kennel Club so why would i check with them as to Health issues.........They surely would not waist there time now would they.....???????


I wasn`t refering to you , A KC registered breeder will look for a KC registered dog when planning to breed not one that is registered in one of those money making registers or unregistered as puppies can only be registered by KC registered parents in the KC. Hope this makes it clearer.


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2009)

Come on then Dundee where's my answer, that you promised


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

Sorry - got to work you know... have had clients all day, and clients this evening - I've just got in and now I'm knackered... will try to get something up tomorrow..


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

Sorry it's so late in coming....and I think it will be a complete anticlimax... but here's my thoughts - as jumbled as they are.

I cant speak for all breeds (although Im sure it is the same across the board), but there is no doubt that a popular stud can cause problems later down the line if found to have a health problem. It may well have happened in poodles  it has certainly happened in labradors. It is hard to find a pedigree that doesnt include one very influential stud (although so far no health problems have appeared), and one dog that was used as an alternative in order to open up the gene pool has later been found to be a carrier of PRA. In the case of PRA and any other health problems that can be dna tested it shouldnt be a problem because it is perfectly possible to use carriers (or, scientifically even affecteds) and still produce dogs that will never be affected. One of the problems though is that everyone wants to go to the clear stud and so gene pool gets smaller. The difficulty is public pressure and perception. Who would want to buy a puppy that has been sired by a carrier in this day and age of health test, health test, health test? And yet it is perfectly possible to use a carrier and produce puppies that will never suffer from the problem. By dna testing it is possible to keep the genetic diversity without risking producing affected puppies. We are, if we are not careful, in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I can entirely understand the desire to restrict use of a stud dog, but suspect It will cause more problems than it solves. The effects will vary considerably depending on the breed. A sire that produces say 10 litters in its lifetime can have a profound effect on say, curly coated retriever where only a hundred or so are registered each year. In labs, it would barely be noticeable where 45,000 a year are registered. So any restrictions if they are brought in, should reflect the size of the gene pool. But, by restricting, what will the criteria being for using the desirable stud dog. If studs are restricted to say 10 litters, how will the stud owner choose? What will happen to that 11th bitch that may have been a brilliant pairing? Will it force people to breed earlier in order to get the stud of their choice, or could it encourage stud owners to increase fees  particularly considering campaigning dogs is very expensive and for those, stud fees are not in income so much as a way to fund the competing/showing that they do? Im lucky in that my breed gene pool is huge, but I am currently researching for a stud for my girl (litter early 2010) and by the time you take into account all the many health tests, type of dog, qualities you are looking for, even in a large gene pool it becomes quite a task.
And talking of gene pools brings up another reason why I dont understand why people will not KC register their puppies if eligible to do so (or register them with alternative registers. Effectively the breeder is taking them out of the gene pool. Surely if they were good enough to breed from then they are good enough to keep within the gene pool The end result of this in just a few generations is likely to be two separate gene pools, thus decreasing the size even more than it already is. This cannot be a good thing for any breed, and IMO extremely short sighted of the breeders.


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2009)

Thanks for that Dundee well worth waiting for, trouble is I can't think of anything to carry this thread on.


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

If the breeder thought he was an ideal stud.. Then why did she not KC reg the litter when born? 

Is it because.. The parents are of the wrong age or had too many litters or is it the sheer cost of registering the pups..

There are lots of KC reg dogs out there eligable to be bred from so what would your reasons be for breeding from and unreg dog?

Personally I wouldn't breed from him..


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

momentofmadness said:


> If the breeder thought he was an ideal stud.. Then why did she not KC reg the litter when born?
> 
> Is it because.. The parents are of the wrong age or had too many litters or is it the sheer cost of registering the pups..
> 
> ...


haha sorry I seem to have missed the debate.. They were my thought anyway.. struggling for time to read all the posts.. sorry.. there is my two pence worth..


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

emmakeo said:


> i am sorry but there seems to be a misconception here i would never breed a dog or bitch that had`nt had all necessary health test as i do believe that if you do it is very stupid and you have no idea what will affect your puppies we would rather not breed if there was a chance the puppies would suffer and all new homes are always checked and if there is a problem in the future we would always take the dog back and personally care for it .to us a dog is not just money our dogs are FAMILY and always will be


Are you regular breeders.. Not read your profile But just wondering with you saying new homes are always checked...


----------



## muse08 (Dec 21, 2008)

I find it quite astonishing how people can have so much faith in the KC,their database and only breeding from KC registered dogs.If people think that KC database (kc names and health results finder) is/are "reliable" i think their extremely deluded. Especially when you consider that its not just responsible breeders who kc register their puppies but puppy farmers and so called BYB can/do also.
It is against kennel club rules to falisify kc docs and i dont think for one min that every single dog registered with the kc has the correct parents details registered.The KC rarely verify their accuracy, but their quite happy to take the fees for doing so off the puppy farmers and irrisponsible breeders.
It only takes one dishonest person to register puppies from the wrong parents and the accuracy of pedigree lines is blown away/complete waste of time. Unless every single dog on the pedigree had been DNA profiled, that would be the only way of knowing for sure.
Until the KC make it compulsory to DNA profile and or microchip every single pedigree registered dog and make health testing of parents compulsory before litter registration can takes place their database can hardly be called reliable.

Breeding a healthy litter from healthy parents in a responsible way is far more important than a £12 bit of paper.


----------



## trekkiemo (Nov 8, 2008)

Hear Hear!!


----------



## Jayzee (Aug 30, 2009)

muse08 said:


> I find it quite astonishing how people can have so much faith in the KC,their database and only breeding from KC registered dogs.If people think that KC database (kc names and health results finder) is/are "reliable" i think their extremely deluded. Especially when you consider that its not just responsible breeders who kc register their puppies but puppy farmers and so called BYB can/do also.
> It is against kennel club rules to falisify kc docs and i dont think for one min that every single dog registered with the kc has the correct parents details registered.The KC rarely verify their accuracy, but their quite happy to take the fees for doing so off the puppy farmers and irrisponsible breeders.
> It only takes one dishonest person to register puppies from the wrong parents and the accuracy of pedigree lines is blown away/complete waste of time. Unless every single dog on the pedigree had been DNA profiled, that would be the only way of knowing for sure.
> Until the KC make it compulsory to DNA profile and or microchip every single pedigree registered dog and make health testing of parents compulsory before litter registration can takes place their database can hardly be called reliable.
> ...


I AGREE!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

> I find it quite astonishing how people can have so much faith in the KC,their database and only breeding from KC registered dogs.If people think that KC database (kc names and health results finder) is/are "reliable" i think their extremely deluded. Especially when you consider that its not just responsible breeders who kc register their puppies but puppy farmers and so called BYB can/do also.


I don't disagree, but I think you are under a misapprehension that kc is the only criteria. There are different gene pools within the kc registration system. Good breeders looking for a stud will not a) use a dog from a puppy farmer even if it is kc registered, or b) rely on the kc registration system to find a stud dog.



> Breeding a healthy litter from healthy parents in a responsible way is far more important than a £12 bit of paper.


The two are not mutually exclusive and it is better to have both. In fact, the database is useful to look at health tests of dogs behind the parents - it is not enough to breed from two healthy parents IMO - they could be carriers.
People who rely on meaningless names, databases and pedigrees written on paper (whether kc or not) are not doing enough research.


----------



## muse08 (Dec 21, 2008)

Dundee said:


> I don't disagree, but I think you are under a misapprehension that kc is the only criteria. There are different gene pools within the kc registration system. Good breeders looking for a stud will not a) use a dog from a puppy farmer even if it is kc registered, or b) rely on the kc registration system to find a stud dog.
> 
> The two are not mutually exclusive and it is better to have both. In fact, the database is useful to look at health tests of dogs behind the parents - it is not enough to breed from two healthy parents IMO - they could be carriers.
> People who rely on meaningless names, databases and pedigrees written on paper (whether kc or not) are not doing enough research.


No i am not under any misapprehension at all.Yes the KC registration database is very good in theory but is completely flawed/missleading.In order for it to be have any real value for researching lines and health status of dogs every dog on it would need to be DNA profiled/microchipped.The majority are not.
Hip scores,heart scans,opthamologist eye tests etc are not tests that identify carriers they only identify the health status of individual dogs.....so in real terms they only have limited value.Only dna test for hereditary conditions can identify carriers of hereditary diseases.

If a particular dog is of "breed standard" and is in tip top condition with clear health results (with validating certs) and idealy compliments your bitch why would you "not even consider using it at stud" just because it is "untitled/doesnt have any reds in its pedigree or breeder afixes in its name"?

Good breeders should be focusing on health it should be paramount, and by refusing to even considering including certain dogs in a breeding program based on it not having certain afixes/names in its pedigree (I.E ...making presumtions that it has come from a puppy farm,BYB)your narrowing the gene pool and that cant be a good thing.


----------

