> make KC registered a mark of quality

Precisely - that is what I want and so many others too :)

> I feel uncomfortable being labelled an AB and being aligned with the less desirables.
>

But we use the KC registration don't we?  How can the ABS be seen as something less worthy than that?

Isabel I can understand your tenacity about this (OK, made that up :-D - but I'm trying! ) but it's almost a sort of chicken and egg situation.  What came first, the bad reputation of the KC registration system or the bad reputation of their ABS  .........

If they ban the BYBs and puppy farmers they'll almost certainly get 100% support from every other breeder :) 

It does involve inspection when feedback merits

And apparently they still only have ONE single person to do ALL the inspections! Even a small country like Sweden with far less dogs and breeders has a big team of breeder inspectors, and has had for years.

If they ban the BYBs and puppy farmers they'll almost certainly get 100% support from every other breeder :-)

Exactly. And I will join the ABS when they do not allow people breeding noodles and snoodles and kaboodles to be on it, and people who clearly ARE puppy farmers. Stricter checks for better quality breeders and it would be worth something. BTW the ABS does not call for cavaliers to be MRI scanned for SM. So it certainly hasn't helped them.

> when they do not allow people breeding noodles and snoodles and kaboodles to be on it

Absolutely :) 

> And apparently they still only have ONE single person to do ALL the inspections!

I don't know if that is true anymore I thought they had a small team of breeder advisors but I don't think there has ever been any plan to run regular visits so this is only required to meet the needs of the feedback system

> And I will join the ABS when they do not allow people breeding noodles and snoodles and kaboodles to be on it, and people who clearly ARE puppy farmers.

I could understand this more if we were saying we were not prepared to share the KC register with these people but we do. 

> And I will join the ABS when they do not allow people breeding noodles and snoodles and kaboodles to be on it, and people who clearly ARE puppy farmers.
>I could understand this more if we were saying we were not prepared to share the KC register with these people but we do.

Because if we wish to register our puppies we have no choice. Why pay extra to be associated even closer with them?

It's £15 a year and I can't see how it would make us closer to them.  I can see even less how rejecting the scheme will ever improve the standard of dog breeding.

you are so right
the ABS is full of puppy farmers and BYB
a lot of the good breeders who test and care refuse to join
the only thing the KC cares about is the cash the puppy register gives them
they know who is breeding what and how many litters when they register them

what we need is a new KC who start putting the good breeders first and get rid of the BYB and PFS
the way things are going, will there be anyone showing, breeding in say 10 years time

Because there are BYBs and puppy farmers already on their ABS and they have been from it's launch   Because they are on what the KC itself is trying to convince the public is an elite register, they are ultimately giving a higher profile and openly endorsing these undesirables.  It is for that reason that a great many deserving of the name accredited simply wont join.  .

> I can't see how it would make us closer to them

It's not for the want of trying to make it clear Isabel - I don't know how else to put it but perhaps, out of those who have also tried, someone will come up with a clearer and/or more satisfactory answer :)

> what we need is a new KC

I don't now about need but I think it very likely we will end up with a new governing body :-(

> what we need is a new KC

Hi montymoo,

I don't want a new KC, just the existing one to take a new approach :)  They have done lots for our breeds and sports but they have to accept the failures too.  It's not as though they are unaware of the issues

I'm sorry I don't understand Teri.  We are happy to share a register, well not happy but we do :-), so why would we be more unhappy to share something that will ask more of them and how would that make us closer to them than already sharing the KC?   We might well want the scheme to do more but why reject what it does achieve ?

I'll try again - meantime, while I put the kettle on,  can I interest you in THIS :-D

Ha!  I am going to have to post up the next 72!

Anyhoo.  I'm giving up.  I just hope the KC doesn't do the same :-)

> I don't know how else to put it but perhaps, out of those who have also tried, someone will come up with a clearer and/or more satisfactory answer :-)

by joining a scheme that claims to be the creme de la creme of breeding alongside schnoodldoodleers it gives them legitamacy. if someone begins investigating getting a pup and comes across the ABS then realises the good breeders in their chosen breed avoid it like the plague they are likely to wonder why and perhaps avoid it.

(not sure thats any clearer though teri :))

i agree
but if it gets rid of the BYB and PFS ,
i won,t complain
but the way this country is going, showing and breeding could become a thing of the past

i agree, but will they tackle these issues
they looked like total idiots on that programme

Goodness knows I don't like it but breeding oodles is not against the law so if all welfare requirements is being met how can the KC legislate against that.  I don't suppose they like it either but if these people are also producing pedigree puppies how can they refuse them on the pedigree register and how can they refuse them on the register of better standards of breeding when they are wishing people to conduct themselves in that way?  In the position the KC is in I think that would be politically unsound to deny them at the moment don't you?  That aside if I am going to be sharing a register with these people anyway I really can't see how I can object to share a different one with them that is at least asking them to observe higher standards.

> showing and breeding could become a thing of the past

I'd rather try and help prevent that if I can.

It's £15 a year and I can't see how it would make us closer to them.

Well for a start, if we choose to take out a puppy ad at the time of registering puppies, then we will be listed together with those other people marked as ABS breeders. Clearly lumped in with them on the KC's website.

As oppose to appearing after them :-)

Goodness knows I don't like it but breeding oodles is not against the law so if all welfare requirements is being met how can the KC legislate against that.

The Swedish KC used to have a rule saying any member found to deliberately carry out crossbreeding would be expelled. And there you must be a member to register pups AND to enter shows and working competitions. Hence we had no crossbreeds in Sweden! That rule now seems to have vanished. Interestingly there are now also plenty of designer crossbreeds..... Hence I have always felt that the KC should open up its membership to all dog owners, and then they COULD implement similar rules or codes of ethic.

As oppose to appearing after them :-)

At least then we are not in the same category!

> The Swedish KC used to have a rule saying any member found to deliberately carry out crossbreeding would be expelled.

I really don't think this is the right time for the KC to be even considering such a thing :-)

But then the KC would follow the masses and seemingly agree that yes, our pedigree dogs are so unhealthy we don't even mind if people crossbreed....... They've got to make a proper stand, which they haven't yet.

The KC have already made a stand for one breed and no longer register IR&WS if both parents  have not been DNA tested for CLAD and will also be the case for Von Willebrands  in 2011 this was because the breed club requested it. Therefore the way forward surely is for all members of the breed clubs to canvas  their clubs to do the same for their individual breeds health problems and the KC to introduce this for them also.

Therefore the way forward surely is for all members of the breed clubs to canvas  their clubs to do the same for their individual breeds health problems and the KC to introduce this for them also.

I agree to a certain extent -would it need to be the breed clubs? I'm sure we all know of some breed clubs that DON'T insist on heath testing that most people would see as relevant for the breed. Would it not be better for the KC itself to simply make testing for the conditions mentioned in the ABS (it's a start, at least) compulsory for anyone wanting to register pups?

I don't like people capitalising from designer crossbreeds but I am not sure I would like people not to be allowed to breed crossbreeds and I don't think that shows any reference to whether pedigrees are unhealthy or not.  So not sure I would be looking to the KC to make a stand on that one.  After all some breeds are crossed for worthwhile purposes, would they have to draw up a list of what was permitted and what was not?

> Would it not be better for the KC itself to simply make testing for the conditions mentioned in the ABS (it's a start, at least) compulsory for anyone wanting to register pups?

The KC have said they feel they are better dealing with this by persuasion ie the incentive of joining the ABS, in order to keep these breeders registering with them and therefore in their sights and influence.  The bigger the scheme gets and the more the public use it the more they will feel the cold if they don't.

same as the irish setters
the breed clubs should be promoting health testing

The KC have already made a stand for one breed and no longer register IR&WS if both parents  have not been DNA tested for CLAD and will also be the case for Von Willebrands  in 2011 this was because the breed club requested it. Therefore the way forward surely is for all members of the breed clubs to canvas  their clubs to do the same for their individual breeds health problems and the KC to introduce this for them also.

>> why would anyone need to breed 6+ litters a year?
> Because they have demand for their stock here and abroad for the quality of the bloodlines in show or working and breeding at that level allows them to be both amibitious and selective to a degree that a small hobby breeder would find very difficult. 

To a point I'm going to disagree with you Isabel.  I can only quote from the gundog BRS but there's many a 'name' within a breed who is registering 10+ litters of one breed during a quarter many from dogs who never make it to the showring and then they have their 'bread & butter' breeds to have puppies from too and a few litters of those will be registered as well.  These people have never campaigned anything from the latter rather they've been bought in to bolster an income to support the latest high-flyer.

> would it need to be the breed clubs?

I can see what your saying to some extent Marianne but at the moment the KC isnt taking that initiative so until the majority of breed clubs that do state health test requirements push for this then I think it will remain as it is now.

I am not suggesting every licenced breeder is reputable, definately not, simply that that in itself does not indicate that they are not.

> the breed clubs should be promoting health testing

Agreed and that means in realistic terms the push will need to come from the responsible breeders canvasing their breed clubs.

So why don't all breed clubs insist on their members testing their stock for every test aplicable? I would have thought if they had the best interest of the breed at heart that would be essential? Is it the cost or the fear of negative results? The breeder on the bbc programme was very defensive about not having to test her dogs(the CKCS) and it baffled me.I'm not a breeder so genuinly have no clue,I would have thought alot of other people not involved in the show world would have the same question.

I cant speak for those breed clubs ;-) as I am a member of one that does set health testing requirements and who's members raise funds for research to  develope health tests for hereditary diseases. I can only assume that the health tests available aren't considered to be particularly applicable.
It has to be remembered the breeders on that programme were picked for a purpose and that was not to make pedigree breeders look responsible.
The CKC breed club does recommend health testing and does have a code of ethics.
Edited to add however membership of a breed club is totally up to the individual.

I apreciate that and just added my question to the end of the thread rather than directing it at you but from reading various threads on the board at the moment I get the impression that there are plenty  of clubs that don't require the tests available.It  also just genuinly baffled me why any breeder would be so adamantly against testing and why it isn't compulsory.
The fact that membership of a breed club is up to an individual would be even more reason the club should insist on testing,if you didn't want to do the right thing why bother belonging? It's not something I know alot about (hense the questions) although I am often advising people to go to the breed clubs for advice :)

I actually don't think there are that many that don't suggest any testing and even then state only healthy dogs and bitches should be bred from. There is a thread  at the top of the breeding board on here that does list the code of ethics for alot of the breed clubs.

> The fact that membership of a breed club is up to an individual would be even more reason the club should insist on testing,if you didn't want to do the right thing why bother belonging? It's not something I know alot about (hense the questions) although I am often advising people to go to the breed clubs for advice

My point there was that the breed clubs can only influence  their membership and not those breeders that choose not to belong :-)

If inclusion in the ABS was conditional on the quality of the pups you breed - ie, success in showring or working field - then there would be a point to it. However even if you do all the tests and look after the puppies well (as oodle breeders can) there's still no reason to suppose they'll be good quality.

> If inclusion in the ABS was conditional on the quality of the pups you breed - ie, success in showring or working field

No, it wouldn't and I would love it if it was but we have to be realistic about things and there will always be dogs bred that are never near a showring, including some that belong to people who do show for perfectly sound reasons, but this scheme does take steps to ensuring they are healthy which is what is badly needed in the present climate to ensure continuing faith in the KC by the public.

>but this scheme does take steps to ensuring they are healthy which is what is badly needed in the present climate to ensure continuing faith in the KC by the public.

Unfortunately it also gives the BYB and puppy farmers a veneer of respectability. Joe Public naturally assumes the to be on the ABS means you breed healthy puppies - when we know that you can become accredited without ever having bred a litter. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not the recipe.

> However even if you do all the tests

And as I understand it the ABS only stipulates doing the tests, not anything about the results.

> when we know that you can become accredited without ever having bred a litter.

That should not prevent them breeding a healthy litter.  That is precisely why the KC is inviting people to join, and adopt the standards of the scheme, from the outset.

> not anything about the results.

The KC do not wish to prescribe results unless the breed club wish it because it needs to be done in balance with all other issues the may be relevent to the gene pool.  If the tests are done the results are public which are an incentive in themselves, I would say.

>If the tests are done the results are public

BAER results aren't published anywhere, and the KC has no records of them.

> when we know that you can become accredited without ever having bred a litter.
>That should not prevent them breeding a healthy litter.

It seems to be akin to becoming a driving instructor without ever having passed a driving test.