> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">but they should not be sold as purebred it they are not.  If they are purebred they should be registered, as that is the only independent record of their being purebred.<br /><br />Breeds not recognised by UK KC can still be registered with the FCI as they are now, that is a regognised reputable umbrella organisation.<br /><br />If you accept all unregistered dogs as purebred you have the mess we have now where we are told that purebred dogs are unhealthy, where the vast majority of these have no proof of ancestry,adn may not even be purebred.

What about Patterdaels, Lucas Terriers, Welsh Collies, etc. All can be pure bred but are not registered with any KC. Are you seriously suggesting that their ancestry can't be recognised?

At the present time purebred dog breeders are being criticised for producing unhealthy stock, but the vast majority of  so called 'purebred dogs are not registered with the kennel Club or bred to a Kennel club standard which is what is being criticised as the cause of these issues.

It's like saying the pirate copies of a well known product are the same as the original, and that the makers of the original should be responsible for the poor quality of the knock offs.

The other dog types you mentioned are mainly not recognised pure breeds of dog, with a recognised registry.  If they have a central registry and traceable recorded ancestry to support then that's fine.

But a dog of any breed recognised by the canine ruling body then the unregistered ones cannot be lumped in with the purebred registered stock when criticising breeders, we have no way of knowing if they are in fact purebred as many crosses crossed back to one of the parent breed will appear to be of that breed, it's health issues may come from a different breeds gene pool, but be attributed to the breed it is purported to be..

My OH when young had Russell's in the family and they bred a couple of litters.  They had no pedigree, their ancestry other than Mum and Dad were unknown, and when they were bred from they chose a mate who they hoped was not related, as from a different area.  For all we know they could have been litter mates, and both passed on slipping patellas etc.

If two purebred, pedigree, registered elkhounds have a litter of puppies, but those puppies aren't registered (result of a father/daughter mismating, perhaps), they're still purebred and pedigreed. They haven't suddenly become crossbreeds.

'Purebred' means "Of or belonging to a recognized strain established by breeding individuals of unmixed lineage over many generations." That definition is sound, and shouldn't be altered.

but their ancestry will be unknown and/or unverified, and if they go onto be randomly bred (which is sadly happening) then resulting untypical  and perhaps unhealthy offspring cannot be used to state the breed has poor health and temperament. 

We have also had Elkhound crosses identified as Elkhounds, I fostered one such bitch who had spent months in Battersea) so these mated to the other unregistered dogs you mention will give crosses that may to the average person be Elkhounds.

I know of Akita cross elkhounds and GSD x Elkhounds, and the one I had was quite obviously Sibe x Elkhound.  Now any of these would not be typical of Elkhounds and could have traits very alien to the breed.

We sadly see Elkhounds coming through rescue with health issues that have been kept at bay in the breed, and many of poor nervous temperament totally untypical of the breed.

Sadly as there are more puppy farmed pups presently than well bred ones (in the UK) what will this do to the breeds reputation?????

At best an unregistered dog could be called Gundog type, collie type, terrier type etc.

If vets are to start collating dog helath issues by breed then they must have documeted proof the dog is of the breed for the data to have validity.

>but their ancestry will be unknown and/or unverified,

No more than if the KC still allowed registration of such puppies (my father/daughter mating example).

You would know their history, but two generations on where somd may have been mated to crosses and any spotted ones represented as Dallies, but they would not be.

Personaly in teh case of accidental matings that are too close, then I think the KC should have perhaps continued to register but applied permanent non breeding endorsements.

We all know that there is nearly never any good reason for a purebred dog to not be registered (after all it cost relatively little), once they are ineligible for registraion, they should not be used as examples to represent the breed, wespecially if it is to critiscise it as PDE did with their example of an epileptic Boxer.

Usually I agree with both JG and Brainless but in this case I can see where Brainless is coming from but not JG, well I think I do.

If you can't prove that a pup is pure bred because it's ancestors are not registered with a recognised and trusted organisation then it is not a pure breed because it can't prove that it is.

Think that is what you are saying Barbara and if so I agree, if a dog is not registered it's breed is just a matter of say so and an educated guess and cannot be proven to be pure bred.

Now this falls down when for some reason an out cross is used but that is rare and one hopes always done for a good reason, this may mean the result is a dog that is not pure bred but it will still have a reliable list of ancestors. Suppose in time a set number of cycles will need to pass before the results of an outcross can be considered pure bred.

> Suppose in time a set number of cycles will need to pass before the results of an out cross can be considered pure bred.

Yes it was 4 generations from the initial cross with the bobtail Boxers, so I think it probably is the same.

they annotate the pedigrees with asterisks with 3 in the first generation of cross to purebred, then two in the next generation one in the next and then they drop the asterisk.  I may have the number of generations wrong it's either thre after the first cross or theree including, but I think it's the former.

That was what I thought but was not sure, did I understand what you were saying that is:

A dog can not be said to be a pure breed if it is not registered with a respected organisation because you just do not know what it is.

>If you can't prove that a pup is pure bred because it's ancestors are not registered

But if its ancestors are registered, but the litter isn't (as in my father/daughter litter scenario) then the pups are still purebred, and it can be verified by DNA.

Purebred simply means not crossbred, and should have nothing to do with registration.

You are talking an exception JG - if the parents are pure bred and DNA proves that they are the parents then no problem, so there is no point in including this scenario in your thoughts on how a dog can be called a pure breed if its ancestry is unknown, in your example it is known but these particular pups are unlikely to reproduce.

Purebred simply means not crossbred, and should have nothing to do with registration.

But that is they whole point JG if it is not registered you don't know if it is purebred or a crossbred - you have to rely on what you are told and we all know how honest puppy farms and BYB are when it comes to selling a puppy.

>You are talking an exception JG

Exceptions are what makes a theory workable or unworkable. Redefining a technical term is unworkable and illogical.

>in your thoughts on how a dog can be called a pure breed if its ancestry is unknown,

I've never mentioned anything about dogs of unknown parentage being called purebred!! I'm talking about all dogs where the parentage is known, but that are unregistered for one reason or another. They are of known breeds and so entitled to be called purebred.

>if it is not registered you don't know if it is purebred or a crossbred you have to rely on what you are told

The pedigree of every single KC registered dog states that "the information given is true to the best of my knowledge". Registration changes nothing that respect.

evening all, fascinating thread!

I've never mentioned anything about dogs of unknown parentage being called purebred!! I'm talking about all dogs where the parentage is known, but that are unregistered for one reason or another. They are of known breeds and so entitled to be called purebred.

OK, I see the rationale behind this to a degree but if the unregistered offspring from the 2 registered dogs then go on to be bred to other unregistered dogs of the same breed where then do you draw the line? For almost every rule there are exceptions but often we still use them.
Jeff.

>if the unregistered offspring from the 2 registered dogs then go on to be bred to other unregistered dogs of the same breed where then do you draw the line?

As soon as one parent is of a different breed. That's the acknowledged definition of the word 'purebred'.

Registration, or lack of it, can't change parentage, and definitions can't be changed for political reasons.

> I've never mentioned anything about dogs of unknown parentage being called purebred!! I'm talking about all dogs where the parentage is known, but that are unregistered for one reason or another. They are of known breeds and so entitled to be called purebred.

The same issue arises when dogs that appear to be of a known breed end up in rescue. Experts may well determine the dog is a pure bred example of its breed (by looks) but it cannot be proven. My rescue is a good example of this - she doesn't look to be from a show line, but also doesn't resemble the majority of working bred dogs of her breed. I tend to refer to her as pure-bred but who knows what is in there? - if she has come from a working background there could be one or more other breeds in her ancestry, although their influence would appear to be fairly minimal if at all.

>Experts may well determine the dog is a pure bred example of its breed (by looks) but it cannot be proven.

Apparently now it can.

> Apparently now it can.

Unless they have made some enormous improvements lately, I am still sceptical. Around the forums I have come across several people both here and overseas who have tried the DNA tests, and been highly dubious re the results. For some reason Australian Shepherd seems to come up a lot - this may be plausible for dogs in the USA, but a fairly ridiculous suggestion for a small-to-medium sized, 9 year old rescued crossbreed in Scotland.

It's like saying the pirate copies of a well known product are the same as the original, and that the makers of the original should be responsible for the poor quality of the knock offs.

Wish we had a LIKE button or similar, because IMHO this is exactly what has been happening, once we get away from the registered pedigree dog, we have the unknown, there is no proof except DNA testing (and I believe the parents need to be tested too? so difficult in a stray/rescue) to say whether the dog is pedigreed, no matter what it looks like - and surprisingly those who wish to tar all breeders with the same brush don't seem to want to pay for this.

In addition, if the dog is unregistered then we have no way of knowing for sure whether the parents have been DNA/health tested for whichever disease and the recorded results - these are linked to registration (I know not in all cases, but this is improving as testing becomes more reliable), so without it you have a mess, which is what the puppy farmers and BYB's rely on when selling their pups.  

Vets/insurers report disease numbers in pedigree dogs, but many vets have trouble recognising a pedigree dog half the time, let alone whether or not it is a cross breed, and they for sure don't seem to know the difference between a puppy farmed/BYB dog and one whose parents have been given all the relevant health tests and the best a conscientious breeder can give, I know, I've tried to explain the difference to our local vets and it seems to go right over their heads.  Of course badly bred untypical dogs don't help in this, as some of the 'pedigree' dogs around here are as far from the breed standard as it's possible to be.

I think this really is something which needs addressing far more publically. There are currently plans afoot to collate data (from vets, insurance companies etc) to determine what welfare/health problems are significant in dogs (of all breeds). It is likely that in future, desicions as to the direction of legislation and policy making will be based on this data.

It is a matter of great concern to me that not only is this going to be based on 'non expert' breed recognition, no differentiation is going to be made as to the original source of the dog.

Therefore a black, short coated dog of medium size and build will be classed as a 'black labrador' if that is what the owner thinks it is, never mind if it came from a resuce with an unknown history and is a beagle x collie! It will be in the same catagory as a KC registered lab from Show lines, a working lab with FT ancestors and a labrador from a puppy farmer whose parents were not health tested.

Likewise if you have a small white haired terrier then it will probably be a 'westie'. I have seen first crosses which looked virtually exactly like a poor type example of one of the parent breeds.

It might not be 'statistically significant' that the figres are 'contaminated' by a few dogs that are not what they appear. However, I do think it is important that the source of a dog should be given equal consideration as its breed when the collection of data occurs. It is frequently argued that a labrador is a labrador is a labrador because the foundation stock will all trace back to the same genepool (and puppy farmers apparently got their stock from 'good' breeders originally so the same problems will occur no matter which lines are involved!) However, as we all know, an awful lot can happen in one or two generations and poor husbandry alone can have profound effects on subsequent health.

I also really like the brilliant analogy of the 'pirate' copies. It is a great way of helping people appreciate that just because something appears to be the same, it is very far from the same quality. A bit like the Good, Better, Best that they have on the Antiques Roadshow. Wouldn't it be great if there was a situation where people could do that with dogs. Would be interesting to see how many people would correctly guess the breed, let alone whether the dog was 'purebreed' or not! Most people think Duck Tollers are pretty collies!!

Just taggig on to the end here, not replying to any one post.

I think the KC already make their position pretty clear. I have an unregistered Papillon, I have his pedigree, I have seen his mother, know who his father is. He cannot be registered (mum not reg'd) but if I wanted to register him on the acitivities register I would have to put down breed unknown or crossbreed -UNLESS I had a signed (by the breeder) copy of the pedigree, then the KC would allow the breed. Hence why Border Collies are reg'd as WSD and not BC on the activity register. The KC will not let looks alone determine.

And as for the fact that a pedigree is only as true as who writes it -not quite. I don't think for a moment you could get away with registering pups with a made up pedigree with the KC, --that's why you have to give reg numbers of the parents, after all. Yes you could take two animals of correct pedigrees and pretend they were the parents even if not, but unless ALL pups registered are DNA tested, there is no way around that.

I certainly see a HUGE problem in vets collecting data about breeds when most vets cannot tell them apart. I am sure we all have many examples. Like he vet who told me there was no such thing as a Malinois, there was only Belgian Shepherds! Not to mention the many crosses incorrectly labelled as a breed. The only way I can see around it (if vets ARE to collect health data) would be for all KC registered dogs to be microchipped and any dog presented to the vet as a purebred dog to be registered and scanned for its chip.

I don't like the UK description of "pedigree dog". "Purebred", as used in so many other countries, makes far more sense. You can have a pedigree for anything whatsoever if you breed it for long enough and keep records, the presence of a pedigree does NOT automatically mean it is purebred. But it's like with anything else -you don't easily change what Joe Public calls something. Hence a GSD is still called an Alsatian, a vacuum cleaner is a Hoover (even if it is a Dyson or a Henry) and you have tea even when it's food that you chew and not a drink. :) So I dare say a purebred dog will always remain a pedigree dog.

Hi JG,

How would one define different breed? One unregistered poor example of a breed may be more "purebred" but not look it compared to a 3rd generation cross. I can show you lovely examples of my breed that are first generation St Bernard crosses, luckily not in this country! :-)
No stock here now although lots in the past :-)  

> So I dare say a purebred dog will always remain a pedigree dog.

We can turn this around and view it in another light - for a start, I always thought that if you advertised any animal as 'pedigree' then it had to have an agreed ancestry certified by an official registering body, according to trading standards.

Certainly that is how the small animal fancies have always viewed it. There is no registering body for rabbits, hamsters or rats in this country, but that isn't to say they can't be registered in other countries who have set that up. I have owned & bred small animals with registered ancestry overseas, confirming them to be of their asserted ancestry and had access to registration databases going back several decades; yet in this country I couldn't advertise them as "pedigree" - allegedly because the UK has no registration system for them. I am allowed to say they have "family trees" but not pedigrees. Which is not unlike non-KC reg breeds that come over initially....  They can be from FCI, AKC, UKC, but the KC doesn't view them as pedigree and they cannot be registered as such.

I think we have an enormous problem on our hands with regard to insurance with the masses of BYBs churning out unregistered dogs of any breed you care to mention, as no insurance company I know of demands to see proof of breed or registration. This is going to skew statistics with a tangent to infinity...

And personally speaking, if I do decide to register any dogs which I don't have full KC registration for, I'm now very tempted to put them down as crossbreeds...

Who is going to argue, if it can't be proven?

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The other dog types you mentioned are mainly not recognised pure breeds of dog, with a recognised registry.  If they have a central registry and traceable recorded ancestry to support then that's fine.<br /><br />But a dog of any breed recognised by the canine ruling body then the unregistered ones cannot be lumped in with the purebred registered stock when criticising breeders, we have no way of knowing if they are in fact purebred as many crosses crossed back to one of the parent breed will appear to be of that breed, it's health issues may come from a different breeds gene pool, but be attributed to the breed it is purported to be..<br />

Well certainly there is a registry for Lucas Terriers and I think for welsh collies, but not Patterdales - and what about working Lakelands and Bedlingtons? These are unregistered, but have often been bred very carefully and had accurate pedigrees kept for many generations. There is an argument to say that with limited gene pools these dogs might be a very useful addition to the KC registered lines - if their owners would permit it.

But not all registered pedigree dogs are as 'purebred' as you like to claim. My uncle used to breed Welsh terriers, and in every litter there would be one or two with lots of white on them - when asked he would say they were a throwback to the Wire fox that was used add refinement pre-war! In those days they were just disposed of :(

That's interesting Goldmali, my rescue kelpie isn't registered, as they aren't recognised by the KC, but he is still on the activities register as a kelpie and not a cross.

what about working Lakelands and Bedlingtons? These are unregistered, but have often been bred very carefully and had accurate pedigrees kept for many generations.

As far as Bedlingtons go, some working people are very proud of the fact that they 'inject' a bit of Lakeland (and other breeds) to add 'gameness'  - don't know how many, but enough to make me dubious about the 'pedigree' or purebred status.  In addition, they rarely test for CT, which conscientious breeders require before they would consider breeding.  In the case of Bedlingtons the addition of untested dogs to the gene pool could undo decades of work reducing and eliminating the CT genes :(

>my rescue kelpie isn't registered, as they aren't recognised by the KC

According to the suggestion he would not be regarded as purebred (because he isn't registered) and none of his potential offspring to other kelpies could be either. He would have the same status as a dog of totally unknown parentage off the street.

Just following on JG, not to you specifically, See this link http://www.ringneckdove.com/Wilmer%27s%20WebPage/PUREBRED.htm

>Hi JG, How would one define different breed?

Sorry, I missed this. A different breed is just what it says; it's nothing to do with quality! A poor (weedy whippetty or cloddy stubby) labrador is still a labrador.

Let's put it this way. If I have a litter of dalmatians and decide not to register a mismark (personally I register them all and endorse them all, but not registering is the Old School way of controlling breeding), that puppy is just as purebred as the rest of the litter, and would be sold as such. To try to claim it's somehow not purebred - that its parentage is different to its siblings, is ridiculous!

> I think the KC already make their position pretty clear. I have an unregistered Papillon, I have his pedigree, I have seen his mother, know who his father is. He cannot be registered (mum not reg'd) but if I wanted to register him on the acitivities register I would have to put down breed unknown or crossbreed -UNLESS I had a signed (by the breeder) copy of the pedigree, then the KC would allow the breed. Hence why Border Collies are reg'd as WSD and not BC on the activity register. The KC will not let looks alone determine.
>
>

I didn't know that Marianne. H is a rescue from unknown parentage and when I registered him on the activity register so he could compete in agility I put his breed down as Golden Retriever and parents unknown and his registration came back with his breed shown as a GR of unknown parentage - they certainly accepted his breed without any queries whatsoever.

No problem.
I do see your point and do agree to a degree but who is to say where the "poor" ladrador came from and what it has behind it if the ancestors are unregistered?
I think my problem (one of many I know :-) ) is that we rely on breeders honesty for pedigrees and that works VERY well in my opinion but would the same diligence in record keeping be applied for unregistered dogs? In some cases certainly and in others no. I can remember 5 generations of dogs I have bred but after 3/4 generations of dogs brought in I have to consult my records - I keep all relevant paperwork but others do not.
Jeff.

>who is to say where the "poor" ladrador came from and what it has behind it if the ancestors are unregistered?

It's as likely to have all-labrador ancestry as any other labrador - it's all down to trust; DNA testing is the only scientific proof and that's in its infancy. Until maybe 10 years ago (at most) it's all been a matter of trust and relying on people's honesty.

And when it comes to it, if the dogs are unregistered they usually tend to be less likely to be bred from that if they're registered, purebred or no; most people don't breed from their pets even though it can be hard to believe! The 'poor' purebred labrador (if a pet-quality registered lab is mated to another pet-quality registered lab for generations you end up with poor quality labs - if those same dogs aren't registered and still bred from the pups are still labs, but no worse quality because of that) isn't going to be adding to the registered gene pool whatever happens, even if it's bred from.

> if I wanted to register him on the acitivities register I would have to put down breed unknown or crossbreed

Not at all Marianne, you can register any recognised breed of dog on the activity register as it's own breed, without any confirmation of parentage at all. I know someone who had a collie cross, registered as a cross, bred a litter and registered the pups as WSDs. Collies are the only 'anomaly' where they can only be called border collies if they are either ISDS or on the breed register, otherwise they are working sheep dogs. Any other dog can be registered as any breed you like (as long as that breed is recognised).

I'm curious about the kelpie registered as a kelpie as the KC will not let us register silkens as silkens because their breed is not recognised by them.

H is a rescue from unknown parentage and when I registered him on the activity register so he could compete in agility I put his breed down as Golden Retriever and parents unknown and his registration came back with his breed shown as a GR of unknown parentage - they certainly accepted his breed without any queries whatsoever.

I've just checked the most up to date form on the KC website and my mistake -they have removed that part! All it says now is that it will only be registered as a breed if it is a KC recognised breed. It definitely did say what I mentioend before as that is why I never registered my Papillon -I didn't fancy having a papillon registered as a crossbreed.

> I'm curious about the kelpie registered as a kelpie as the KC will not let us register silkens as silkens because their breed is not recognised by them

All the kelpies I know that compete in agility are registered as kelpies - and for KC agility all competing dogs have to be registered with them in order to compete.

>I've just checked the most up to date form on the KC website and my mistake -they have removed that part! All it says now is that it will only be registered as a breed if it is a KC recognised breed. It definitely did say what I mentioend before as that is why I never registered my Papillon -I didn't fancy having a papillon registered as a crossbreed.

that is still bizarre though as all the Kelpies that do agility (and thats a lot) are registered as Kelpies and they aren't recognised by the UK KC.

> I think this really is something which needs addressing far more publically. There are currently plans afoot to collate data (from vets, insurance companies etc) to determine what welfare/health problems are significant in dogs (of all breeds). It is likely that in future, desicions as to the direction of legislation and policy making will be based on this data.
>
> It is a matter of great concern to me that not only is this going to be based on 'non expert' breed recognition, no differentiation is going to be made as to the original source of the dog.

This worries me too. When I was working in a vets a dog which had been run over on a motorway just outside London was brought in, it was scanned no microchip, it did not have a tattoo and it had lost the tag from it's collar. The vet looked at the dog and identified it as a spaniel type, then asked the vet nurses for their opinion. They agreed it was a spaniel type dog and when they recorded the details they put it down as a spaniel. To me it was obvious it was a tricolour collie type. We could end up with some disastrous mistakes being made.

I think everybody needs to remember that the KC require no verification of parentage when registering puppies.  They will take registrations from any parents that are KC registered.  The reputable breeders are honest but there are more out there that are dishonest.  Nobody can say with honesty that they know the parentage of their dogs - unless they have bred them themselves.  The KC registered puppies from a bitch that was registered one week previously....added to a litter of 5 (which was confirmed by third parties only 5 in the litter!) to make it 6.  The bitch was just under 2 years old.  The KC do nothing to authenticate registrations so registered or unregistered nobody knows for sure if the pedigree is correct.  I DNA profiled one bitch to find that neither or her parents were the parents in her pedigree....she was rescue and being sold as a named KC registered bitch.  In order to get anything done by the KC you have to jump through hoops.  They don't want to know about authenticating pedigrees because it would be too much trouble.  That goes for all the other registration bodies too.

As for Sick Puppy Helpline.  This service has been set up by me to help people who have bought puppies from breeders who have since turned their back on them when the puppy became ill.  It covers registered and unregistered puppies.  I have an excellent understanding of the law.  Whether you like my ethics or not is of no concern.  I am only interested in helping the people who fall prey to these types of breeder every year.  It is not a database to name and shame.  It is merely an advice service and, hopefully in the future, a buddy scheme will be set up to support people through the whole process.  This service is long overdue because at the moment Trading Standards and the KC are giving the wrong information to people.  There is nobody specialising in this area of law.  If we can make bad breeding less profitable for those that are churning out puppies then that is good.  You can educate people as much as you like but the breeders involved in this area are excellent at sales and marketing and mostly hide their dealing in misery away from public eyes.

Yes, people shouldn't purchase puppies if they feel sorry for them or are concerned about their surroundings.....but if they pay money for a puppy then they have rights under the law and can use those rights.  If somebody is selling a puppy then one would expect that puppy to be "fit for purpose".  If the puppy is not fit to be a pet then there are laws protecting the consumer.

I would have expected good honest breeders to be behind such a project and am saddened that some have made judgements on me personally, due to my indepth understanding of the real problems in dog breeding today.  We can all pretend its not happening and we can all hit back at those who are trying to make a difference....but the difference starts with you!  Telling somebody that they just have to accept a sick puppy and put it down to experience is absolutely wrong....  That is not the advice that should be given out.....because it is not true!  Everybody has a right under Consumer Law to expect a puppy that is free from defect - and if they buy a puppy that is not free from defect then the law is quite clear....the consumer can return the puppy and  claim a full refund......or......they can keep the puppy and pay for all the necessary veterinary care and claim that from the breeder.  The latter is called "damages" and, because puppies are not washing machines, fridge freezers etc., then the law accepts the emotional bond and attachment that goes along with purchasing a puppy.  Sections 13 and 14 of SOGA make that quite clear.  In addition, Section 48 of SOGA refers to the fact that if defects occur within the first 6 months then it can be assumed that the defect was there at purchase and the same rules apply. 

I've seen some terrible contracts drawn up by breeders in an attempt to protect themselves.  Clauses such as the owner not being allowed to discuss the puppy's health with any other breeder - or 12 month hereditary guarantees - that give less protection that SOGA 1979. 

Dog breeding is sadly an industry that is unregulated and the reason I would like to see health, welfare taken from the KC is due to the conflict of interest in relation to registrations and health.  Registrations bring in money; health may reduce registrations so there is a conflict of interest.  I think perhaps the quote identified above has not given my perspective clearly.  For the record, I would like to see all health and welfare issues taken from the KC.  The registrations can stay with the KC but they will require to work under the rules and regulations of an "independent" body that deals with health and welfare issues.  I don't know who that would be .... but it will be a start.  I know of some rare breeds in the UK whose whole foundation is built on stock with serious eye problems.....  That is not the best thing for any breed and this needs to change asap.

Sick Puppy Helpline.

I suspect I share a lot of common ground with your views/aims.  I must, however, take issue with one point admittedly it a very small point but important in my view. I would argue that the majority of breeders who register there puppies with the KC and are active on the dog scene (not just breeding for profit etc) ARE honest.
I am happy to be corrected if you have evidence to the contrary. Sorry to pick up on this one point when I realise there are many of more importance to dogs but the responsible amongst us take enough of a bashing from the "tar them all brigade" so I am probably over sensitive! :-)
Jeff. 

I absolutely agree on that point.  I do think that most breeders who have a true love of a breed are honest.....but there are just as many who aren't and there is no way of telling if the pedigree you have is correct because the KC do no checks to verify parentage.  The whole thing about Sick Puppy Helpline is to give advice to purchasers who fall foul of the unscrupulous breeders who breed for profit.  I am sure that the ethical breeders who are members of this forum will agree that there are lots of them out there....and they do still register with the KC.  Sadly, KC registration is not a sign of quality.....unregistered is even worse on occasions.

Sick Puppy Helpline is not here to resolve disputes with breeders on incidentals.  Sick Puppy Helpline is here to help those who purchase puppies with serious health issues and have nowhere to turn.  It's hoped that if BYBs and disreputable breeders find dog breeding is uneconomical they will stop.  That's a huge "hope" by the way!  That said, at least its a start!

There are many excellent dog breeders who do everything above and beyond the call of duty.  Something needs to be done to differentiate them from the others who couldn't care less where their puppies go or if they become very sick.

I hope members realise there is no "hidden agenda"....just a starting point to try and make some changes to the current situation.  

Sick Puppy Helpline

> do think that most breeders who have a true love of a breed are honest.....but there are just as many who aren't

There you go again :)  You can't have MOST are honest and just as many who aren't.  I would also like to say I can remember cases when the KC have taken steps over misrepresented pedigrees.

> KC registration is not a sign of quality.....unregistered is even worse on occasions.

Now this is where you really should be using the word most :)

Thanks for clarifying.
I would hope that soon a KC reg will mean what many of us want it to mean - absolute quality and integrity - and maybe the change in its status will enable it to do just that. In the meantime we must ALL "fight the good fight"!
I recognise the good work the KC does and at the same time also recognise how much more it needs to do, hopefully with us ALL pulling together this will be achieved.
The following comment is not directed at you in any away but I think bears making.
Generally speaking I have noticed that many high profile people/organisations are either pro or anti KC. I take the view that we should applaud and support the good work the KC do but this should in no way prevent us from criticising them in areas where they need to "up their game". I worry that the apparent inability shown to take such a measured approach suggests a blinkered view at the top of these organisations which is no good to anyone east of all our dogs.
Jeff. 

> They don't want to know about authenticating pedigrees because it would be too much trouble. That goes for all the other registration bodies too.

Not ALL of them :-)  The International Silken Windhound Society, the parent body for Silken Windhounds requires all breeding silkens to be DNA tested, so yes I do know my dogs ancestry for sure and I can prove it :-)

>there is no way of telling if the pedigree you have is correct because the KC do no checks to verify parentage

This is where doing your homework and getting to know your chosen breed and the breeders makes a huge difference, once you've done this you are more likely to know whether the dogs in the pedigree are as stated.

This all boils down to Joe Public wanting to buy a pup like they would buy a bag of apples and with as little thought given to the process.   If they weren't so lazy/selfish they would have more chance of getting a decently bred healthy pup.  Yet responsible breeders are supposedly to blame?

I've lost count of the number of people I have given advice to about buying a pup, including putting them in touch with the breed clubs and puppy register and also finding responsible caring breeders with a litter available, not one of those people went on to buy a well-bred pup.  They all went on to buy what I would call a "rubbish bred" pup.   Excuses given - "they were too expensive"  "they were too far away" (this was rubbish as the well-bred pups were actually closer)  "They weren't ready on the right day" etc.  

The BIGGEST reason puppy farmers are able to sell sick puppies is that most buyers make the decision and want a pup >today< they don't want to travel for it and they don't want to pay the price of a well bred pup, they want a cheap one.  Then they want to shift the blame when it inevitable goes wrong and WE get the bad press!

To quote Brainless as she put it so well -

It's like saying the pirate copies of a well known product are the same as the original, and that the makers of the original should be responsible for the poor quality of the knock offs.

>It's hoped that if BYBs and disreputable breeders find dog breeding is uneconomical they will stop.
>Something needs to be done to differentiate them from the others who couldn't care less where their puppies go or if they become very sick.

This is what we try to do on Champdogs and in our lives - educate people.   But if they refuse to listen, then they have only themselves to blame.

I have a family member who had a dog that barely resembled the breed they thought they were buying, the breed is one which is robust and rarely has any health issues.  They bought from a puppy farmer, they knew what they were doing as soon as they saw the place where they bought the pup.  Not surprisingly, they had a dog that was never really well and cost them a fortune in vets bill before dying at a much younger age than would be expected for the breed.   After some time they asked me to help them find a puppy that was healthy and well bred so I spent weeks researching breeders, putting them in touch with the breed clubs and even finding them several litters within easy travel distance.  Then I heard nothing for a few months, when I met them out with a scrap of fur on a lead they had bought from a person who "doesn't really breed" just has a litter now and then.   

You really can't save people from themselves and I have come to the conclusion that life is too short to spend my time trying.

What does it cost to test and register a litter, Chaumsong? 
I am not against the whole idea if it seemed necessary but a better option would be to only buy a puppy from a reputable breeder where the odds are very much in favour of getting what you think you are getting.
I seem to have cross posted with Dill with similar thoughts :)

> What does it cost to test and register a litter, Chaumsong?

If DNA testing an adult before breeding it's $38, for a litter is $33 each, (dollars as the test are all done, and records held, at a lab in the USA) then registration fees on top which are in line with our KC.

This from the ISWS...

The purpose of the ISWS Registry is to preserve the integrity of the Silken Windhound breeding records and to establish a canine DNA database with DNA profiles for the purposes of parent verification, individual genetic identity, and to identify dogs that may contribute chromosomal abnormalities to their offspring and to document the results in the ISWS Health Registry.

Breeders must DNA test every dog to verify its parentage prior to breeding.  If the breeder disregards this DNA testing requirement, the offspring will not be eligible for registration until the breeder complies with the regulation.

Sadly, all unregistered offspring will not only be lost to the breed, but the ISWS will also not consider them purebred Silkens.

Just to add, the breeder doesn't have to have the litter DNA tested, although many will if one parent was a carrier say for MDR1. If you buy a pup that wasn't DNA tested then you would have to get it done before breeding, so that $38 dollars would be added to the cost of any other pre-breeding health tests, it's not a huge amount and of course you already know that it's parents were dna verified too.

As well as proving parentage it also guarantees the health test status of the parents/grandparents and generations further back. It's all very well having a copy of a hip certificate but if you don't know for sure that the owner of that certificate was the father of the litter you haven't gained anything.

I like the system and think it is one that our KC could adopt.

I believe I am correct in saying the KC now offers this facility as well. Of course it is by no means compulsory -yet.
Jeff.

> Of course it is by no means compulsory -yet.

For it to be of any worth it has to be compulsory IMO, how great would it be in 20 years time to look at a 5 generation pedigree and know for an absolute certainty that those dogs are  actually your dogs ancestors and that their health tests etc are all verified. It would mean that puppy farmers and bybs couldn't register just any dog as a sire or even dam of a litter, as a way of getting around maximum litter number rules.

>If the puppy is not fit to be a pet then there are laws protecting the consumer.

Just thinking out loud here, but how would one define "not fit to be a pet"? It could be argued that if a pet is merely a companion animal, then it would surely only be temperament issues (aggression or extreme timidity) that would make it 'not fit for purpose'?