Yes, I do know trail hounds that live without bedding on a ledge in a well built kennel.  Like you say that is just hearsay and you have no reason to accept it :).

>Personally, I think you are sitting on the fence with this one.

Yes, I am, it is not appropriate for every bitch of every breed but I can see circumstances where people should be allowed to consider it.  From my experience I see no physical reason why some bitches would not cope with this perfectly well.  I am not, however on the side of any fence that says the Kennel Club rules should over ride the Breed Club recommendations.  I have already pointed out that Breed Clubs will be able to advise more specifically.  The Cocker Club does not limit it to numbers just advises breeding is not conducted "without consideration to the well-being of the bitch".  They permit breeding from 1 year old.   I seem to remember the code for the Dandies is very similar but they do not print it in their Year Book and the Website is under reconstruction at the mo.  The Dandie is a threatened breed though and has very small litters.   If a member had a bitch producing healthy puppies and maintaining good health herself I would imagine these are just the sort of circumstance where this might be considered.

>as the general public may read it and think it is ok to breed from their pet bitch, or whatever the subject happens to be.

Not if they read what I am saying properly :)

>'some people think it a crime not to let a dog live indoors' or however you worded it, do not need to justify their point either.

I think they do if they want to claim people who don't are being cruel.  The person who decides to keep their dogs outside is not making similar statements of cruelty about those that have their dogs indoors.

I think a dog living indoors may not have any need for bedding (carpets are warm) and it is heated, but certainly outdoor dogs would need bedding, if not blankets, Vet Beds then straw or shredded paper etc.

As to the issue of kennelling.  I would hazard a guess that most people that have kennels use them to rotate dogs, for somewhere to put them when they need temporary separating, room for a litter to play (not everyone has sufficient space in the house for this full time).

I too would find it odd for anyone never to have the dogs in for company, but then again working slogs would spend a lot of time with their owner/handler anyway so both would be happy for a bit of time to themselves.

Well val, as far as I can see then, KC acrd breeder means little more than just KC reg if the Kc allow them to continue using a bitch that requires medication, and dogs kept in such awful circumstances. So much for it being a good breeder, a good breeder not only produces good puppies, from health tested parents, but has good results for these tests, and keeps ALL the dogs they own in excellent circumstances. They also breed from dogs in the best of health, and that means not requiring medication to be healthy. These dogs may well be fed and cleaned out, but there is far more to it than that. Dogs cold and shivering in cold conditions, without even a bedding to curl up on to try to find some heat, what about their joints on hard floors? These people, or anyone who keeps their dogs in this way, are deplorable, and no better than puppy farmers themselves, regardless of being club members, show people etc.......This really makes me angry.

What is the point in reporting it ?? The KC are just interested in making money........... nothing else.

Tried it, got a carefully worded ''we are not interested'' response..... in two situations far worse than the one Val is referring too......... :-(

Gabrielle

It is impossible for us to judge on hearsay, though :)

It is impossible for us to judge on hearsay, though 

What does that mean ?? I had seen the situation for myself.......
Short of getting the KC out to look for themselves, what else do you suggest I should have done ??

The RSPCA weren't bothered, the local council weren't bothered as the offending person worked for them.......

Gabrielle x

>What does that mean ?? I had seen the situation for myself.......

You have, we haven't.  That is hearsay :)

Well pardon me for posting...........:rolleyes:

I didn't ask you to comment....... I just said there is no point in getting the KC involved because they won't do anything........

Silly me for thinking this was a board where someone could reply to someone elses post.......or at least it used to be...

Gabrielle

Of course you can post :) but I can also post to say I am sorry but I don't feel in a position to judge.

You just don't get it do you........

I didn't ASK you to judge.......... If you feel that strongly in your 'position', just don't reply at all......... This started off as a really interesting debate :( ......

Time to go and spend quality time with the dogs I think :rolleyes:.....

Gabrielle

I don't see why we can't continue to debate points but I don't think we can reasonably base any discussion around events that we have no way of examining ourselves.

In that case Isabel, there is absolutly no point in a forum then, because everything is hearsay as none of us have actually seen whatever circumstance, situation, health problem or whatever, that is being discussed. So why get involved in the first place

The vast majority of posts have not offered hearsay at all but have led to meaningful discussion.  If people want to offer anecdotes fine but as they cannot really being affirmed or refuted I can't really see the value of them and I think it should be pointed out that nobody is in a position to respond fairly to the point raised by it one way or the other.

Right. So, when someone says 'a **** dog attacked mine, and I'm really angry what should I do' we are not supposed to reply because it could be hearsay. The lady who stopped with the injured dog at the side of the road, that was also hearsay, so should not have been responded to.:rolleyes: the poor lady with the westie puppy, that was hearsay, shouldn't have been responded too. :rolleyes: the list could go on............

Calmstorm,
              Your posts are a breath of fresh air...... knowledgable but to the point......... Just what this debate started out like !! :rolleyes:

Gabrielle

>So, when someone says 'a **** dog attacked mine, and I'm really angry what should I do' we are not supposed to reply because it could be hearsay. The lady who stopped with the injured dog at the side of the road, that was also hearsay, so should not have been responded to.

These are all things that can be rationally responded to with suggested courses of action.  As can a response of "please report this if you suspect any neglect or cruelty" regarding individual cases.  But when a particular incident is being used as a discussion point regarding a whole system or organisation it fails as nobody has the full information to confirm or refute it.  If someone offers the information from a court conviction or newspaper report, something like that, then it would be a different matter.

I know exactly your reasoning, Maria, but I don't think it's quite that easy to implement.

At the moment it costs a breeder £12 to register each puppy in a litter. The cost would certainly rise if fewer litters were registered because of the additional paperwork needed to check all the health results sent in - eye tests need to be done yearly, for example. How many fulltime staff would need to be employed to put the thousands of results that would need to be added to computer records annually? Their salaries would have to be paid for by the breeders.

I personally would like registration at least limited to offspring of animals who have been assessed as being good examples of their breed, whether in the showring, or field or working trials, or some similar independent assessment.

>I now understand KC registered isn't worth the paper it's printed on!

This gives the impression you're lumping the good, reputable breeders who do health test their animals and make sure they're good representatives of the breed, in with the puppy farmers. Don't risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater! ;)

>I personally would like registration at least limited to offspring of animals who have been assessed as being good examples of their breed, whether in the showring, or field or working trials, or some similar independent assessment.

I think that could be a good route to go as it is not just the "puppy farmer" ie the large producer that can ruin breeds but pet dog owners who, collectively, produce large numbers from inferior specimens.

This gives the impression you're lumping the good, reputable breeders who do health test their animals and make sure they're good representatives of the breed, in with the puppy farmers. Don't risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater! 

JG - The thing is though that the majority of the general public don't realise there is a difference between reputable and puppy farm/backyard breeders. KC registered to them means a sign of quality. All the time the KC hand out registration to puppies that come from all these sources then the KC are not doing any favours at all to the reputable breeders who do all the health tests etc. These breeders, who are financing the organisation, are being short changed by the KC and are in a good position to make their thoughts on the matter known to them. :)

but hip and eye tests are already added to a dogs record every time these tests are redone in the case of eyes and the results appear on the papers of the progeny.

I had to take copies of the Finnish eye and hip documents as proof they had been done for the sire of my latest litter, as only the Dams results appeared on the KC reg for pups, as they were doen overseas and they only include those done under the KC/BVA schemes.

>I now understand KC registered isn't worth the paper it's printed on!

This gives the impression you're lumping the good, reputable breeders who do health test their animals and make sure they're good representatives of the breed, in with the puppy farmers. Don't risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

Jg, this is the problem though, its the few bad apples that give the good, responsable breeders like yourself and many others in here a bad name. if only the KC cleaned its act up a bit, and made KC reg mean more than just words, it would be best for all. if the cost did rise, wouldn't that be worth it in the longrun? if parents could be guarenteed, if necessary health tests were carried out, and if the KC promoted this by their website and advertising, it would surely be a good thing for all concerned.

MariaC - I totally agree I had that perception of the KC as well. I thought it was along the lines of going to a Corgi registered gas fitter or an ABTA travel agent. The KC registered tag to me ( as an ordinary member of Joe Public and which I assume the majority of puppy purchasers are), meant that it was an indication that it was a pup from healthy, well bred stock and of a traceable lineage that was endorsed by the KC.

Again like you I have learnt differently since joining this forum. I am not daft, (IMHO :D) nor do I accept everything I am told at face value and part of my research into the consideration of purchasing a puppy led me to the KC website which gives the impression that a KC registered pup is the way to go. Following the links through buying a dog to sources of dogs I am unable to see anything that indicates that a KC registered dog is anything other than desirable but I now know differently. Is it any wonder then that some people may be put off buying a registered pup if, having bought one before and found it's health to be not as they would have expected from a KC dog, for their next dog they then buy from a different, cheaper source because, in their eyes, what is the point of paying a lot of money for a pet dog that is registered, but not health tested, when they can take the same chance with a puppy they have seen advertised in the paper?

Yes the general dog buying public does need to be educated into buying from healthy, well bred stock with great temperament but until the KC insist that every dog registered with them comes from parents with all those attributes it won't be easy to persuade the everyday pet dog purchaser that a pedigree pup is worth the money that was paid for it.

The general public see the KC - rightly or wrongly - as the experts and they should be leading by example :)

(I personally would like registration at least limited to offspring of animals who have been assessed as being good examples of their breed, whether in the showring, or field or working trials, or some similar independent assessment.)

I know I've said this before in previous posts on breeding but I don't think showing or competing in various disciplines IS necessary to produce a good, sound litter. I agree health testing is vitally important, as is temperament and raising a litter in the right environment. Most top breeders do show I know, but a lot keep their dogs in kennels and are only brought out for 'showing', they may be health-tested but in my eyes aren't raised in the correct environment. I would much rather buy a pup from a 'home-reared' litter that has good quality, health-tested parents than one raised in kennels.

I do think the KC should make health-testing much more of a requirement for registration, as someone previously said maybe a grading system?

I have bought kennel reared dogs and found them no different in character to those reared in the home.  Good breeders are going to use parents of the correct temperament and are going to ensure they are reared not to disadvantage that, after all it will be a requirement in successfull showing.  In fact my main breed has a very long history which I think you could safely say until very recent times has far more often than not been conducted with kennel based breeding, in large numbers too, and yet it has had a reputation in all that time of being a dog of good and sociable temperament.
I agree showing and competing (especially the competing aspect if you are not of a competative nature :) are not for every body but you will note that JG including the option of some other form of knowledgeable assessment.  At the end of the day, if the public are buying a Hoot Hound they want it not only to be happy and healthy they want to get a Hoot Hound for their money not something drifting away from the standard but the continuing use of non typical specimens

I know Isabel, one of my current dogs is the most sociable and easy going dog imaginable, and he was kennel bred, but what I was trying to say is there is more to breeding than just throwing together a pedigree dog and bitch of the same breed to produce pups that the KC would then register. A home bred litter could be of comparible quality to that of a show kennel bred dog, but ONLY if the home breeder knows what they are doing, you don't have to show/compete to be able to do that. I know a top breeder of a Champion bitch with a high hip score, that I would not have bred from, but this 'top' breeder has done so. As a "home breeder" that doesn't show and has only bred one litter in over 20 years as she was the only dog I considered met all the requirements healthwise, conformation and temperament-wise, who is the more responsible?

>A home bred litter could be of comparible quality to that of a show kennel bred dog, but ONLY if the home breeder knows what they are doing

Of course it could be possible but the trouble is, as we see from so many posters in the Breeding fora here, many believe they do know what they are doing but clearly don't.  The only way to be sure is to put your stock before independant assessment.

The high hips core in isolation does not make the other breeder irresponsible, as this is only one trait which is also not entirely hereditary.

If the animal was outstanding in all other departments, came from a line with good hips and was mated to a dog of excellent hip background and then the resulting pups are scored and only the best bred from, then they will have done more for the breed than someone mating two mediocre specimens with only good hips to commend them.

Knowledge and research would be what may have made it acceptable thing to do.  definitely not something a novice should contemplate as they are unlikely to have as much background info.

I know of a bitch who scored 32 yet produced low scoring offspring,a and one granddaughter who was only the second 0/0 score in the breed.  With the correct application of knowledge this individual was an asset to a breed with a small gene pool.

These are the kinds of judgements that have to be made so as not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

For example your decision to not breed from earlier dogs that may have not been outstanding, but worthy specimens in a numerically small breed may in fact have been detrimental to the gene pool.  It can be actually harmful to overuse the few outstanding individuals in a breed (popular sire syndrome), though poor specimens should never be used.  On the other hand if your not so good dogs are from bloodlines common in the breed and have better representatives then not breeding from them was a good thing.

Point taken Brainless. But where does that leave the "mandatory" health testing if you breed from a high hip scorer? Surely the offspring would not be eligible for registration because the parent had "failed" the health test. As has been said there is more to breeding than just throwing dogs together.

That is where I would say it is important that if we do have any mandatory requirement it is simply to test and not necessary to achieve any particular target.  That way the information is available to the purchaser but does not tie the hands of knowledgable breeders to utilise their stock appropriatly albeit with the necessity of perhaps explaining to purchasers what has been done and why.

Exactly, I suggested mandatory testing not what should be done with the results.  some things are clear cut and should definitely not be bred from, in other cases where no harm results to the offspring (using carriers where DNA testing is available) or making a judgement call when the trait is multi-factorial.

I would sooner buy a puppy from a parent with a highish score from generations of tested stock with good scores than buy a pup from a scored parent where there was no scoring behind.

As long as the tests have been done things are clear for all to see and you can choose for yourself.

Here, Here, I do agree,  Barbara!!

The kennel club would loose revenue, and these breeders would sign up with one of the other mickey mouse registries.

I suspect that if only litters from health tested parents were eligible for registration the KC might loose 90% of it's income.

So it still comes down to the general public learning to only want the real deal, and the KC ensuring that it is clear what people are getting.

So it still comes down to the general public learning to only want the real deal, and the KC ensuring that it is clear what people are getting

so someone has to make the general public aware, and if not the KC then who?  The general public just do not know there is anything to investigate when buying a puppy other than KC registration!

If the reputable breeders made a stand not to register with the KC until they got their act together then maybe something would be done, otherwise we will always have the puppy farms in my opinion.

Sorry it sounds so blunt and I realise it is not as black and white as that but I think you all know where I'm coming from?

I don't think boycotting an organisation that does a great deal for dogs and whose registration system remains far superior to any other would be of any benefit to anyone and infact would serve to give the public an even greater impression that it was of no value.
Defining puppy farming has always been dificult and I don't think it is realistic for anyone to expect the Kennel Club to be able to move beyond what the law allows people just because we don't like it.  I don't really think they can go further than they have by limiting the number of litters from a bitch etc.
Even insisting on mandatory health screening could be counterproductive if it limits gene pools and may even play into the hands of poor breeders who just happen to have got hold of a couple of specimens with very good scores.  I don't for a minute doubt the KC discuss these issues and continually look for more understanding.

A defeatest attitude?

I guess we'll just have to accept puppy farms then

A realistic attitude I would say :)
I think, at the end of the day, if people took half as much trouble into finding out about dogs and where to get a good one as they do with their motor vehicles the puppy farmers would be left with just the dross who unfortunately will always be around to support them and I certainly do feel defeatist about that :(

Kc reg remains superiour to whom? They will register any litter when the breeder submits a form stating that the parents names are KC reg. It doesnt even have to be proved in any way that these names are are actually the parents, it remains up to the honesty of the breeder, and even to my limited knowledge (so as not to print hearsay) there is at least one top int show judge and breeder of german shepards had his lines de-registered when it was proved he had commited fraud on the paperwork. (All over the dog press a few years ago) What is to stop someone taking their bitch to a good stud dog, but to ensure they have a litter, using their own dog too. Nothing, except the breeders honesty. What is to stop a breeder registering an extra couple of puppies, then as time goes by, using these 'ghost' puppies to stud or produce puppies, using other dogs or bitches. Absolutly nothing. There is NO guarentee, regardless of any breed club or Kc membership, or standing in the dog world, to prove the litter of puppies in front of you is actually sired or come from the dam whos names are on the Kc reg document, unless it has been proved via DNA that this is the case, and the puppies each DNA tested too. Then to be sure these dogs are the sire and dam, they would need identification to prove the ones shown to the client are actually the parents. The bitch that gave birth could be a poor specimin, or good but of awful nature, so a substitute is put in her place.

This may well describe a puppy farmer......who knows........could be ANYONE because there are no requirements in place from the KC to stop this. If all breeding stock had to be DNA profiled, and before the puppies were registered they had to be also, it may well stop a lot of breeding from suspect places, and make the Kc reg mean something. All breeds of dogs should be health checked, and a vet give a certificate of good health before mating takes place. This would mean the dogs are not on medication, they have no allergies etc, their heart and lungs are sound, no sexual disease shown, a certificate of good, general health at the time of, or before mating. Then I believe all dogs should have  whatever breed specific testing that is advised be carried out. If a high score or whatever, then the 5 generation pedigree should be checked, to see if a pattern is emerging, before allowing mating. The Kc could do so much more for dogs and owners, but if they did, they would lose a lot of money.

The public do not need a greater impression that the papers are of no value, if they knew the facts they could well make up their own minds. If they truely did their homework, as you so often suggest, then this would be obvious. It is realistic to expect the Kc to do more, because they are supposed to be guardians of the pedigree dog, their KC reg is supposed to make them elite, so they should go to greater lengths to ensure that it is. Poor breeders will always be there, but KC reg would mean far much more if mandatory health screening was in place, because then at least you would know you were buying from health tested parents, again making the Kc reg mean something. If this limits gene pools, so what? At least those substandard dogs will not be used to pass their faults on by dogs that carry the KC reg logo. If you don't doubt what the kc discuss thats fine, just don't expect me and countless others to agree, in here or out.

Interestingly enough this week in Our dogs is the report of a chihuahua breeder being punished by the KC for falsifying registrations.

If someoen has grounds to suspect that a dog is not of the parebtage purported it can be checked and action taken.

This has happened on numerous occasions.  I remember a case of a champion siberian who was supposed to be by AI turned out to be by the breeders own dog.  Whether this was a mixed litter or the AI didn't work, but it turned out her own dog mated the bitch after the AI was performed.  As the dog whose parentage was wrong was a champion it wasn't about his quality, ut about accuracy fo bloodline.

>Kc reg remains superiour to whom?

The A.N.Other registry, where the owner fills in all the details on the form with any name they want, send the money and get a certificate. No records are kept to 'Head Office' to check against. Try it - for a few pounds you can have a very pretty work of fiction that nobody can challenge, but fools the gullible. At least the KC holds records going back very many generations, and fabrications can be proven.

Just out of interest, what checks are made on a baby's parentage when the birth is registered nowadays? When I had mine the registrar didn't even need to see that the baby actually existed. If there's no way of stamping out human identity theft, with all the financial implications for innocent victims, how on earth is the KC expected to guarantee canine ID?

how on earth is the KC expected to guarantee canine ID?

I would imagine that it would not be easy but, if it was a mandatory thing that pups were tattooed before they were registered, and the identification mark was entered on their pedigree, it would be far easier to be able to check identity at a later date. As the instigators and administrators of the registration scheme I would have thought the KC are in the position , and have the obligation , to ensure that the registration is correct and deserved.

>if it was a mandatory thing that pups were tattooed before they were registered,

That situation would mean that in very many cases pups' registration wouldn't be though by the time they left for their new homes. It's bad enough making sure that the registration is through before the litter's hearing tested at 5 or 6 weeks.

how on earth is the KC expected to guarantee canine ID?

Simple the way the SV have stopped the falsifiying of their dogs used in their breeding records All puppies are tattooed & DNA profiled before being registered. This means the SV can check the DNA profiles of the parents & offspring to verify the pedigree & of course the stud dogs owner/ the bitch owner can check the tattoo for the bitch/dog to ensure they are the dogs the paperwork belongs to. The falsification of the GSD breeding were because there was at the time no DNA profiling done & the bitches taken to Germany were not tattooed as they were UK bred bitches. The events did not just involve Malcolm Griffiths but also two of the top German SV(both now deceased if memory serves me right)officials who were brothers ! The SV already had tatooing so linked this to DNA profiling to ensure that the "Griffiths"affair never happens again

With SV dogs the tattoo is there SV registration number

What sort of numbers are involved with the SV? (I confess to ignorance about the existence of the SV and what it even means! :o Could you explain please?)

The Accredited Breeder scheme does require DNA identification and appropriate health testing.  The fact that a few breeders have been bought to book shows the KC can and does take action against corruption.  Haven't seen any such action from any of the other registries so far :)  There is no doubt in my mind, whatever problems running such a large organisation and keeping in within the laws of fair trading whilst at the same time considering the welfare of the dogs presents, there is no other registry that can possibly be described as superior to the KC. 

The DNA profiling is for the parents (in fact only the bitch need be done) and not for the pups, so unless someone queried it and wanted to check the parentage the DNA profiling is of no practical value compared to getting the DNA samples from parents and pups at a later date. 

Only advantage I can see is that of course if there was a dispute one or other parent may no longer be available to test.

DNA profiling does not prove to the buyer that the pups are from the parents stated which I suspect people seeing that the parents are DNA profiled might think it did mean.

It is the Kennel clubs remit to educate the dog buying public, but they can hardly do so effectively if their registration system is open to the very people that should be avoided.

Boycotting by good breeders would not be much use either as I suspect we are in the minority anyway.

The Kennel Clubs stance is that they would rather educate the breeders from within rather than disenfranchise them and so have no influence over them. 

I just don't see what they are doing to ensure the puppy farmer and casual breeder do things better.

That leaves breeders like myself almost ashamed when asked, that I am a breeder, as I then have to explain what i MEAN BY THAT AND HOW i AM NOT THE SAME AS THOSE WHO CASUALLY PRODUCE PUPPIES PURELY FOR CASH.

I do health test my dogs, but what would people classify as the correct dog to breed from.

My Spanish import had a hipscore of excellent in Spain and myself and a couple of people have used him because of his look and character.  His BVA score is 41!!!  Still not agreed by my vet and a number of people who saw himbeing hip x-rayed in Spain.  I have to say that I'm more than happy with his pups that I've bred and up to now every single one has a lower than breed average hipscore!!  He has clear eyes which is also a good thing.

I think the problem with this is maybe only dogs with certain results would be allowed to be used and temperament, working ability may end up being lost.  I think we need to be very careful. 

By the end of this year at least myself and hopefully a couple of other people will be breeding from his first UK litter, so I look forward (hopefully) in 2009 finding out what his grandchildren produce in their health tests!! 

Hi,
A lot of Pet shops that buy off puppy farms could partly be stopped by D.N.A. testing with every reg. pup.
Ethics, one litter reg. a year can be reg with the KC. off a bitch. At least the poor bitch that is breed from every season from 6 months old untill 12years. then could be stopped. Locked in a kennel some were.
To supply pet shops. Until D.N.A. is standard how do you know if the ped. is right off any breeder?
I think lets first make sure the pups we buy are from the dogs on the ped.
Regards
Denese 

>Ethics, one litter reg. a year can be reg with the KC. off a bitch. At least the poor bitch that is breed from every season from 6 months old untill 12years

They did limit it to one litter a year at one point but changed it to allow small breeders to go back to two which I think was fair as a caring breeder can reasonably decide that a bitch that has, perhaps, a small litter almost a year ago could manage perfectly well during her prime.  They don't allow registration, generally, beyond 8 years certainly not up to 12 years.  Of course puppy farmers just register the litters that fall within the permitted quantities.
The Accredited Breeder scheme now requires DNA identification of stock I understand.

I think all health tests for breeds should be mandatory ,,,,

If you love your breed whats the problem?