>I am referring to the AB scheme only, aren't those the general K.C. rules for registering dogs????? They aren't specific to the AB scheme are they?

The AB requirement is "*Follow Kennel Club policy regarding maximum age and number/frequency of litters". There is no extra limitation for ABs.

> To be strictly accurate, it says that the bitch must not have reached the age of 8 years - so that means she must not be over 7.

Forgive me for being blonde, but if it states the bitch must not have reached 8 years at the time the puppies are whelped then that means you could mate the bitch at 7years 9months and her give birth at 7years 11 months, just under 8 but very over 7, oh i hope that made sense!!! :)

>Six litters is far too many imho for some breeds.

Yes, but in other breeds, which might have tiny litters of two or three puppies, it's a different matter. KC rules are written to apply to all breeds, not individual ones.

Why do people keep stating the obvious. I said 'for some breed's'. I am well aware the rules are written to apply to all breeds which is why I said that I do not realistically believe you can make one rule fit all....not in an animal that has such a huge diversity in it's sizes, lifespans , litter sizes etc.

>that means you could mate the bitch at 7years 9months and her give birth at 7years 11 months, just under 8 but very over 7,

No, she's still 7 until her 8th birthday.

You can't be 'very over' 7 - you can be under 7 (ie 0 - 6 years), 7 or over 7 (ie 8 and upwards).

>I am referring to the AB scheme only, aren't those the general K.C. rules for registering dogs????? They aren't specific to the AB scheme are they?

The AB requirement is "*Follow Kennel Club policy regarding maximum age and number/frequency of litters". There is no extra limitation for ABs.

Based on this please explain your case 'for' the AB scheme? Why should a breeder want to join the scheme? What is in it for them?

> Yes, but in other breeds, which might have tiny litters of two or three puppies, it's a different matter. KC rules are written to apply to all breeds, not individual ones.

:( and maybe amongst other things, that is something that needs looking at.  Breed standards are produced for all the individual breeds - so why not breeding recommendations / guidelines / rules?

I do have to say I can see in some instances where the OP is coming from - because basically there is nothing to distinguish Accredited Breeders from anyone KC registering their pups.

All my dogs potentially used for breeding are hip and elbow scored, PRA tested, CNM tested and have annual eye tests - the scheme for my breed currently only mandates hip scoring and eye certificates - most responsible ethical breeders do most or all of these tests on their dogs - irrespective of whether they are Accredited Breeders.   

I am part of the scheme because I believe people need to get behind the KC (it's not perfect, "but the grass isn't always greener" springs to mind as welll - but I do believe there is considerable scope for improvement and features that could distinguish between the various steps breeders take.

Jan, i am having a very blonde day, i read it three times until it sank in LOL
I am off to get some black hair dye, see if that will help :)

> Isabel I am referring to the AB scheme only, aren't those the general K.C. rules for registering dogs????? They aren't specific to the AB scheme are they?

No, but they do apply and AB breeders are not exempt.

The KC either believe it is not detrimental to a bitch to apply these rules or they don't so I don't see how it can possibly apply different ones to their registration requirements and to the ABS.
The ABS has other rules and recommendations in place and these alone, I would have thought, would make it extremely difficult for a breeder not to observe the code that requires them "not to breed from a dog or bitch which could be in any way harmful to the dog or to the breed" and still get adequate feedback from their buyers.
It may be better if there were more specific requirements for each individual breed but competent breeders should also have the acknowledgement that they have the ability to determine what is suitable for their individual bitch.

> What is in it for them?

Nothing really for a ethical breeder with a good reputation.  It is all about supporting a scheme that sets a minimum standard for good breeding practice across the board. 

Yes, but in other breeds, which might have tiny litters of two or three puppies, it's a different matter. KC rules are written to apply to all breeds, not individual ones.

Hands up any toy breeder who thinks six litters would be okay even if the bitch had only one pup per litter? I definitely would not, and I don't know anyone who would. It's not just raising a litter that takes it out of them, it's being pregnant as well. Likewise I also don't think any bitch regardless of breed should be bred from before the age of 2 -there is simply no reason. A toy bitch can be just as immature as a large breed bitch aged one. I.e. I can't see how it could be a problem for the KC to change the rules to 2 years of age (or at least 18 months!) and 3 or 4 litters.

I think toy breeds may not be the best example as they are at the other ends of the extremes but I could see a modestly sized bitch having small litters taking this number in her stride.  I don't think it would do a lot for her figure :-) but see no reason why it would be a drain on her general health.  I don't believe all breeds need to be 2 years old either. 

It may be better if there were more specific requirements for each individual breed but competent breeders should also have the acknowledgement that they have the ability to determine what is suitable for their individual bitch.

Your comment 'but competent breeders should also have the acknowledgement that they have the ability to determine what is suitable etc
So what are your views on the fact that the K.C. accepts people who have never bred a litter in their lives to join the scheme? Doesn't that make a mockery of the very title 'Accredited 'Breeder'?
Here is another huge problem I have with scheme. Anyone can join, it's not an exclusive club, well it is I suppose but really anyone can join :S

> So what are your views on the fact that the K.C. accepts people who have never bred a litter in their lives to join the scheme? Doesn't that make a mockery of the very title 'Accredited 'Breeder'?
>

Not if you stop thinking of it as a reward for previous practice but as an aspiration to good practice in the future.  If you are going to set minimum standards it is entirely logical that you would want people to conform to that from their very first litter.

> it's not an exclusive club, well it is I suppose but really anyone can join

It is not about elitism.   

> IMO back to back matings are for no other reason than money!

How do you prove back to back matings? One bitch may come in season when her pups are 4 months old, another not until they are nine or ten months. So a second litter nearly a year after the first might still be 'back to back' - and therefore not allowed.

Similarly if a bitch has a second litter on the second season after the first, they could be born 11 months apart. If you say it HAS to be a year between litters, that would not be allowed. And what if it would have been a year, but the bitch whelped a few days early? What does the breeder do? Lie about the date of birth???

There IS no 'one size fits all' - it has to be a guide to best practice.

> It may be better if there were more specific requirements for each individual breed but competent breeders should also have the acknowledgement that they have the ability to determine what is suitable for their individual bitch.

But that is an issue isn't it?  I have to say, currently planning my third litter (three in three years from two different bitches) - I was in two minds about joining - as I didn't feel I had enough experience but was convinced by a well reasoned arguement for it.  However,

there are people joining who have never had a litter - now some of these may well have many years experience owning, showing or working dogs - and have supported others in having litters - my whole life up to 18 revolved around dogs personally and professionally - but on getting my oldest girl, I had been dog free for around 15 years because my lifestyle simply didn't suit owning any pets - but that still makes me very much a novice compared to some people.

Joining the scheme as a complete novice, really doesn't tally with the label 'Accredited Breeder' :(

> Joining the scheme as a complete novice, really doesn't tally with the label 'Accredited Breeder'

You perhaps have not read my comment above on that point yet :-)
I think a lot of people struggled with the concept that this was not introduced as a reward for past practices, perhaps it is showing that makes us look for these things ;-), which is why the KC added the accolades.

> You perhaps have not read my comment above on that point yet :-)
>

I did - but not until after my post - and in fairness your comments were closely in line with the arguments that ultimately persuaded me to give the scheme serious consideration.

BUT - conversely, and it probably makes a mockery of what I said above, the 'over' 5 litters wording could be construed by some as a good enough reason for churning out litter after litter to obtain that accolade :(

> Hands up any toy breeder who thinks six litters would be okay even if the bitch had only one pup per litter? I definitely would not, and I don't know anyone who would. It's not just raising a litter that takes it out of them, it's being pregnant as well. Likewise I also don't think any bitch regardless of breed should be bred from before the age of 2 -there is simply no reason. A toy bitch can be just as immature as a large breed bitch aged one. I.e. I can't see how it could be a problem for the KC to change the rules to 2 years of age (or at least 18 months!) and 3 or 4 litters.

Oh i am glad i am not on my own here :)

I really believe it should be 18 months minimum age too as i also believe that small breeds may be physically mature at 12 months but many are probably not mentally mature and i agree 4 litters is enough for any bitch.

> Oh i am glad i am not on my own here :-)

No - you're not - I did say in one of my original posts that I thought it would be too much for most breeds.  Apart from anything else, the poor bitch would be spending the best years of her life either pregnant, raising litters or recovering :(

> the 'over' 5 litters wording could be construed by some as a good enough reason for churning out litter after litter to obtain that accolade

If you read what the KC had to say about why they felt they had to introduce that one, you will see they can't really win can they? :-)

> are probably not mentally mature

I have idea what people mean when they say that.  In my experience whatever character traits the bitch has before a litter she will revert to.  One of the reasons I would say to someone don't bother breeding a litter to "settle" a bitch.

> the poor bitch would be spending the best years of her life either pregnant, raising litters or recovering

You make it sound like an illness :-)

> Not if you stop thinking of it as a reward for previous practice but as an aspiration to good practice in the future.  If you are going to set minimum standards it is entirely logical that you would want people to conform to that from their very first litter.
>

i still cannot understand why these recommendations and rules cannot apply to all KC registrations. the KC is a private members club and can set what requirements they want. so what if breeders leave and join other registries, if every pup ever registered with the KC meets the highest breeding standards then a kc registration really would be the mark of reccommendation and quality it is supposed to be.

> It is not about elitism

it should be- not elitism as the offensive concept but elitism in that the product of such breedings should be the best of the best and anyone who does not meet that standard should be excluded. whats the matter with saying your better if you really are? isabel you are a better breeder than someone who fails to health test, provide breeder support etc and so i would consider you one of the elite, whats wrong with advertising that? it would give buyers an obvious standard to aim for and those who did not register a benchmark to be judged against.

> You make it sound like an illness :-)

so do most of the pregnant people i know lol :)

> You make it sound like an illness :-)

Not an illness no - but you can't tell me that a bitch carrying around possibly 8+ pups doesn't put strain on her - as does whelping and raising a litter - not to mention the associated risks with pregnancy and whelping.

Doing this 6 times in a bitch's lifetime, in our breed where the average litter size is 8 HAS to be unfair on it.  I can recall one bitch who had 5 litters year on year where the lowest number was 10 - so no, not an illness, but stress, strain and risks - yes

> i still cannot understand why these recommendations and rules cannot apply to all KC registrations. the KC is a private members club and can set what requirements they want.

In an ideal world.................unfortunately the KC feel people would continue to breed but without them which in turn would disempower the KC which in turn would lower the standards of dog breeding........and so on.

>> a better breeder than someone who fails to health test, provide breeder support etc and so i would consider you one of the elite, whats wrong with advertising that?

Health screening and breeder support are incorporated in the scheme and if you do more there is nothing to stop you announcing it :-)

> Doing this 6 times in a bitch's lifetime, in our breed where the average litter size is 8 HAS to be unfair on it.

I agree and I would think a breeder doing such a thing would struggle to meet the other requirements of the scheme but with my modestly sized breed that generally has very modestly sized litter I really would not expect them to struggle with the pregnancy other than the last few days possibly and show very little strain in nursing them.  Certainly mine didn't.

> In an ideal world.................unfortunately the KC feel people would continue to breed but without them which in turn would disempower the KC which in turn would lower the standards of dog breeding........and so on.
>
>

but it wouldn't, it would empower the kc and return their endorcement to a badge of honour. people believe now that the kc don't care about the health of dogs, a kc registration is very easy to get, its not a mark of quality.

and what does it matter if people continue to breed with the kc or without them if the kc don't do anything to improve things for the dogs? the only difference is that the kc get some money for it and the 'breeders' get a piece of paper and some sliver of legitimacy. the kc has lost much of its respect and most of its moral authority simply because they refuse to intervene and force improvements. they are not setting a standard to lower!

kc registration should mean something and you should not need an extra scheme within the club to show you are a good breeder.

> and what does it matter if people continue to breed with the kc or without them if the kc don't do anything to improve things for the dogs?

What are you talking about?  The Kennel Club is a non profit organisation and every penny they make is spent on bettering standards and the lives that dogs lead. 
The KC have no power but they do have a reputation and this is what they have to work with.  How they choice to do that we could argue about all night but I would not question that they are doing it with the very best of intentions and I suspect they know their client base a little better than you do, Astarte.

> What are you talking about?  The Kennel Club is a non profit organisation and every penny they make is spent on bettering standards and the lives that dogs lead. 
>

i am talking about their decision to not enforce standards amoung their members that they are within their power to require. i understand the argument they make but i belive its a cop out. they argued for long enough that a change to the standards would be problematic but did it quickly enough when the proverbial hit the fan- and yes they were investigating it prior to the nonsence program but you cannot deny it kicked them up a notch.

i am perfectly aware that the kc are non profit and that any gains they make are invested back in the dogs but how is it logical to invest in the research into health conditions and then not require your members to use them?

the kc do not "have no power" they have power over their own rules and regulations but choose not to use it and they have a reputation that is crumbling in the face of that. i am not anti kc, i often defend them against critisism but they could provide leadership when it comes to these issues and instead they choose to hang back and placate people.

Welcome Defra then if you think the KC have such a poor understanding of the feasability of applying tighter restrictions without any statutory powers as without support that is what you are likely to get.  Or the RSPCA.

i don't think the kc have a poor understanding of it, i think they are simply choosing not to act. and i would not welcome defra or the rspca's involvement, what business is it of theres how a private club runs? isabel it is possible to still support the kc but not think they are correct in all of their actions. i'm entitled to the view that they have the traditional respect, the membership and the moral requirement to promote the best welfare standards possible. thats not currently done.

honestly do you think that there should be a two tier system of just kc registering and being an accredited breeder? i'd like all kc membership to mean your an accredited breeder and see the support such a scheme needs to stop it being toothless.

Personally, I think the KC needs to appoint a really good "spin doctor"!!

> Breed standards are produced for all the individual breeds - so why not breeding recommendations / guidelines / rules?
>

That is what breed club codes of ethics should address.  the KC asked breed clubs to do this years ago.

My own breed requires that bitches do not whelp under two years (had first litter by five), have no more than 4 litters.

Breeding stock must be hip scored, currently eye tested, DNA tested for prcd-PRA, and it is advised they are kidney function tested.

Under the ABS only hip scoring and eye testing are required over an above the normal KC registration rules.

Doing this 6 times in a bitch's lifetime, in our breed where the average litter size is 8 HAS to be unfair on it.  I can recall one bitch who had 5 litters year on year where the lowest number was 10 - so no, not an illness, but stress, strain and risks - yes

Exactly. And may I ask here how many people who don't see a problem has HAD a bitch that has had several litters? Did you not notice a difference between litters? I've got one who had 3 litters and for a start it took her MUCH longer to recover from the third, despite it being the smallest with just 6 pups compared to 10 and 9.

> That is what breed club codes of ethics should address.  the KC asked breed clubs to do this years ago.

I take your point - unfortunately - a lot of novice breeders may not belong to a breed club(s) - my relationships have developed with clubs through showing - is it something that the KC drive from their side?

>That is what breed club codes of ethics should address.  the KC asked breed clubs to do this years ago.

My own breed requires that bitches do not whelp under two years (had first litter by five), have no more than 4 litters.

Breeding stock must be hip scored, currently eye tested, DNA tested for prcd-PRA, and it is advised they are kidney function tested.

Under the ABS only hip scoring and eye testing are required over an above the normal KC registration rules.

That is it in a nutshell. This means that potentially someone who has not even bred a litter of your breed, could join the scheme, not follow your breed club code of ethics and slap the AB logo on their literature/website etc, and to the general public look like they have the highest stamp of approval from the KC.

> Breed standards are produced for all the individual breeds - so why not breeding recommendations / guidelines / rules?

That's why ABs are strongly encouraged to "Follow relevant breed health screening recommendations."

>potentially someone who has not even bred a litter of your breed, could join the scheme, not follow your breed club code of ethics and slap the AB logo on their literature/website etc, and to the general public look like they have the highest stamp of approval from the KC.

But if they follow the ABS requirements and recommendations they'll still be 'better' than many other breeders who might have been breeding for years, even if it's their first-ever litter.

>strongly encouraged>

Strongly encouraged is not enough it should be made a requirement not a recommendation imho. Strongly encouraged means nothing.

>they'll still be 'better' than many other breeders who might have been breeding for years>

Possibly but I would love to see the figures for the health tests done for a particular breed from Accredited Breeders and non AB. I would bet the non AB would have done far more tests than the AB, and if they have done so why would they need to join the scheme? This is the feedback I am getting. Also whilst some breeders are going out of their way to follow the AB guidelines some are doing the very bare minimum just to get the AB backing.

>But if they follow the ABS requirements and recommendations >

There is no requirement to follow the recommendations, they are not enforceable,  so that still means they end up doing the bare minimum.

>I would love to see the figures for the health tests done for a particular breed from Accredited Breeders and non AB. I would bet the non AB would have done far more tests than the AB,

I would think quite the opposite - in fact I know for certain of several breeders in my breed (not club members) who do zero testing, whereas club members often do more than the AB recommendations. Club recommendations are different to AB ones!

>There is no requirement to follow the recommendations, they are not enforceable,  so that still means they end up doing the bare minimum.

That's where a breeder's ethics come in. The bare minimum is still better than nothing, of course!

> And may I ask here how many people who don't see a problem has HAD a bitch that has had several litters? Did you not notice a difference between litters?

Yes and no :-)  Sailed through all three and looked good as new by the time they left.  Didn't even loose her coat.  Much smaller litters than yours though.

> I take your point - unfortunately - a lot of novice breeders may not belong to a breed club(s) - my relationships have developed with clubs through showing - is it something that the KC drive from their side?

They do recognise club membership in their accolades which ought to encourage people to involve themselves with the clubs and for purchasers to realise that this is something else desirable when looking for a puppy.

> This means that potentially someone who has not even bred a litter of your breed, could join the scheme, not follow your breed club code of ethics and slap the AB logo on their literature/website etc, and to the general public look like they have the highest stamp of approval from the KC.

They could just breed and not bother even meeting the minimum standards set by the ABS in fact they could breed and register with the Dog Adorers Registration List or any other trumped up puppy supermarket registry.

> I would bet the non AB would have done far more tests than the AB,

That may not always be the case,I had a lovely lady enquire about one of my puppies and although I had to disapoint her,I had a lovely chat with her explaining about the health checks that she should be asking about and she told me several people she had rang did not even know about hip scoring much less anything else.

> Possibly but I would love to see the figures for the health tests done for a particular breed from Accredited Breeders and non AB. I would bet the non AB would have done far more tests than the AB, and if they have done so why would they need to join the scheme?

You don't need to join the scheme to have high standards.  You join the scheme to show your support for raised standards generally.
My own breed currently has 10 ABS breeders advertising litters of those 7 are Breed Club members so presumably already conform to the standards set there.  Personally, I doubt very much the obscure names further down the list outside the scheme could show 70% health screening up to breed club standard amongst their numbers.