branched from here

> I doubt it has been deleted, just removed for editing as something inflammatory may have been posted, probably about the alternative registries who get very stroppy about their businesses being 'maligned' ;-)  they have been know to threaten posters and champdogs with legal action.

Yep know exactly what you mean as I have found out when Our Dogs printed a story about a puppy retail outlet selling dogs registered by a well known puppy farmer who used an alternative register.

Perhaps what might have been a better topic would be "what if the KC did not and had never existed?"
There is much more to that topic...
Who would run things?
How could we really know the breeding of our much loved pets?
Would the BVA health schemes be set up?
Would the charities who are given funding get funding elsewhere? (i.e. small rescue societies getting funding for new kennels or larger charities getting donations like the RSPCA did in 2008 they got £48,000 from the KC)
Would we have shows, field trials, working trials, agility and obedience competitions?
Would we have so many shows, field trials, working trials, agility and obedience competitions all with their own rule books that we would need a library to store them all?
If a register was set up by anybody who fancied they would like to try to regulate things would you join it?
Would it donate all the excess monies it raised to health research or charities?
And more importantly while thinking of the two above points would you TRUST them to do it honestly?
The complaint that ABS is not policed strongly enough, if it and the KC did not exist who would police all these other registers, event organisers etc?

Would [an alternative to the KC] it donate all the excess monies it raised to health research or charities?

Polly, do you know how much of its £10m-£11m a year income the KC donates to charity?

Jemima

Yes why?

I only own Border Collies and would far rather have an ISDS registered dog than a KC registered dog. In my breed, I have no interest in Kennel Club registration.

I don't know a great deal about the Kennel Club and will likely be shot down in flames! I feel that, in order to be of value, the KC need to insist on specific health testing prior to registration of litters.

As for the KC meaning you know the breeding of your dog...do you really? Is that not dependent on the information provided by the breeder who may have a vested interest in not providing the right information?

> As for the KC meaning you know the breeding of your dog...do you really? Is that not dependent on the information provided by the breeder who may have a vested interest in not providing the right information?

That applies equally to any registration does it not ? As it is always the breeders that supply the information.

As I say, I don't know much about KC registration. Does the same apply as with the ISDS - that you must submit an intent to breed in advance of the mating?

The owner of the ISDS registered sire must complete a mating card in advance of the mating - papers will then be sent to the owner of the ISDS registered dam. I wasn't aware of the KC operating such a process?

> The owner of the ISDS registered sire must complete a mating card in advance of the mating - papers will then be sent to the owner of the ISDS registered dam. I wasn't aware of the KC operating such a process?

Interesting but how does the owner of the sire know the in season bitch brought to his dog is the same one that the papers apply to?

Most breeders with KC registered dogs are honest and do supply the correct breeding information.

I had ISDS registered collies before I got my KC registered gundogs and quite honestly can't say there is much difference when it comes down to it, to a male dog an in season bitch is much the same as any other he does not question pedigree, and in my experience neither do most stud dog owners ISDS or KC they trust the bitch owner has brought to them the right bitch.

> The owner of the ISDS registered sire must complete a mating card in advance of the mating - papers will then be sent to the owner of the ISDS registered dam. I wasn't aware of the KC operating such a process?

If this is completed in advance of the mating.. how does the owner of the stud know that it was his dog that produced the litter?

Edited to explain.. card signed.. bitch owner takes bitch to a different dog... OR.. card signed.. bitch owner brings a different bitch..

with KC registration.. the stud owner must sign the papers at time of the mating, to say that he/she witnessed the mating.. surely this is tighter than ISDS

It would actually be rather awkward, if you plan to use a certain dog, but the bitch wont accept that dog but accepts a substitute dog.

We seem to be straying off topic a wee bit here, I was asking how differently do you think things would be if the KC had never existed and did not exist now.

Would everything be in the hands of breed clubs for example?

Who would run events?

And so on..... Just curious to see how you all think things might be run?

> We seem to be straying off topic a wee bit here, I was asking how differently do you think things would be if the KC had never existed and did not exist now.

I think there would be lots of different societies all trying to say their way was the best.  there would be a breed purists club, one for all the dogs that are currently 'non-KC' eg doodles, show societies, working dog societies and each would have their own benchmark of quality.  I suppose stripped down to the bare bones the KC enables people to know what they have bought i.e. a pug or a poodle.

I think there has to be one organisation who is 'in charge', but perhaps the various breed societies should be having more input dthan they do currently.    It would be ridiculous to have every breed having their bit of paper applying at every show/competition.

I doubt I would join some random register for the sake of it. 

I'm not sure how important it is to know how much the KC donates from it's income to charities, the fact is they clearly do support these bodies.

It's easy enough to find out how much the KC have given to charitable companies and health companies as it is published.  I did have info about 2 years ago which was sent fromthe KC stating what monies were given to certain charities.

Polly asked why I was asking if she knew how much of its £10-£11m income the KC gave to charity.

While it's all extremely welcome/appreciated by the beneficiaries, I think some people might be a bit surprised that it isn't a bit more. Last year the KC gave £200k to the Charitable Trust - around just two per cent of its income and five times less than it spent on "external relations". The KCCT gave more than that in turn, of course, but most of the KCCT's income comes from donations/income from sources other than the KC itself.

Jemima

Without the KC we would have hundreds of little breed clubs, jack of all trades, master of none.. all squabbling over rules, regs, money, .. none of the clubs could/would have the ability/cabability of being responsible for all or any of its members.. thats assuming we would actually want to become members.. The breed clubs could never afford to govern..

We belittle and moan about the KC, but honestly.. we would be a complete shambles without it.... There are many things that need to be ironed out, but on the whole.. for the last 100 years or so.. I think the Kennel Club has come through for us..

If the kennel club did not exist.. we would have no shows, no agility comps.. really, we would have nothing at all.. our breeds would become unregulated.. pedigrees and lines would be lost forever...

Woohoo.. a free for all.. puppy farmers would have a field day.. rescues would close down through overburden and lack of funds..strays would be PTS as a matter of course...  with no regulations of pedigrees, no need for microchipping to ensure .. who would care anymore..

If there were no KC (A rose by any other name) .. it would be a catastrophe..

If you knew why ask me? Were you trying to belittle the KC again??? Thats rather old news.

If you are replying to this thread everyone can we please keep it on topic and not side line it on other matters. Thanks.

I'm surprised they gave the RSPCA so much. I wouldn't give them a brass razoo.   Sorry, that was somewhat off the point.

I can't say I have had a lot of dealings with the Kennel Club, but I would have to think they are the least biased organisation when it comes to breed records/registration, organising shows of whatever sort.   Like all organisations there are areas which can be improved, and from what I've read they have started to update themselves in various areas.

I'm not sure you could find a completely independent 'mother' organisation if it's put in the hands of people with other vested interest.

If you knew why ask me? Were you trying to belittle the KC again??? Thats rather old news.

I asked you because I did know and wondered if you did when you stated how much they give to charity.  And, no, I am not "belittling" the KC again. I am sure there will be some who think £200k of a £11m income is an acceptable amount to give to charity. And it is true that if the KC didn't exist, neither would the KCCT which does give rather more than that to charity/good causes.

But I surprised at the figure compared to their spend on other things.

As for the RSPCA donation - that I believe was to a particular branch? I can understand people whinging about RSPCA HQ/some RSPCA policies and perhaps some individual employees, but some of the individual branches do amazing work.

As for where we would be without the KC - well, you know my views. I think the purebred registry system has been, in the main, a disaster for dogs. That said, I welcome the recent reforms and believe that if the KC really grasps the nettle, perhaps accompanied by a regime change, they really could be making a difference for dogs in a way that will help safeguard their future.

Jemima

> I think the purebred registry system has been, in the main, a disaster for dogs.

Can you explain why, in your opinion the system is a disaster?

and would it be possible, for you too keep continuity of the original subject?

I know there are a lot of supporters for the KC and that's absolutely fine :)

However, in my breed, the KC have done nothing except move away from the working border collie to a show dog not fit for purpose. Short legs and long thick coats. They have done nothing for the health of the breed either.

At least the ISDS have attempted to continue strong working lines and insist on specific health tests. IMO, the ISDS are an example of how breed registers can work.

The owner of the ISDS registered sire must complete a mating card in advance of the mating

No, not in advance. A notification of mating card is completed at the time of the mating.

However, in my breed, the KC have done nothing except move away from the working border collie to a show dog not fit for purpose.

But isn't this down to the breed club as opposed to the KC? The KC accept registrations from ISDS lines so don't appear to distinguish between working lines and show lines. My lot are 'fit for purpose' - they work sheep. But, if I were to enter them into a breed show, we would be laughed out the show ring ... we would not meet so called breed standards (and judges perception of what a BC should look like) despite being fit for purpose. Which is why I've joined the breed club, in some small attempt to get things back on track.

Sorry, that should be a mating card in advance of the registration

> At least the ISDS have attempted to continue strong working lines and insist on specific health tests. IMO, the ISDS are an example of how breed registers can work.

With out the KC a lot of dogs and owners would not be enjoying events like agility, obedience or other working events.

Another area the Kc has taken on is promoting the Canine Good Citizens Awards and they have accredited trainers too, who promote a modern and kind approach to dog training.

Many years ago it was thought that rubbing dogs noses in a puddle of wee or poo would teach them not to toilet in the house.... would dog training have moved on from this state if everything had been fragmented if there had never been a KC?

> No, not in advance. A notification of mating card is completed at the time of the mating

So it is exactly the same as required by the KC then. They issue a green form or if the litter is registered on line will write to the stud dog owner to ask if they can confirm the mating took place between the two animals on the application.

As many dogs are DNA registered that can be checked in the case of a dispute. If DNA is not recorded for the two dogs the KC can and will ask for DNA proof of breeding lines. This happened when a litter of labrador pups contained two black and tan pups, which by DNA testing proved beyond doubt that the pups were pure bred labradors.

Well then that is the same as the stud owner signing the kennel Club registration form 1.

As for the kennel club making dogs no longer fit for work, that is not the case it is breeders and judges that select dogs to be bred from, and whether they will be worked.

Also it is a little unfair as the vast majority of dogs regardless if from working breeds lines do not work.  Even those selected for purely working traits and y litter will not produce all dogs that will work well.

One could argue that dogs should only be kept and bred for their original purpose, that would reduce the canine population to a fraction,a and deprive most of us of dogs.

I am interested in what my breed was bred for and would like to see them retain the physical and mental characteristics that would suit them for tracking large game, even though I will never go hunting with them, in fact would not be allowed to in this and many countries.

I am not so sure that people wouldn't be enjoying these sports if not for the KC. It would be interesting to see who/how agility and obedience competitions are governed in the rest of Europe.

There are a fair few non KC agility competitions :) One of the top agility handlers has ventured into organising such shows.

Again, I do feel that dog training would have move on without the KC. Most of the dog trainers that I would recommend are not affiliated with KC registered clubs.

I appreciate though that I have a narrow view of the KC. Perhaps they have done more for other breeds than the one I own. I can only speak from the experiences that I have and the activities I take part in.

Most purebred kinds of livestock has a governing body.  The British Rabbit Council for Rabbits, Cavies, pigeons, Mice etc.

People like breeding animals and creating breeds and comparing their efforts in competition with others.

Before I ahd dogs I bred and showed Pedigree Rabbits, many fo my freinds also showed CAvies, Chinchillas and Poultry.

Don't you agree though that if the KC are appointing judges then they should hold some responsibility for observing specific trends developing in judging selection?

Surely one of the functions of the KC is to ensure a breed remains fit for the purpose they were bred to carry out? Otherwise we end up with a breed baring no resemblance to their lineage? 

The same can be said of those that select only on working ability regardless of type or construction.

I have seen as many working bred Labradors and Springers that may be good workers despite their poor conformation.

I believe my breed in Scandinavia is fortunate in that no dog can be come a Field trial champion unless it is graded first quality at a conformation show,a nd no dog can become show champion unless it has passed several hunting tests (conducted as if hunting, but the animal is not shot).  this means that you do not get a huge divergence between working and show type.

This seems to be true for other breeds, like English Setters who are not as heavily coated etc as seen in our show rings.

I'm answering myself here...it's the FCI in Europe :) I wonder how they differ to the KC and if things are done differently with them?

I do hear what you're saying Brainless. One of the most prolific border collies to be used at stud was a horrible temperament of a dog. However, he was an amazing working dog.

I am also aware of people who breed with the agility market in line, selecting matings to produce tiny border collies which can compete in the medium size bracket.

I guess neither the KC nor the ISDS have done anything to address such issues. So much comes down to the integrity of the breeder and I am unsure of how any registering body can alter that.

> As for the KC meaning you know the breeding of your dog...do you really? Is that not dependent on the information provided by the breeder who may have a vested interest in not providing the right information?

In my opinion both the KC and the ISDS could learn from the International Silken Windhound Club :-) every silken is DNA tested proving parentage. Pups are given limited registration and if you want to breed from them they need to be assessed as being of suitable quality before being allowed full registration.

Another area the Kc has taken on is promoting the Canine Good Citizens Awards and they have accredited trainers too, who promote a modern and kind approach to dog training.

Although I do get mixed reports regarding the quality of some of the trainers (inevitably, I guess), I am a big fan of the CGC scheme and think this is an area where the KC has done a good job. The classes could be a bit more exciting but they're a pretty good mix of hands-on training and education about dog law/minimum veterinary care etc.

Jemima

> In my opinion both the KC and the ISDS could learn from the International Silken Windhound Club

Yes, but this is a breed still in development, and properly at that it would seem.

Our numbers are just too large for litters to be screened before registration allowed, which is what happens in some countries. 

Our Kennel club hasn't even managed to visit most ABS members let alone send someone to see each litter up for registration.

I suppose each dog or bitch before breeding could be inspected before registration of progeny allowed, but all that would really do is have more puppies born outside of any registration system, and people looking for 'just a pet' (I hate that term)  would think they were fine as they do now.

> Would the charities who are given funding get funding elsewhere?

Polly, as we know the New Advisory council into dog breeding is being set up. A brilliant idea that will hopefully sort out a lot of problems in the doggy world. To run the group, I see they need groups to fund them. Just wondered if you knew whether or not the KC were helping towards their funding??

Yes I do know they are planning to donate but like the Dogs Trust they have not as yet decided how much. The Dogs Trust have to consider how much to put into it as they have other commitments such as caring for the rescue dogs and the KC is in much the same situation, if it donates to the Advisory Council then it will have to cut back in other areas. As they do spend a large part of their income on dog health issues it would be sad to see this cut back for example. The RSPCA originally offered to put in a 6 figure sum but have now drastically scaled this back.

The KC said at its AGM that it would not be funding the new Advisory Council as it felt it duplicated the work of its Dog Health Group. Has it changed its mind?

What are you defining as the "health issues" on which the KC spends "a large part of its income"?

Jemima

And should say that the RSPCA didn't offer anything like a "six figure sum" to fund the Dog Advisory Council (but at least they did offer something, unlike some of the other stakeholders). I do, however, believe that Dogs Trust has committed a six-figure sum to a campaign to encourage the public to buy puppies more wisely. Perhaps you got the two things mixed up?

Jemima

I apologise for replying to Olive1 as this has now skewed the thread it has gone off topic. The KC's finances are 'off topic', so could we return to the topic please?

Actually Polly I think my post is quite relevant considering you mentioned how much they donate to certain groups.
The new advisory council is a very important step forward in sorting many problems in all dog welfare.
This was a key recommendation of professor Bateson's final paper (A paper the KC themselves wanted to be done).

I can see what you are saying but still maintain it is off topic because the topic is how would things be if the KC had never existed.

I am asking how people imagine things would be now if the KC had never existed.

Anyway arguing about what is and what is off topic rather unfortunately spoils the whole thread for all CD members who might have put forward their ideas. I had hoped the topic would perhaps get discussion away from reality and explore an alternative scenario. I think if you really want to discuss the KC finances then perhaps that should be a new thread?

> Would the charities who are given funding get funding elsewhere? (i.e. small rescue societies getting funding for new kennels or larger charities getting donations like the RSPCA did in 2008 they got £48,000 from the KC)

> Would it donate all the excess monies it raised to health research or charities?

You Polly are the one that has mentioned finances in your first post. I was just genuinely interested if they would help finance the new group. The new group being advised by the last and final report. The report the KC called for.
If finances are not to be discussed I advise you to edit your first post.

This is becoming so boringly repetative.. this continuing to be taken off topic...

Finances were mentioned in the OP, purely as an example of what might or might not happen, not to be taken as part of the topic to be entended to the why's and wherefore's of the KC's financial habits...

again.. would it be possible to keep a thread on topic?