crikey how interesting and yes i was just gonna mention the papers!

Hi Brainless

I take your point :-)

I know it's labouring the issue a bit, but despite the "Expectations of Good Management" there is still room for manoeuvre and this appears (in my opinion) to relate the experience/personality and perspective of the individual breed advisor carrying out the inspection.  Depending on who inspected you, you might pass despite your misgivings!

The reason I say this is that amongst other things I am still amazed that I was judged on how much sleep I have as that surely can't be part of the KC's idea of a breeder assessment and can only (I think!!) be the personal opinion of the advisor that assessed me.  If personal opinions come into play then different judgments will be made.

I am waiting for clarification from Bill Lambert about how individual visits are conducted and exactly what guidance the breed advisors are given when interpreting a breeder's compliance with the "Expectations of Good Management." Perhaps my own opinions will be discredited or maybe they will be supported. I am after all giving my opinion based on personal experience and I think that this will vary from breeder to breeder and between breed advisors.

For your interest, the "Expectations of Good Management" are reproduced below.  As I mentioned before, having received this document slightly before the visit and having read it I still thought I was complying simply because the points are a little vague and it never occurred to me that the areas under assessment were wider in context than the written word implied.  I know differently now though!

E.g. under point 4, the assessment covered fire drill/safety/procedure and risk assessment and yet these aren't specifically mentioned.  Point 2, covered food preparation and dogs bowl washing facilities - I guess you can more or less fit the rest of the items to the points inspected so I won't elaborate further.

1.  Dogs should be housed in clean and comfortable conditions with adequate heat and ventilation with particular regard for the animals health, age and breed.

2.  Dogs should be provided with suitable and adequate food, drink and clean bedding material on a regular basis.

3.  Dogs should be exercised and visited at suitable intervals, and should be in the care or supervision of a fit and responsible person.

4.  A secure and safe environment should be provided, with sufficient space proportionate to the number of dogs kept to ensure good physical and mental wellbeing.

5.  Arrangements should be in place to provide adequate exercise to ensure the dogs' physical and mental wellbeing.

6.  Facilities available should be in a suitable and fit condition for the keeping of dogs and maintained or kept in a good state of repair.

7.  Breeders are expected to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the dogs are kept under control and do not cause a nuisance to neighbours and visitors to the property.

8.  Reasonable precautions should be taken to ensure prevention of the spread of infections or contagious diseases, and facilities should be available for the treatments of dogs in an emergency.

9.  Dogs should receive adequate grooming and veterinary treatment and records of any veterinary treatment should be easily accessible.

10. Arrangements or plans should be available for the transport of animals to and from the accredited breeder's establishment.

I'm going to leave this thread now as I've highlighted the issues/problems I faced and I really only responded due to the DW article mentioned and the experiences of the acquaintance/friend of MarianneB and kayc.  When I receive a comprehensive reply from the KC, I'll let you know if any of the points I raised have influenced future breed advisor visits.  Thanks everyone for your input, made interesting reading and it was nice to know that I wasn't alone in being found wanting!

> I assume what they are using is "and comply with any local authority requirements." but the LA have no requirements for a private home, so it is quite unreasonable for the KC advisors to expect anything above the 10 requirements, unless the level of breeding requires an LA breeders License..

I believe THIS is the crux of the matter.
It's incredibly unreasonable to expect home-breeders to comply to this degree. For whom was the ABS set up? - the majority of show breeders who breed at home, or a way of regulating puppy farms? Because the way it seems to be applied, it suggests the latter, unless there is a hidden agenda to make every home-breeder toe the line, or give up.

The KC should make it very clear if they are applying these rigorous standards - is the ABS meant for good home-bred puppies, or was it intended to be just for licenced breeders? Because they aren't ever going to get any normal show-breeders on that list, with these criteria.

Sooner the dog papers take this up the better!

>I'm thinking this entire thread ought to be brought to the attention of the dog papers.

I can see the reason behind your thoughts, however I would suggest that as we are discussing the opinions of a handful of breeders who have been inspected (me included) it would be better sit back and allow the KC to reflect on the feedback they have received (directly from breeders such as myself and indirectly through emails/calls arising from the concerns raised in this thread).

It is all a bit 'one sided' at the moment and even though I've been on the receiving end of a visit, I still maintain that this should be a fair debate. 

The negative experiences might be in the minority and in fairness to the KC, they should have the chance to investigate and make any amendments/changes in their criteria or to the way in which inspections are undertaken to show that they are responding to feedback.  Equally they should have the opportunity to justify the criteria which form the basis of an inspection if they feel they are acting appropriately in every aspect of managing the Accredited Breeder Scheme. 

The KC are setting standards but it is the voluntary breed advisors who are responsible for checking to see if a breeder meets the standards and their views are not represented (in so far as I know on this forum). It would (to me) seem inappropriate to start a public debate (via the dog papers) on a topic where each side is not fairly represented.

Call me soft if you will but my argument with the KC is about openness, honesty and fairness therefore I'm personally in favour of keeping things balanced and I personally think that publicly criticising the KC based on 'hearsay' is not the right way to go. 

I know exactly what happened during my inspection and I've shared this, however all the areas of concern raised in this thread are based on the negative experiences posted.  There has been (if memory serves me) a positive experience following an inspection however that poster hasn't continued to share their thoughts as this thread has expanded (in so far as I've seen - please correct me if I'm wrong - tired and I might have missed it!).

> The KC are setting standards but it is the voluntary breed advisors who are responsible for checking to see if a breeder meets the standards and their views are not represented (in so far as I know on this forum). It would (to me) seem inappropriate to start a public debate (via the dog papers) on a topic where each side is not fairly represented.

Fair enough.
But it still begs the question - from where or whom are these Voluntary Breed Advisors, who do the checks, getting their briefing? Has there been some misunderstanding on how they should be applied to home breeders as opposed to licenced premises, or is there a hidden agenda?
Late and tired here too so I shall retire with that in mind!

I had a read receipt from Bill Lambert two hours  after the out of office auto reply, but as yet no response
Diane

I'm really interested in the reply to these queries; if people are truly being failed on such ridiculous pretexts then the system's a travesty.

Yes a very interesting thread and I would be very interested in the KC's response.

And the Kennel club who seem somewhat out of touch with the real world.

A friend of mine lives in a 200 year plus old cottage, in fact originally was two cottages, one room up one down, so one of the downstairs rooms is the kitchen, and the other the living room, and two sets of stairs lead to the two bedrooms (a connecting door has been put in between the two bedrooms.  Downstairs a bathroom has been built onto the kitchen and a Porch acts as the only access.

She with great loving care reared her first litter, initially in a pen in the living room, then their kennel was the porch with a puppy pen attached to the area by the front (only) door.

Anyone coming to the house would first have to go through the puppy pen, then through the porch, and step over a barrier into the living room.

Certainly ensured maximum socialisation for puppies, who had to be privy to all comings and goings.

During the day the pups went up to the property where her horses are kept, where she has also built an enclosed dog paddock with large shed for shelter while she is there with the dogs, and every day from 3 weeks of age the pups went up there with Mum while their breeders sorted the horses etc.

You couldn't wish for a better socialised and cared for litter.  Would she pass model kennel inspection, no way hosay.  Would I want a puppy raised like this, you betcha.

She is considering breeding her second litter after 15 years in the breed and considered joining the ABS this time.  She was most concerned when I told her of this thread.

Is it to going to be only those who are well to do/rich with room for kennelling who will be considered fit to breed????

My breed is crying out for new devotees that will go on to become the breeders of the future, but the expense (in time, long term commitment and money) puts the majority off breeding, as fortunately we have a very responsible breed with all club members towing the lien re health testing etc.

As the kennel club are basically telling the public that only ABS members are good breeders, then the good  breeder with ad hoc non standard facilities for the occasional litter, the very backbone of ethical breeders will be pushed out and made to seem Back Yard Breeders (meaning the casual uncommitted puppy producer).

"As the kennel club are basically telling the public that only ABS members are good breeders" Totally agree and the public have no way to determine those listed in the PSL who just jumped on for the credibility and KC recommendation they gain for their puppy sales and the really caring, dedicated breeders who joined for the right reasons and care about the quality of their puppies and the homes they go to.

I recently consulted the KC PSL to find a breeder in a highly priced popular Toy breed for a show quality puppy for a friend. However I could not find one of the many ABs listed with the third accolade. I was later told no reputable breeder in that breed wants to be an AB because it is considered a slur on their reputation to be listed alongside the people who are just in the breed for the money.

Well after a long time of only one ABS in our breed most people seem to have joined (well that's not a lot of people) as breeders in our breed are not exactly numerous.

I think if your looking for show puppies your best bet is to look at the Higham Press and Fosse show results ans see which affixes place consistently (not necessarily the big winners), especially when owned by other persons than the breeder.

Though I would check the archives for several years.  Better still just input the affix of the kennels that interest.

I think what should also be mentioned is that in our care of our adults we also socialise them (take them to the local park, dog training classes, maybe the local pub) all acts that socialise our dogs in the real world. However, there will be many Licensed Breeders whose dogs never go off their premises. Yes, they will get their exercise out in their paddock or whatever their arrangements are but some will never have seen traffic, other breeds of dogs etc. I am quite content in my care of my dogs, I don't need the KC to tell me how I can do it better. My pups are not reared in a kennel. My pups have their own room where the other dogs are milling around. When the weather is too bad and they can't get out in the garden I set up another puppy pen in the kitchen where the washing machine and dryer are constantly on the go (lets face it ladies they never stop when we have puppies). My pups have all the experiences that I have to hand so that they go to their new homes having been walked on grass, walked on carpet, had a washing machine spinning near them. My pups never seem to be frightened of life experiences. So quite honestly I will not become an AB, I do it better that a lot of them that are passed by the KC. Oh, and musing back to the original part of the thread, I don't overbreed my bitches!!

"I think if your looking for show puppies your best bet is to look at the Higham Press and Fosse show results ans see which affixes place consistently (not necessarily the big winners), especially when owned by other persons than the breeder."

Thanks for the input Brainless. I see your logic but my thoughts were by consulting the KC PSL and ABS list as a starting point this would be a quick way find contact details of long standing, experienced breeders to discuss the breed and possible reservation of a puppy from a future litter. If a breeder has earned the ABS accolade of three entrants bred who are in the Stud Book it's an easy way to sort out those breeders who have been around a number of years and have the aim of improving their stock. However sadly not possible in this particular breed due to the exploitation of the ABS by the uncommitted puppy producers you referred to earlier.

>my thoughts were by consulting the KC PSL and ABS list as a starting point this would be a quick way find contact details of long standing, experienced breeders to discuss the breed and possible reservation of a puppy from a future litter.

That doesn't always follow - you can become an Accredited Breeder without ever having bred a litter; in fact I believe (though might be wrong!) that you can become one without even owning a dog!

JG this was changed -you CANNOT join the ABS unless you have bred a litter. You can apply but they will leave it as pending until you have registered a litter. You also MUST own at least one bitch of breeding age of the breed.

Can confirm that, I was about to submit my AB application having been advised to just wait until I knew pups were definitely on the way, and told I would be pending until they received my litter registration form.
Shame that's not going to happen now, certainly not until I know what criteria I am now heading towards and can make an informed judgement as to whether I meet it, or not. £15 is half a bag of doggy nosh .... not putting it towards new paintings at the HUGELY expensive London pad of the KC.

Jeangenie - that sentence was meant to refer to AB breeders who qualify for the 3rd accolade in their listing.

However you have hit on another very valuable point not touched on in this thread. From a conversation I had with the KC earlier this week just like Alisongold I was very shocked at the reply. I was told in order to register as an AB the applicant has to have a bitch of breeding age registered in their name on the KC database. It is within the spirit of the Scheme that that person should actually have physical possession of that bitch. However it is actually possible to register a litter in the name of the AB, sell them on the PSL without that person ever having possession of the dam, whelped the litter or reared the puppies. I'm sure the KC would not approve but.................

Can someone let me know when it was changed that you had to own and bitch or have bred a litter please?
Thanks
Diane

>JG this was changed -you CANNOT join the ABS unless you have bred a litter. You can apply but they will leave it as pending until you have registered a litter. You also MUST own at least one bitch of breeding age of the breed.

Thanks. :-) At least they realised the nonsense of the original situation. Let's hope they see sense on the current apparent idiocy.

I don't know when it was changed Diane but it is printed on the application forms now -I have had one sitting next to my keyboard since last year when it fell out of an issue of the Kennel Gazette. :)

Still waiting for a response form Bil Lambert despite a read receipt. I have e mailed him again saying I would appreciate a response.

Diane

Thanks for the update Wirelinks. I suspect a lot of others have not posted on this thread as waiting patiently for the KC to at least respond to CD Admin.

I think it was probably me who moved the thread away from Alisongold's original topic. I referred to Jessica Holm's article and her mention of the 20% removal rate of ABs on inspection. I wonder if she was aware as to why they were removed and if so would she still have written in the same way?

It was also me who posted a positive experience following an Advisor visit.Having initially been very wary of the impending visit I found the Advisor to be a very congenial, sensible person and the visit was a very positive and actually enjoyable experience. Chris hit the nail on the head when she said " Depending on who inspected you, you might pass despite your misgivings!"

However I can now see where some breeders failed to pass their appointed Advisor why I sailed through, just sheer luck really as I had the unexpected  "Expectation of Good Management" questions covered. 

Viewing whelping and rearing facilities of any puppies we might produces was definitely not on the Advisors list so I felt I had to show how we would accommodate a litter at the various stages from their birth and rearing as I thought that was what the Advisor should be visiting to see.

I actually asked if ABs might have some input of ideas back into the Scheme and was told this might be considered. So far no reply on that.

I know someone else is trying to e-mail him and had no response.

>Viewing whelping and rearing facilities of any puppies we might produces was definitely not on the Advisors list so I felt I had to show how we would accommodate a litter at the various stages from their birth and rearing as I thought that was what the Advisor should be visiting to see.

That makes interesting reading as it confirms my own experience, and like you we had everything set up (whelping box/delivery kit and playpen etc.) I personally would have thought that these areas, rather than being ignored, should have received a high priority.  After all, without demonstrating good breeding practices what's to stop an advisor thinking that pups are reared outside in an old shed!!

>I had the unexpected "Expectation of Good Management" questions covered.

I thought I did too!

>I referred to Jessica Holm's article and her mention of the 20% removal rate of ABs on inspection. I wonder if she was aware as to why they were removed and if so would she still have written in the same way?

I'm not sure if she would have been aware, I suspect it was more a case of statistics rather than facts relating to individual breeders.  Due to confidentiality and data protection, I'm sure the KC do not disclose details.

As promised, I said I would update on my own visit when I had heard from Mr Lambert in response to my letter.  My letter outlined my dissatisfaction with the 'performance' of the advisor and the findings of the inspection and clarified the points where I was graded a 2.

Since I last posted I've had a very congenial telephone call from Bill Lambert.  He apologised for the outcome of my inspection and confirmed that such things as 'providing too much information in the puppy pack etc.' should not be criticised and marked as 'unacceptable'. 

He explained that upon receipt of my letter, he has investigated the circumstances and having read the advisors report it was clear there were errors in the report.  He explained that these errors should have been picked up in the office and a suspension wasn't warranted as clearly I was complying with ALL the terms (including the "Expectations of Good Management").

He further explained that although he will be writing to me, he wanted to telephone to put matters right as soon as possible. He further confirmed he was immediately reinstating my membership and on checking, I can see that this has been acted upon.

Naturally, I'm very pleased that I took the trouble to write and that common sense has prevailed.  I also wish to say in fairness to the KC, my case received a thorough investigation and the KC have had the 'guts' to apologise and to put matters right.  It is a pity though that I've had the stress of it all!

I'm also very pleased that Mr Lambert is considering the constructive criticisms outlined in my letter and also mentioned during our telephone call, including the provision of feedback from visited breeders so that the KC can rate the quality of inspection and the professionalism of the breed advisor and implement any further training or a change in tack regarding what is required as needed.
 
Hopefully, breeders receiving future inspections may be safeguarded against the unfortunate and unwarranted outcome of my inspection and that any future suspensions are for genuine welfare reasons and not due to human error or poor judgement.

That was very good to hear Chris! Was anything mentioned about the person who inspected you being told they had made errors and that you should not have been suspended? Sounds to me like the inspectors need some clarification as to what is expected, otherwise there could be a lot of breeders not passing and unless they do what you did, it may never come to light that the inspector was wrong.

Absolutely delighted with the outcome Chris :)

"I'm also very pleased that Mr Lambert is considering the constructive criticisms outlined in my letter and also mentioned during our telephone call, including the provision of feedback from visited breeders so that the KC can rate the quality of inspection and the professionalism of the breed advisor and implement any further training or a change in tack regarding what is required as needed".
Twice I have asked for a feedback option to the ABS and not received a positive reply. Puppy purchasers are provided with a feedback form to complete, along with an envelope, in their Puppy Sales Wallets but ABs have never been allowed feedback to the KC. Hope that changes soon.

Thanks everyone for you good wishes regarding the outcome of my visit.

MarianneB

>Was anything mentioned about the person who inspected you being told they had made errors and that you should not have been suspended?

Yes and no is the answer.  When Mr Lambert phoned, I was getting my dogs into the car pending a run in the countryside.  I was paying attention but as he said, he would be writing I concentrated on the main points :-)  I should know more about how the KC reached the decision to unsuspend me when I receive the letter.  I am sure that my inspector was spoken to; exactly what will have been said probably won't be conveyed to me.  It is a difficult situation, the breed advisors are voluntary.  I'm not saying that despite their voluntary nature they should not be professional but having worked in the voluntary sector myself (as a manager) I can see the different managerial approaches between paid employees and voluntary workers. 
I think an error of judgment was clearly made and I believe this is supported by Mr Lamberts comments to me.  However, breed advisors can only be as good as their background experience dictates and more importantly as good as their training allows them to be.  The 'buck' stops with the KC and not the advisor. 

Mr Lambert explained that following some reports (those indicating suspension is warranted) that the department have overruled the findings and likewise some reports have indicated the visit was successful and the department have disagreed and a suspension has followed.  It appears I was let down by both the advisor and the department and I'm sure this aspect will be scrutinised fully to prevent further occurrences.

dogsbody100

>Puppy purchasers are provided with a feedback form to complete, along with an envelope, in their Puppy Sales Wallets but ABs have never been allowed feedback to the KC.

Yes they are and at the moment the onus is firmly placed on other peoples opinions of the performance of a ABS member.  Providing a form for scheme members to rate the quality of service they received from a breed advisor inspection would be an excellent idea and I believe this is under consideration.  Mind you, how many suspended breeders are going to rate a visit poor and how many successful breeders are going to rate their visit as excellent!!  Granted the KC should be able to sift through to find the truth and from my own point of view, I'd have given the same rating to my visit whether I passed or failed, how many others could guarantee to do likewise?

The other thing to mention is that although the KC didn't facilitate feedback from my visit, I took the liberty of providing feedback (via my letter) and there is nothing to stop any breeder visited writing to the KC to congratulate the breed advisor/KC on the manner and findings of an inspection or indeed to disagree with their findings (as appropriate) :-)

The problem is though, judging by the 2 responses I had from the AB section, the criteria still is not clear to the likes of myself, now got my first litter, should have applied just prior to litter arriving, now not going to apply, as to be told "if you think you meet the criteria, then yes apply" is totally unsatisfactory, given there is a fee involved and inspectors are apparently coming at the inspections from a number of different angles with different additional criteria. So, pay fee and sail through inspection, or be suspended for trying to do what you think is right.

Be interesting to hear Bill Lambert's reply ... I await patiently.

> The other thing to mention is that although the KC didn't facilitate feedback from my visit, I took the liberty of providing feedback (via my letter) and there is nothing to stop any breeder visited writing to the KC to congratulate the breed advisor/KC on the manner and findings of an inspection or indeed to disagree with their findings (as appropriate).

Well it just seems to me that there needs to be a properly laid out facility for an Appeal against a decision, as in many other walks of life; no need for feedback from the breeder - as any inspector who regularly fails breeders who then appeal, will be picked up fairly quickly and mistakes in the system highlighted. It may be as easy as sending out a second inspector who has not been briefed on the previous points of failure.

Hi Trialist

The criteria is clear - to the Accredited Breeder Department at the KC!!  It's not clear for the rest of us that is until a visit is arranged, and then the unpublished elements of the scheme are made known!

Bill Lambert confirmed that the criteria are the 10 mandatory requirements plus the "Expectations of Good Management" and then the 6 voluntary recommendations.  Currently all of the terms are published save for the "Expectations of Good Management."  The latter is not published either on their website or on the scheme application form.

Assuming that there is no overly subjective judging of a breeder by a breed advisor at the visit (umm...); if you can meet, the 10 mandatory requirements and the 10 elements of the "Expectations of Good Management" then all should be well.

Currently the published literature relating to scheme membership is not fully representative of the actual requirements and this is wrong.  I have raised this issue in my letter and await the response.  My letter was lengthy so I need to be patient and allow Mr Lambert enough time to wade through it!

All breeders should know what is expected of them by the provision of clear guidelines.  I know of no other type of membership that provides only 'half the story' when trying to encourage membership growth and then faults members for not complying with terms that they are not aware of their need to comply with until they are part of the inspection process!

For existing members the failure to meet the terms will lead to suspension (as they are already members) pending improvements.  It is different for a new member (those receiving a visit BEFORE they are accepted onto the scheme) the KC will send supporting information, then visit and make recommendations (if needed) and guide the applicant to ensure that their circumstances meet the terms and that they are successfully accepted into the scheme. 

I am pretty sure that following feedback things will change (I'm an optimist by nature!)

My breed advisor (when questioned by me) explained that there were "currently 5,000 Accredited Breeders and that it was the Kennel Club's objective to have all 15,000 breeders in this country as scheme members by 2015."  Must admit I thought that 15,000 didn't sound high enough but we shall see! If this statement is true then it appears that something is going horribly wrong when membership is declining due to resignations and suspensions as opposed to rising to the point that all breeders are capable of being incorporated within the scheme.

We shall watch this space with interest! :-)

I still don't see how those breeders in domestic environments with ad hoc arrangements for the occasional litter are supposed to meet the expectations, as the way things will be done and the facilities available will vary wildly, but pups be equally well cared for and bred carefully.

Pups requirements are fairly basic, Plenty of good food, clean water, shelter, and attention/socialisation.

Now whether the breeder whelps in purpose built state of the art facilities or converts a corner of a bedroom kitchen.  Whether the pups are then allowed exercise in a dog run or a part of the garden made puppy proof and a gazebo set up to provide shade, the kids Wendy house used,  etc etc is not relevant.

>I still don't see how those breeders in domestic environments with ad hoc arrangements for the occasional litter are supposed to meet the expectations, as the way things will be done and the facilities available will vary wildly, but pups be equally well cared for and bred carefully.

I couldn't agree more! 

However, I did ask Mr Lambert if all breeders were judged by the "Expectations of Good Management" criteria that I was judged against and he replied that they were. 

Given that these requirements are based on the requirements that licensed breeders are judged against (amongst other things) it is difficult to fit the expectations to 'normal' hobby breeders. As I've said before, I think some flexibility on the part of each breed advisor allows (ordinarily) for common sense.  I think I was unfortunate as common sense and a perspective on whether welfare was good (despite the domestic setting) didn't apply and that is a shame but has at least now been rectified.

It appears (from other posters experiences and my own) that it is not the pup's welfare ("Plenty of good food, clean water, shelter, and attention/socialisation.") that is taking precedence during a visit.  It is the living environment and the care/welfare of the breeder's dogs as a whole that seems to be the most important factor.

Much to think about eh?  I hope that some of the issues raised in this thread will be clarified as a result of feedback and that despite the obvious disadvantages (to the home hobby breeder) that inspections will be fair and that they will take into consideration the wide variety of individual (good and caring breeders) circumstances and that people will not be penalised.

I must thank Chris for her input and updates on this thread but as someone already on the ABS and, as I have already said in a previous post, I don't think I will be renewing my membership next year. 

>I still don't see how those breeders in domestic environments with ad hoc arrangements for the occasional litter are supposed to meet the expectations, as the way things will be done and the facilities available will vary wildly, but pups be equally well cared for and bred carefully<

>Pups requirements are fairly basic, Plenty of good food, clean water, shelter, and attention/socialisation<

>Now whether the breeder whelps in purpose built state of the art facilities or converts a corner of a bedroom kitchen.  Whether the pups are then allowed exercise in a dog run or a part of the garden made puppy proof and a gazebo set up to provide shade, the kids Wendy house used,  etc etc is not relevant.<

Brainless, you sum up my own situation perfectly.  I have raised my pups in 'ad hoc' facilities for 30 years and I have no desire to change something that has worked for me, my puppies and the people who have bought my puppies.  I have visited people with state of the art (or "Expectations of Management" standards plus over and above) who would meet all the requirements and yet produce puppies that I would not want to take on board mainly because of lack of socialisation issues.  It would seem that, once again, common sense has gone out of the window where the majority of people that the ABS is aimed at is concerned.  All my friends are in the similar circumstances as myself and I have, up to now, encouraged them to join the ABS.  In future, I will point them to this thread and let them make up their own minds.   

Having just paid my second/renewal year,a nd bred my first litter under the scheme, I must say if these expectations become universal then I am totally disillusioned and wished I hadn't joined. 

Also the KC is very unfair in the way it is promoting the scheme as the only sure way to find a good breeder, so what does that make us?

Ditto everything you said Tooolz.  I have been to a degree defending the scheme, in a " lead by example senario"  BUT I would not be putting up with any of that nonsense above :-)

I have had a brief reply from Bill after I sent another e mail.....................he tells me there is NO requirement for seperate washing facilities or fridges and its a matter for the breeder if they wish to have dogs sleeping on sofas. The vast majority of scheme members, 71%, breed one litter or less a year. All members are required to achieve the minimum standard but how they achieve it may vary considerably. He states that some of the claims in the thread are ludicrous.

I have asked for further clarification to my specific questions. He asked me to ring him

Diane

Sounds promising - please let us know what he says...

> The vast majority of scheme members, 71%, breed one litter or less a year. All members are required to achieve the minimum standard but how they achieve it may vary considerably. He states that some of the claims in the thread are ludicrous.
>

Well I am glad he agrees with us.

The ABS scheme simply won't work unless the good breeders are in it and they wont be if the scheme just doesn't make sense. The KC need to get their act together over this and do something about registering puppies from any old Tom, Dick or Harry including the puppy farmers and BYB. What is the point of a scheme that allows breeders to circumvent the rules about breeding as it appears to have done in the case the OP told us about but penalises good breeders for stupid reasons about their lifestyle?

Whether we believe it or not, novice dog owners believe that KC registration confers approval on breeders, and the ABS scheme definitely has an air of 'approved breeder' around it and this is what they need to sort out! If the breed clubs state that testing should be done and it isn't, or has rules about breeding that are simply ignored, then the kennel club has a choice to make - lose money by not registering the litter thereby reducing the value of the puppies (one would hope) or register them but have the transfer of ownership/ pedigree or both printed with the fact 'breed club recommended health testing has not been carried out on this dog', preferably in very large letters!

I don't know if this would work but they cannot keep doing nothing and registering any pedigree puppy, regardless

JMHO

Absolutely.

He states that some of the claims in the thread are ludicrous.

I hope he isn't insulting us with this comment. I believe the people that have given input on this thread. Think perhaps he is just burying his head in the sand.

>All members are required to achieve the minimum standard but how they achieve it may vary considerably. He states that some of the claims in the thread are ludicrous.

The minimum standard is the 10 mandatory requirements and those laid down in the "Expectations of Good Management."  Mr Lambert is right to say that some of the claims in this thread are 'ludicrous' (not I believe because they haven't occurred) but simply because it is up to each breed advisor to determine, whether a breeder fits the requirements. 

For example, section 8 of the "EGM" states: "Reasonable precautions should be taken to ensure prevention of the spread of infections or contagious diseases." 

What is reasonable?  When I visit my vets, the main dog 'hospital ward' is reached via a corridor; along the same corridor (about 15ft further along the corridor) is a separate 'isolation' room. They have a main area for inpatients and a separate room for 'isolation'.

Our vets are inspected and they are also a BVA approved teaching practice, if it's good enough for them (& lets face it they are more likely to encounter infectious/contagious diseases than me) then why isn't it good enough for me to use a separate room?

My plan for isolation is to put the dog in the study (to keep the 'patient' separate from our other dogs), this was graded as 'marginally unacceptable'.  Why? Surely the dog isn't mixing with our other dogs so isn't that a "reasonable" precaution as a means of preventing the spread of infection etc.  I think it is a reasonable precaution; clearly, my breed advisor wasn't satisfied that it was good enough or he wouldn't have graded it as a 2.

This all takes us back to the point that there are rules, but how they are interpreted varies. From Mr Lambert's view point, one presumes that he is (as a breed advisor) able to apply common sense and is therefore able to fit the wide variety of home situations (he does acknowledge that they "consider variably") to the "EGM" criteria but are all his breed advisors doing likewise?

i am a member but if i was inspected by a breeder advisor with this sort of criteria i would fail hands down , think i will resign now rather than wait as the scheme isnt doing what it was alledged it was going to do , re health testing etc i have posted about this before and the ABS is rubbish as they wont enforce anything they just say its a recommedation and as for requirements it doesnt matter what the result is as long as you do the test , quite honestly i wish i hadnt wasted my money !!
I like many  others do more than  the abs asks for and the OP is quite right until they stop supporting puppy farmers and BYB why should we bother to support it.

I suggest that Bill Lambert takes the points made in this thread very seriously and not risk declaring them 'ridiculous'.

Not everyone posts but many read them and tell others.

This could spread like wildfire and all the good work they have done to sign up more 'serious' breeders could be undone.

Has there been any further correspondence on this?  Has anyone had anymore experiences?  It should definitely be kept as a fresh thread.

I have joined the scheme recently. I read the criteria and felt that with our first litter, we covered all the points required, so felt it couldn't hurt to be a member. I'm now wondering if it was a good move...

My bitch was confirmed in whelp this week, following an ultrasound scan. I have also just closed my waiting list as the response has been massive! I am now inviting prospective puppy buyers to come and meet us and our dogs - we don't even have any pups yet! Within a few days of birth, those who are getting a pup will know if they're going to get one. However long I am involved in my breed, I will give all puppy buyers the same experience - an extremely pleasant, helpful and positve one I hope.

We probably won't breed from my girl after this, her second litter, as we're hopefully keeping a girl to bring on and show. She wouldn't be bred from until aprox 3, so unless her half sister (bitch from first litter) has a litter at age 3 (approx 18 months time) that would be a big gap between litters.

Now is it worth someone like me even bothering with the ABS? All the things mentioned earlier in this thread have filled me with horror and quite franky I'm worried now in case I am inspected & fail horribly!!!! Yes my dogs live in the house with us - THEY ARE OUR PETS!! - they are fit and healthy & get vet treatment when needed. My garden has only today become fully secure, as an ancient stone wall fell down sometime ago - we've only just rebuilt it! They have their beds in our dining room off the kitchen. I don't have a utility room as such although we have hard floors throughout the ground floor.

My garden isn't large although the dogs do race around and play, but I have never really relied on it to exercise the dogs - I live in a village with 10 minute walk to a huge beach, & 2 minutes from a nature reserve where we can walk for hours! My dogs are taken our for walks for a minimum of 1 hour twice a day - every day come rain or shine, wind, sleet or snow! They don't even go into boarding kennels should we have to leave them - they go to a home boarder, in fact, they hardly ever get left, as we holiday in the UK, taking them with us - they are part of our family!

Even though I would probably fail some clinical inspection, I truly feel that I provide well for my dogs. They are treated as dogs, we don't "humanise" them, but I know they are happy and contented souls. My dogs are really well socialised (as were our pups) and are a pleasure to live with! I try to find people in our puppy buyers who I feel could provide the kind of life for their dog that we give to ours.

Am I the kind of breeder the KC wanted to encourage to join the ABS? It's starting to sound like they don't want the 99% of small breeders at all!!

Any news on this issue?

Sorry Barbara, don't know if that is a question for me or for  the AB members on here and their experiences. If me, then no, the KC have the puppies advertised on their puppy list because as they said to me they were quite happy to register the puppies!

No Alison just generally about this whole criteria thing with the ABS and KC response.

If they want all decent breeders to become ABS members they need to sort this out.

I have two friends wanting to join but this has given them pause :(