Hi. This is just a general observation and would like your opinion(s). Where as I am an avid fan of KC endorsements, I hear more and more stories of breeders exploiting the scheme by charging extortionate amounts for their removal coupled with the obligation of using one of the original breeder(s) studs. (Plus stud fee) In theory, they are there to protect a breed, line & to encourage responsible breeding. So why are so many so-called caring breeders doing this?

I have heard a breeder actually say that her breed is relatively uncommon and so puppies are easily sold and very expensive. She endorses all pedigrees to keep the number of breeding bitches down and so the price stays high !!

I don't understand how they can get away with it as all it costs to get an endorsement removed is the price of a stamp

As I said previously. I always assumed that the endorsements were put  in place to protect puppies from getting into the wrong hands, protecting gene pools, ensure recommended health testing and the well-being of the whole breed. (Which I am sure this is the case for many good breeder)
  How can a breeder justify selling a pup and charging twice the equivalent the price paid of the pup for removal of endorsements? How does this benefit the dog or a breed? Surely to be involved in their offspring's breeding programme should be more rewarding than lining their pockets thrice over?

Bear with me but I can see it as a backhand way of putting a financial endorsement onto an endorsement.... an extra endorsement, and possibly a different way of putting people off breeding.

OK: to qualify: I know someome who bought a pup under that restriction. Owner wanted to breed but was terrified of approaching breeder to lift endorsement as she imagined it was just about money. Turned out it wasn't. It was about breeder trying to think of ways to deter casual breeders and moneymakers, knowing full well that in this day & age endorsements mean little, people will still breed BUT if any of her dogs were to be bred and KC reg.... she had a way of making sure only the best owners got to do it. They came to an arrangement and the silly money to lift the endorsement was forgotten.

It's sad, I know....

I enquired about an Italian Greyhound last year...they were KC registered and endorsed, the breeder was selling at £800 each and if I wanted the endorsement lifted (which I didnt) then it would be an extra £200 for her to to write to the kennel club and ask them to lift it!!

This is'nt always the case though. Some breeders purely exploit the scheme, hence more puppies being un-registered, I have seen many a dog advertised health tested but without kc paperwork. Perhaps if the KC endorsed every pup until health checks were submitted and along with breeders consultation before removal of endorsements, it would not be so open to the ones who see the endorsements as making yet more money.

I apologise, my last response was to MsTemeraire.... ToffeeCrisp, some breeders of the larger breeds charge £1000 for removal plus £1000 for their stud! The kc wont intervene  as the say `It's between breeder and purchaser` Surely the need to take control of such corruption of THEIR implemented scheme?

As I understand the KC's instructions are that in the requirement for endorsemetns to be signed for is that the circumstances under which they willb e lifted if any ahve to be listed.

So if a fee is not included in this aggrement/contract I thnk the KC might well find in the oweners favour if all other issues are satisfied re health testing etc.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1735
To avoid disputes of this type, the Kennel Club strongly advises that all breeders draw up a private contract when selling puppies. If endorsements are being used, the contract should mention why these have been placed and under what conditions they would be removed (if at all). This contract must be signed and dated by both purchaser and vendor, showing that both have agreed to these terms. If the breeder chooses not to draw up a full contract, there must still be a document stating which endorsements have been placed, signed by both purchaser and vendor.

If the new owner and the person(s) who placed the endorsement(s) are unable to reach an agreement regarding the removal, the new owner can apply to the Kennel Club to remove the endorsement if they believe that it has not been placed in accordance with our rules and Regulations:.......................

@ Brainless. All well and good, but I know of someone who has been in a situation where the breeder has gone back on their word and has demanded £1000 for removal of endorsements plus continuous pick of litters (un-endorsed) and the actual purchaser of the dog would not be allowed to KC any pup they chose to keep! The KC have turned around and stipulated that its between purchaser and breeder! I have actually seen the letter from the KC!

but did they agree to it in the contract.

No they did not as other condition's were: The bitch would have to go back to the original breeder to whelp and if they broke the contract then their dog would have had to been surrended, Now the KC have those actual terms she wanted enforced in their possession. Surely they could have intervened?
At the time of purchase, the lady and breeder agreed verbally that if all health checks came back of a good standard then the endorsements would be removed. There was no actual 'breeders contract' at time of sale, just a signed by both parties receipt. Which had the amount paid and the wording 'I have been explained that kc endorsements are in place.
 

It is always difficult as a third party to know exactly what the situation is, for example I am far more used to hearing breeders complain that the KC will lift an endorsement unless the contract is binding.

Human nature being what it is some will undoubtedly try to use it for their own ends but just because of the few should the whole system be scraped, I do hope not. I have never bought in a pup that does not have an enforcement but I have never bought a puppy from someone I do not trust totally

I agree Nova. The dog should always come first and there should be something in place to protect it. It is just sad that `some` use the scheme to their own advantage.

Got to confess, I have some mixed feelings about endorsements.

As a buyer, I've always striven to get pups without endorsements and it has put me off breeders in the past, to learn that they endorse.  (Not to the extent that I have gone for inferior breedings, but have found breedings equally as good which haven't endorsed.  In my breed, this was possible some years back - I don't know if it has changed now as it has been 4 yrs since I bought a pup.)

My reasoning for it is just wanting to feel that I fully and totally own the dog, and not wanting to feel that there is someone out there with some unspoken power over me, preventing me from doing something.  (Whether or not I actually want to do it.)  If I knew and had a close relationship with a breeder and felt that there was good trust between us, I would probably feel differently, but when I'm buying a pup from someone I've met only a couple of times and when I can't foresee what might happen to that person in the future (ie what if they die, who would lift the endorsement??), I'm reluctant to tangle myself up with preventative red tape if I don't need to.  (Of course I fully acknowledge that most breeders on here use endorsements wisely and only to benefit the breed.)

However, as someone who wants to breed their first litter this year, I can see the attractions of endorsements and using them.  I must confess I am humming and haaing about it all.

but when I'm buying a pup from someone I've met only a couple of times and when I can't foresee what might happen to that person in the future (ie what if they die, who would lift the endorsement??), I'm reluctant to tangle myself up with preventative red tape if I don't need to.

But that works exactly the same the other way around. Imagine for a breeder to just have met you a couple of times and then sell you a pup NOT endorsed -how could they possibly place that trust in you so soon?

I would avoid a breeder that charges to remove endorsements, and was unaware that this goes on, sounds like pure greed to me. However I would be horrified if one of our pups had its endorsements lifted without our consent as you all know not all the puppies in any one litter is good enough to breed from sometimes a whole litter is only pet quality. But if this is pointed out at time of purchase it should not be a problem, even our boy we bred ourselves is endorsed :).

I think breeders that charge a high puppy price then another price to lift endorsements gives other breeders a bad name, and will put people off going to the type of breeder that endorses and would go to jo blogs down the street with a untested parents and litter.

I usually buy my pups from people I know in the breed, or who know me so if a pup were to be endorsed and I was considering them for breeding, I would speak to the breeder and explain my intentions.  If the breeder didn't want to sell the pup un-endorsed, I would walk away.  Not because I would'nt health check or would breed from a dog with faults but because this should be my desicion to make not the breeder.  Once the cash changes hands, the future of that dog should be the responsibility of the new owner, IMO.  I wouldn't trust anyone(sad but true) as I have met with liars too many times in the dog world.

If the breeder didn't want to sell the pup un-endorsed, I would walk away.  Not because I would'nt health check or would breed from a dog with faults but because this should be my desicion to make not the breeder.  Once the cash changes hands, the future of that dog should be the responsibility of the new owner, IMO.

Can only say I hope nobody would sell you a puppy as it's people like you who are creating the problems in the dog world.

Oh and it shouldn't matter how well you know somebody, pups should be endorsed anyway. I've let my best friend have no less than 4 pups over the years -every single one endorsed and I'd trust her with anything.

I believe that if you create a litter you have a responsibility to those pups for the duration of their lives. BUT for someone to pay thousands of pounds for a dog only to be expected to pay twice that amount again for the price of a stamp is just purely glutinous and is of no benefit to the dog or breed what so ever.  

Ditto all my pups except those exported are endorsed, including my own, until I lift ti for breeding.

This practise should be reported to the kennel club and perhaps they will make a rule forbidding it.  It brings the whole system into disrepute.

Of course in breeds where there is a marked difference in price between pet quality and show/breeding quality it may be justified if unexpectedly the pup turns out well for the breeder to expect the full price.

To be honest though I think most wise breeders sell all their puppies at pet price,a dn if they go on to achieve more then great.  No breeder can guarantee promise will be realised, though obvious pet only can be ascertained in breeds with unacceptable colours, coat types or markings..

I would suggest if you know this to be more than an isolated case you might like to collect details of cases to present to the Kennel club for investigation.  contact the dog papers and speak to someone, some publicity may bring out more cases that can be collected and referred.

One simple solution of course, for the time being at least, is for all of us who DON'T extort money to put it into the contract that the endorsement/s will be lifted when the conditions are met AT NO EXTRA COST TO THE BUYER. In fact mine already says so -the contract I use was drawn up by a dog breeding solicitor. Then anyone who is asked to sign one that does not say there will be no extra cost can just walk away.

> Can only say I hope nobody would sell you a puppy as it's people like you who are creating the problems in the dog world.

Not the poster to whom this was directed but this comment seems very unfair. The person never said she was going to be breeding untested dogs or churning out puppies so I fail to see how having a preference for an unendorsed pup qualifies this person as a bad breeder.
It could equally be argued that by endorsing pups breeders are creating problems by limiting already small gene pools.

Great idea off to add that now.  Perhaps soemoen shoudl contact the kennel club to add that to their advice re placing endorsements.

It has been reported with all correspondence between purchaser and buyer put infront of the KC, and the KC wrote back to the new owners stating that they will not get involved as it is between breeder and purchaser. Which is a total cop out in my opinion,
   The dog concerned has had all it's health checks with good results. As someone previously mentioned. I would hate to see people buying pups off BYB solely because they are scared of buying a well-bred endorsed pups, due to `some` peoples greed.

The person never said she was going to be breeding untested dogs or churning out puppies so I fail to see how having a preference for an unendorsed pup qualifies this person as a bad breeder.

Because if everyone reasoned like that, then everyone could breed -and THAT is the problem.

It could equally be argued that by endorsing pups breeders are creating problems by limiting already small gene pools.

You don't get genepools much smaller than the one for my main breed, and all pups are sold endorsed -it never creates a problem and never has done. It just ensures we don't suddenly find ourselves with for instance HD in the breed as many people may think that with such a low BMS (9), hardly any instances of HD heard of, why bother hip scoring? With the pups all sold endorsed, they have no choice but to hip score and and hence there are no surprises lurking.

Yes but that is an individual case, what I am talking about is if this is becoming a scam then the KC need to be made aware, so that something can be done to stop it.  Marianne's suggestion is very sensible.

One of the best ways to tackle this individual case is though embarrassment and peer pressure with the breed club and members being made aware of a breeders sharp practise.  This of course would need to be a breeder that had a decent reputation to want to keep in the first place.

If all comes down to selling something that is fit for purpose - if you tell the breeder you are buying the pup for breeding then the contract should give the circumstances under which the endorsement would be lifted and this contract should be discussed between the parties. Most breeders would want the pup to have the health checks required by the breed and the results to be satisfactory and also for the pup to have been shown or worked and proven to be of satisfactory quality or at least shown to the breeder and approved of - the breeder may also require that the buyer in turn places a similar endorsement on anything they breed carrying the first breeders affix (kennel name)

The breed club was informed and could not take action as the breeder was not a member although they are in the show world. The breed club did say to tell the KC that they would in no way endorse such practice. This is not an isolated case. Sadly it has become quite a trend in certain breeds.

>the breeder was not a member although they are in the show world.

Known does not mean the same as repected, most people are usually bred club members.

Dog Papers next then.

> As a buyer, I've always striven to get pups without endorsements and it has put me off breeders in the past, to learn that they endorse.

I feel the complete opposite (although I rescue rather than buy pups). If I were to buy a puppy I'd never buy one that wasn't endorsed, I'd assume the breeder was an irresponsible one no matter how perfect everything else about them seemed.

I dont and never have endorsed any of my pups but would do for a valid health reason only if nessasary.
None have been bred from anyway except those who asked for advice before breeding and its easy enough to check breed record supplements for any litters by or from dogs i have bred so there is no reason to endorse pups just for the sake of putting one on.
As for puppy farmers they couldnt care less if dogs are endorsed or not they'll be bred from anyway.
Endorsements could be part of the reason there are so many puppy farmers and designer crossbreeds out there.
Every single puppy or adult should be registered with the KENNEL CLUB ONLY all purebreeds,crossbreeds and mongerels.

Sorry, Jogold but don't agree with you at all. In my experience of those puppy farming in my breed, they have managed to get hold of some well bred dogs in the first place that haven't been endorsed and then they go on to sell the pups as KC registered with no endorsements and boast about the wins of the dogs back in the pedigrees :(

Nor do I Jogold, it is the responsibility of a breeder to make sure future generations are better than the present and you can't know when a pup is 8 weeks old that it is a good enough example of the breed not that it will pass with good results all the health tests require by your breed and the only way to do your best as a breeder is to endorse.

i agree ALL my pups go with endorsments ,i state that any1 wanting to breed in the future talk to me about it at time of coming to see/meeting us all. i give in writing that if pup is of good sound and all health tests are carried out ten i will lift edorsments and will be very happy to help them if live close enough for me to jump into car and get there with 1h i will even help at whelping time or im at the end of the phone any time day/night.
only 3 out of the 9 are thinking about it and weve spoke long about it all so im very happy with them having a endorsed pup still the rest are pet homes and 1 im keeping :) but intill ALL tests for my breed are carried out i will NOT lift them and i make that clear and all familys are very happy with that!
xxx

its easy enough to check breed record supplements for any litters by or from dogs i have bred so there is no reason to endorse pups just for the sake of putting one on.

Bit late finding out about pups that shouldn't have been born AFTER they have been born and registered.........

endorsement/s will be lifted when the conditions are met AT NO EXTRA COST TO THE BUYER.

This sounds like the perfect solution. One of my dogs came with endorsements, the other didn't, which surprised me. The breeder of the endorsed dog was very clear with me: if the dog matures into a healthy, fit for purpose animal that can add something to the breed, then once he has all his health tests she will lift the endorsements. How can that be unfair when she has put a great deal of work into ensuring that her bloodlines are the best they can be? In practice it enhances the relationship between breeder and new owner as it evolves from financial transaction (in the eyes of the law at least) to one of mentoring and passing on knowledge, skills and support.

Thinking about this from another angle, if any breeders out there feel pressured to lift endorsements because the owner has accidentally or deliberately allowed the dog to sire a litter or bitch to be in whelp without any health tests, I hope they will take a hard line and say no. I can think of more than one example where this has happened and the puppies have been priced at two levels--£250 more for owners wanting the pups KC registered.

that can add something to the breed
To me that's soooo important.  Just because a dog passes the health tests, even if it has a good temperament, there are still so many other things that would need to make it useful to the breed for me.

I can't understand breeders who say 'I will lift the endorsements if all health tests are completed'.  If the dog isn't a particularly good worker, or had done really well in the show ring, or excels in agility or whatever it's been bred for - and being a good pet just isn't good enough for me, there are rescue kennels full of those already - then I don't see that the dog world needs that dog's genes.

No no i only check to make sure the pups registered are the same as iv seen with their mother no extras or less then there should be
the only ones bred from have been those that i approved the rest took advice and neutered theirs rather than breed.

Here is another thing what good is a endorsment if your pups are not transfered by their new owners if bred from youd have no way of knowing.

They still wouldn't be able to register them.

I can never understand why because there may be a few who may try to sidetrack something put in place for the good of all to stop trying altogether.

So much effort and care is put into raising a litter of quality pups why on earth would you not continue to do your best for them because they are 8 weeks old and are no longer 100% in your care, you have a lifetime responsibility to the pups you allow to be conceived and born and one of those responsibilities is to place an endorsement.

> In my experience of those puppy farming in my breed, they have managed to get hold of some well bred dogs in the first place that haven't been endorsed and then they go on to sell the pups as KC registered with no endorsements and boast about the wins of the dogs back in the pedigrees :-(

Ditto, and it is galling for the breeders of the dogs in the back of these pedigrees.

Sadly I do know of this happening in certain breeds and I think it stinks.  I endorse all of my pups but remove them if health testing etc is of a good standard.  I do not ask for any extra money.

i fully endorse every pup i breed even the ones that end up staying but anyone phoneing for a pup is told straight away that i blanket endorse everything as standard as a friend of ours in the same breed was caught out by someone calling later than they said and they were in a rush to get the pup and leave as they said they had a fair distance to drive and wanted to get on the motorway before it got dark (about 12 years ago now) and they breeders hurried through everything thinking that they were making sense as it is about a hours drive to the motorway on country roads for  most of that distance but then in the BRS they then found the pup had been sold in their name to china something that they would never consider never mind do, since then i blanket endorse and most buyers do not care the couple that have objected hummed and harred about it and wanted it lifting for when the took the pup home needless to say they did not get one infact they were told that they would never get one of me as the more they said the less is added up and the more unhappy i was, it was all done over the phone as they lived or so they said on the lsle of man and only gave a mobile number sorry noway in fact i told another friend who is a cc judge in both corgi breeds and it went around the country in about 5 days and they had been trying to buy another six bitch puppies off other people and they ended up with none who wants as supposed pets 7 puppy bitches all of a similar age?

The problem I have with endorsements is that more often than not breeders are not clear enough on what the actual conditions are in which they would be lifted.
I find more often than not it is simply stated by breeders that endorsements are lifted on the condition of necessary health checks being completed and that the dog in question be of good enough standard to contribute something to the breed. While i find this good in theory, I think this loose wording can be cause for future disagreement. What constitutes a good breeding prospect to one breeder may not to another. This means that the dogs owner can do everything right and still fail to have the endorsement lifted due to differing opinions on ideal type etc. The owner would have by this point paid for ownership of the dog, health tests and the expense of showing the dog, but they will still ultimatley be having the fate of their breeding program dictated to by a third party - which i find unfair.

I personally am very clear in my Sale Contract, stating exactly which health tests are required, exact health scores that the dog in question will need to achieve  (or ideally be lower than) to be deemed worthy of breeding and what i constitute as sufficient criteria for breeding stock. If this is achieved i will lift the endorsements obviously at no charge. I have a different contract for pups with any obvious faults which clearly states that endorsements will at no point be lifted. This way both myself and the buyer know exactly where we stand.

Its at the point now where commercial breeders are using the fact pups they sell will not be endorsed as a marketing tool. Making the pups more desirable to those who want complete ownership of their dog from the start - regardless of the fact they are being sold with none of the necessary health checks and guarantees. These pups will in turn produce sub par offspring of their own and continue the problem further. I think if all breeders were clearer then endorsements would be less of an issue to prospective puppy buyers.
 

> What constitutes a good breeding prospect to one breeder may not to another. This means that the dogs owner can do everything right and still fail to have the endorsement lifted due to differing opinions on ideal type etc. The owner would have by this point paid for ownership of the dog, health tests and the expense of showing the dog,

Surely no-one would need to spend money on the health testing or extensive showing without first getting the breeders opinion on whether the dog/bitch was of breeding quality?  No-one can be sure if any dog bitch will reach the required standard, whether sold or kept by the breeder, so they are no worse off than the breeder.

> they will still ultimately be having the fate of their breeding program dictated to by a third party - which i find unfair.

What is even worse if the breeder didn't have this tool, having worked hard to keep/achieve a standard in their breeding program to find people who buy their stock use it badly and possibly undo all their hard work, or as is happening having the galling realisation that their dogs are behind poorly bred stock, and their reputation being used to endorse it .

Puppies are sold at and primarily as companions.  Anything else they may achieve or be suitable for is a bonus, not an expectation.>

If the pup turns out unsuitable by the breeders standards then the owner is free to buy another.  This is cheaper than breeding a litter anyway, even if it is disappointing to not be able to breed one yourself, surely breeding from an inferior example will not put them any further forward on the road to breeding quality stock than buying in better an then starting on the breeding road a bit later.

> If I were to buy a puppy I'd never buy one that wasn't endorsed, I'd assume the breeder was an irresponsible one no matter how perfect everything else about them seemed.

Oh dear!  That would be me then as I have never endorsed and I have never had anyone breed irresponsibly from anything I've bred, in fact nothing I've bred (Except for what I've kept) has been bred from.   One bitch was mated by AI with my full approval but it didn't take, sadly.

People will breed from their animals regardless of KC/GCCF (Active) registration or not, you only have to look through Preloved and similar at the puppy/kitten ads on there.