but at least if they are not KC registered it is obvious it was not with the originators approval.

Brainless -

You have taken two statements from my response and clearly taken them out of the context they were written. My point was if "breeders" were clearer about what they constituted as suitable qualities for breeding stock and what they require for their endorsements be lifted, then fewer puppy buyers would be disappinted three years down the line when they realise they will not be able to breed from their dog which they have invested time, money and energy in. "I think it unfair" if / when the breeders exact requirements are not clear from the start. I was not suggesting not endorsing puppies - I very clearly stated that I endorse my own litters.

I do believe endorsements are a flawed practice. As stated at the begining of this thread some use it for their own gain whether that be financial or otherwise. As is often the case in life though we work within the systems in place.

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

I do not disagree with this statement, but i do wonder why you felt the need to clarify it given the nature of my post? I was merely entering into a discussion which unless i am mistaken is the purpose of a forum. It is only by questioning the current status quo that things can be improved for all. My post was not meant as an attack on those who endorse their litters just constructive conversation.

>but at least if they are not KC registered it is obvious it was not with the originators approval

More importantly, if they are not KC registered, these ill-planned litters are kept outside the KC gene-pool.  All kinds of people without KC dogs might be breeding them willy-nilly, but they cease to be (provenly) purebred if that is happening outside the KC system and so surely the most important advantage of endorsements is that these litters will not be re-entering the breed and the KC gene pool as a result. 

Of course you can't stop people doing what they want to do, if they get it into their heads to do it - but you can render it irrelevant as far as the health of the (KC reg) breed is concerned.

> I was merely entering into a discussion which unless i am mistaken is the purpose of a forum.

Maybe I came across badly, but I was addressing myself to the parts I quoted for clarity as you cannot tell otherwise where a post will fall, as they do not fall under the post addressed.

I think most people who do endorse as advised to also inform the prospective owners broadly under which circumstances endorsements may be lifted, but at 8 weeks old this can never cover all eventualities.

For example hip scores, can one be absolutely pedantic with a point above your usual limit if the stud to be used is low scoring and the pedigree also, or a one sided score due to trauma?

For example not only may the quality of the puppy not be known until 3 years down the line but the state of the breed and prevalent faults health issues etc.

There is also the more delicate issue of whether the person owning the dog/bitch is suitable to be breeding from them.  They may lack the required commitment, facilities time, health etc.  They may be entirely suitable to be a pet owner or even exhibitor, and one would not wish to hurt their feelings.

Also what about Carriers of specific DNA testable health issues.  These can be bred from safely, but only with great care.

In this case I think a temporary removal of endorsements for a specific litter should be possible.

As I stated at the beginning of this thread. I am all for endorsements and they should be honoured if the dog is of poor specification and the new owner uneducated. What I am not in favour of is some breeders using the scheme solely to make yet more money out of that particular dog.  It DOES go on. A lot in fact, and I imagine it is more widely hear 'd of than it is actually spoken about.
  This practice is VERY unjust and any breeder worth their salt would want what is best for future generations and not what is best for their pockets.

Brainless -

I agree with alot of your post, though one part in particular does highlight what i see to be one of the current flaws of the endorsement system.

There is also the more delicate issue of whether the person owning the dog/bitch is suitable to be breeding from them. They may lack the required commitment, facilities time, health etc. They may be entirely suitable to be pet owner or even exhibitor, and one would not wish to hurt their feelings.

This to me emphasises the fact the current system is too personal. While i have no doubt your intentions would be with best interests of the dog/breed in mind, others can also refuse to lift endorsements simply because they have developed a personal dislike of someone or because they dont want any pups bred to be competition in the show ring, Field Trials or to impact puppy sales etc. The dogs owner could have done everything right but yet would not be able to challange the breeders decision. I've personally known a breeder of very respected lines to to refuse to lift endorsements for similar personal reasons after a marriage break up.

I personally think it would be an idea if a third party had the right to remove endorsements once all health criteria had been completed and the dog has been deemed worthy of breeding (breed survey etc). This would help eliminate any such bias from happening and not impact the welfare of the dog/breed.

I personally think it would be an idea if a third party had the right to remove endorsements once all health criteria had been completed and the dog has been deemed worthy of breeding (breed survey etc).

Then we're back to the Swedish system once again, which the KC keep saying they will never use. No puppies to be registered from parents that haven't had the relevant health testing with good results, certain breeds also to be character tested, and unless both parents have a minimum standard achieved either at shows or in any form of work relevant for the breed it will cost the breeder twice as much to register each puppy -and that is quite a large amount per pup.

I was thinking more along the lines of an ombudsman who had the power to lift the endorsement rather than removing that right from the breeder entirely.

Obviously the KC wouldnt use the swedish system due to the fact they would lose far too much money in registrations. Though personally I am not against the idea - It would ensure all breeders behaved responsibly and shared a common goal. Increased costs would also help deter Puppy Farmers and BYB, though most would probably instead move onto the breeding of designer cross breeds. As stated earlier in the thread though these dogs would not be bred into the KC gene pool.

Sorry if i went a little off topic.

Here here! :)

> because they dont want any pups bred to be competition in the show ring,

never understood that one, most breeders I know want people to succeed with their stock as it reflects positively on the breeder, as we can't keep or show/work as many dogs as we would like.  Also by passing on the best foundation stock our work doesn't die with us.

Certainly it is true of all the top breeders in my breed.  My mentor was known to often let the better pup in a litter go to someone else who would do it more justice in the ring.  She did this with the previous breed record holder and kept a sister who didn't do nearly as well.

What I cannot see justice in. is that some breeders demand money for removal of endorsements and the stud fee for using their stud without even evaluating the dog in question?
This is their price so that the owner can register potential pups regardless of the standard of the dog in question.
  With the price on health checks and the initial price of the pup, stud fee, endorsement fee etc, Some people are paying up to £4000 for a dog by the time some breeders have finished playing their trump card! Its corupt. The scheme defiantly needs mediation in place and ground rules for both sides.

As you can see such sharp practise is not acceptable in ethical circles, so such breeders ought to be named and shamed among their peers.

If they are breed club members perhaps complaints about them to the breed club for bringing the breed into disrepute, a complaint to the KC too, as surely such practises are unacceptable unless agree to in writing in advance.

NanaNine,

I've been reading this post and i'm horrified that some breeders out there are charging owners to release the endorsement, if the dog/bitch is good enough after all relevant checks have been completed and it meets the standards required then to charge is beyond me.. I don't disbelieve you as i've come across some very nasty people in dogs and some people who also see the dogs as a commodity and the money in which they can earn from the reputation from doing well, generally i'd probably say from the showing side of things(I don't know a huge amount from the working sides to comment on that)...I am saddened to hear of these things going on and many more beyond what you mention on this thread... What people do for money, greed is an evil sin!!

The KC see it as a breeder/purchaser issue and advise either to seek advice from the CAB or trading standards. They will not intervene. Where as I think they should. It would be a shame for people to lose trust in a scheme which is put in place for the actual dog and not the breeder. I hope that it is reviewed with issues discussed in mind.

Thank you Sue! It really disgusts me to be honest and to use endorsements to make yet more money makes them no better in my eyes than puppy farmers, because its just pure expoitaion.

> Then we're back to the Swedish system once again, which the KC keep saying they will never use. No puppies to be registered from parents that haven't had the relevant health testing with good results, certain breeds also to be character tested, and unless both parents have a minimum standard achieved either at shows or in any form of work relevant for the breed it will cost the breeder twice as much to register each puppy -and that is quite a large amount per pup.

From what I've seen of FCI judging in my breed, 'excellent' gradings are given out to quite mediocre dogs so it wouldn't improve the quality of my breed.

I am sure that the majority of breeders endorse their puppies for the benefit of the pup/dog and breed but there are many breeders out there who solely do it to monopolise on the breed! Regardless of their status in the ring or the working world. A lot of breeders have a price, like it or not. its a fact! As I said earlier. Most people know it is going on, but most choose to turn a blind eye. It is not an issolated case, in fact it is quite common practice in many breed circles. I can only hope that this does not deter potential good homes from seeing this scheme as a part of responsible breeding, rather than the scam some are turning it into.

My reply is not to anyone in particular but I do wonder where all these duped people come from. If you are buying a puppy for breeding or even a foundation bitch you will surely be discussing this with the breeder before you choose and buy the puppy, and surely during this conversation will be talking about the suitability of the pup you choose along with the what will be required to lift any endorsement put in place and no one buying with a view to breeding will be signing a contract that allows the original breeder to charge for this service.

Definitely Nova. It is just a shame when some breeders move the goal posts to their own advantage after someone has spent lots of time and money researching lines/studs coupled with health tests. Some people feel pressured into actually meeting their demands. Which is so very sad.

It is just a shame when some breeders move the goal posts to their own advantage
I'm sure that some breeders do - they're human and we don't all live by the same standards but I do think that the majority live by the spirit of the idea.  Having said that, we have a successful breeder in my breed who appears to be selling her puppies on terms that almost resemble pyramid selling! :(
I didn't endorse any puppies who have got to experienced exhibitors because I've trusted their knowledge and way of doing things or they wouldn't have had a puppy in the first place.  But I've never lifted any endorsement placed on a pet puppy because I haven't wanted any of my bitches put at risk being whelped by an inexperienced owner. :(  If I sold it as a pet, then it stays as a pet.

> I don't know a huge amount from the working sides to comment on that)...I am saddened to hear of these things going on and many more beyond what you mention on this thread... What people do for money, greed is an evil sin!! .

I can't speak for all working breeds, but in labs and spaniels it's very unusual to find a working breeder using endorsements. I've never come across it. I have heard of a number of cases where show breeders have asked for ridiculous sums of money to lift endorsements though, although most are reasonable. 

> My reply is not to anyone in particular but I do wonder where all these duped people come from. If you are buying a puppy for breeding or even a foundation bitch you will surely be discussing this with the breeder before you choose and buy the puppy,

I can understand your line of thought, but the reality is that many people buy a pup as a pet, with no intentions of showing/working it, but give it a try and get bitten by the bug.

And in a number of cases I've heard of the discussions were made with the exception of the financial aspect.

Yes, I can see that on occasion someone will buy a pup as a pet and then start showing or working it with success but of those who do that most of the original breeders would be only to happy to lift the endorsement - so those having difficulties will be few and my advice would be to go buy a breeding animal from elsewhere as you obviously have a good eye.

>But I've never lifted any endorsement placed on a pet puppy because I haven't wanted any of my bitches put at risk being whelped by an inexperienced owner.   If I sold it as a pet, then it stays as a pet.
>

One only has to read the local papers, pet classified online websites to know that just by placing endorsements on puppies does not ensure they will remain solely as pets and never be bred from. There are always plenty of litters of pedigree dogs available that are sold not K.C. registered usually for a much cheaper price and there are always plenty of people buying them. So in my humble opinion it is not a sure fire way to guarantee any pup you sell on 'not' being bred from.
Just to add as well that breeders who charge to lift endorsements I feel are very much in the minority. I bought my first pedigree dog from a top kennel, she had endorsements placed which were to be lifted once 3 relevant health checks had been done and were satisfactory. I did them and the breeder lifted them immediately with no cost to me. My next dog came with no endorsements, again from a top breeder, but I would still, if I intended breeding with her, do any health checks available and considered beneficial to the breed.

My pups are always endorsed. I would never sell without. If a purchaser did not like that then fine, they can go elsewere. My contract states that I will only lift the endorsement for breeding if hips/elbows are done and acceptable see below.
Quote :-
A, If the endorsement concerning registering of puppies is to be lifted then the parents must have had elbow and hip ex-rays that are within the breed average scores and any health checks that may become available in the future, and must have acceptable temperaments and be of sufficient breed merit (I would need to see this puppy shown at championship show level and perform well before lifting the endorsement) to justify the breeding of a litter of pups.

B, The endorsement covering export will only be lifted on the breeders terms if happy with the reasons for exporting a pup out of the country i.e. emigration of the family, or showing purposes.

[b]We/I Have been given time to read and understand the requirements for the lifting of the endorsements.
There will be NO charge for lifting of endorsements
Signed............................................Date:-............

I would never charge to lift an endorsement, I think that is dispicable. I sell pups at a price I believe to represent the cost of my time and effort involved and as I expect 90% of all pups bred to be going to pet homes the price is "one size fits all" I hope to gain enough insight of my puppy byers to enable me to have a pretty good idea of what they are expecting from thier pup before they are accepted on my list. If one were to go astray and be bred from without my prior knowledge then they would go un-registered. I hope that will never happen but anything is possible. I wouold know I had tried my best to safguard them. I feel it is essential to have the "bold" bit signed seperatly from the contract so there will be NO comeback from the KC if anyone applied direct to them.
Aileen

In almost 50 years of breeding (but not that many litters!) we have always endorsed each an every puppy that we have bred - including those that we have kept for ourselves.

A puppy may come from impeccable health-tested lines, with champion after champion behind it - it can show great physical promise at 3, 4, 6, 8 10 weeks.   It can develop beautifully physically - but then the temperament might not be as sound as one would wish - and therefore to me, endorsements should be standard and only lifted once a dog is proved to be as good a specimen as possible of the breed, with an excellent temperment.   In fact, I've found myself in the position of having to lift endorsements on a puppy bred by me, about to produce her first litter!

Somebody in this thread has intimated that breeders do not wish to lift endorsements because they do not want to see competition in the ring - what absolute tosh!    The original breeder's affix will show the breeding of a winning dog which can only bring additional kudos to that breeder as well as the new owner.

We see only too often threads on here asking "how can I lift the endorsements on my bitch" when people have jumped into breeding greed far too quickly.

I like the wording on yours Merlot. I would think it odd not to have endorsements on a puppy these days, anything to protect the breed is essential..
I do know someone in our breed who expects their stock to be temperament tested at the breed club show and also pass the bronze KCGC on top of what you mention above too before they consider lifting.. Not sure about the KCGC but I do think the temperament testing is a great thing to have done. Maybe the club could have more opportunities throughout the year for dogs to complete this other than the GB weekend? Have no idea how viable this is?

Anyway I digress.... To charge to lift an endorsement should be something in which the KC should be looking into and maybe something which the dog papers would be interested in knowing about?

> endorsements should be standard and only lifted once a dog is proved to be as good a specimen as possible of the breed, with an excellent temperment. 

I too would prefer that Endorsements were an Opt out rather than opt in.

I too think to make the Endorsement the norm would be helpful and may stop people thinking it is some devilish plot to stop them doing what they want. The actual registration could then suggest to the new owner should ask the breeder what will be the criteria to remove the Endorsements.

Makes a lot of sense to me -make ALL pups endorsed as the norm, and make the breeder have to contact the KC to remove any endorsement  like now -better that way than just ticking a box saying they don't want it.

Lokis mum :

"Somebody in this thread has intimated that breeders do not wish to lift endorsements because they do not want to see competition in the ring - what absolute tosh!" 

I feel that this comment was directed at a post i made earlier and so will try to answer it. I completely agree with your comments regarding only breeding dogs of correct temperment, type and health. My point was that the breeder can refuse to lift endorsements for whatever reason they like - whether this be for the good of the dog /breed, personal prejudices or for financial gain in the manner stated by others on this board. I have met some very good people during my time in the dog world and also others who are lets just say less honest and morally grey. I just feel there should be systems put in place by the KC to make an appeal against individual endorsements in certain circumstances i.e. against those charging to lift endorsements. 

As i've already stated I am not against endorsements, only those who use them maliciously for their own gain.

> good of the dog /breed, personal prejudices or for financial gain in the manner stated by others on this board. I have met some very good people during my time in the dog world and also others who are lets just say less honest and morally grey.<

Hmm.. don't know which breeds you have/or had - but it is not something that I have ever experienced in 50 years ...maybe I've been lucky and you've been unlucky.

I do know from posts on here that an awful lot of people come on posting, expecting that we will all throw up our hands in horror at the fact that a breeder has refused to rescind an endorsement when there has been absolutely no contact from the owner of the potential brood bitch/stud since the day the puppy was taken from the breeder.    If a good relationship is built between owner and breeder, it can only be for the good of the dogs and the breed.

At the moment, my son has an 18 month old gundog bitch from excellent lines - a beautiful girl - and he had thought about breeding from her - but it is becoming increasing obvious that she is a beautiful LITTLE bitch - unless there is a sudden growth spurt so any thoughts about taking her back to see her breeder and getting advice on a prospective stud and lifting endorsements have been dismissed - motherhood will not be for her!

There is such a thing in place. The KC will imtervene on occasion if the breeder will not lift the endorsement, but only if the breeder did not make it very very plain it was in place and the circumstances under which it will be lifted. If it was not made plain at the start with written evidence that a charge would be made I think the KC should intervene.
A breeder who refuses to lift it through petty bitching is not a reputable breeder in my opinion. I suspect it could be done through the courts but that is a messy business.
The KC need to tighten up and make sure breeders are not manipulating the scheme or it will lose it's teeth.
Aileen