At work we treated a labrador for a dermoid sinus.

Suzieque I think that all the people on here would agree with you that it is not acepatble to put pups to sleep that are healthy, allthoguh yes there are still breeders who do this (not just in dogs) however it is not the norm nower days (hence why that breeder on PDE had to find older vets), most dogs that have confomation faults go to pet homes. I know someone who breeds great danes who i rember saying that pure white danes should be put-to-sleep as they are normaly deaf (according to her, not in the breed so dont know)  and it would be wrong to rehome them. i dont agree with that and dont know anyone else who does and i would not assume that most dane breeder also do this, but you orignal post came across to some people that you were saying that most RR breeders did this, im not saying that was what you ment but that is how it reads to me (the biggest problem with forums, you cant tell how someone is saying something when its typed) which i think may have offended some people.

The Kennel Club added a paragraph to their code of ethics that healthy puppies are not culled.

Your "one report" that couldn't find any supporting evidence of DS being found in other breeds can't have looked very hard!

See here;

http://rrcus.org/rhodesianridgebackhealth/resources/dermoidsinus.html

Suzieque I think that all the people on here would agree with you that it is not acepatble to put pups to sleep that are healthy, allthoguh yes there are still breeders who do this (not just in dogs) however it is not the norm nower days (hence why that breeder on PDE had to find older vets),

Jo, this example was used purely in response to Polly who had stated cases where, following the PDE programme, an owner of a cavalier went to her vet and requested the dog be PTS in case it had inherited the awful brain problems featured in the prog.

I pointed out that other people were already putting healthy pups to sleep BEFORE the PDE prog and referred directly to the breeders of Rhodesian Ridgbacks who had ridgeless pups PTS!  I was not making any other comparison or suggestion but trying to balance things out.  The PDE is not solely responsible for thse actions - they were already in existence. Period.

With regards to puttingto sleep dogs born  deaf, which used to be the norm with Dallies aswell as other predominantly white-haired breeds, I agree with you entirely which is why I have such a pup!  He too suffers with congenital deafness and I am extremely glad the breeder did not decide to 'cull' as he is a very clever, affectionate, loving, sociable and well-adjusted little dog who has brought much joy into my life.

The Kennel Club added a paragraph to their code of ethics that healthy puppies are not culled.

Post PDE if I understand correctly.

I'd be interested to see your source of the figure of 33.9% carriers for sinus - research is still being carried out - funded by the RR breed clubs.

see here;

http://rrcus.org/rhodesianridgebackhealth/resources/overviewgeneticdesease.html

> Post PDE if I understand correctly.

Don't suppose they considered it needed saying.

Interesting report, Susieque, but it is rather out of date. The mode of inheritance for dermoid sinus is now regarded as being complex (or dominant with incomplete penetrance) rather than recessive. All responsible breeders are impatiently awaiting a DNA test - research which is being funded by the members of the RR breed clubs.

Having just dealt with somebody who contacted the KC because they bought a puppy from a breeder and it was KC registered, I feel I have to point out something to you.

The Kennel Club Code of Ethics means nothing!  They have admitted that it is simply a code that they expect breeders to adhere to but they will continue to register their puppies if they don't.  They will not take action against any breeder who breaches it.  They will however take action against any KCAB who breaches the CofE.  My feeling is that the KCAB scheme would not be needed if the KC actually followed their own rules and regulations and code of ethics.  Everything is in place to ensure that puppy purchasers do not fall foul to bad breeders.  Why don't they use them?  They happily register ANY puppies to ANY breeder, health checked or not and carry out no checks to establish correct parentage.  This is appalling in this day and age.

As for the US breeder who is the topic of much debate on here.  I can assure you that no legal action will be taking place against JH.  The US breeder said of the dog in question's mother:  "...died at 9 years old. Euthanized after a severe stroke. Cause never defined. Kidney and liver function all within normal at exam....blood pressure normal...was defined as stroke for no better explanation from vet....but CRS was positive.".......   The dog in question's sister is dead although not from FSF or Amyloidosis.  One of the sister's offspring has had FSF and is now in the final stages of renal failure, diagnosed as amyloidosis. 

Those are the facts!

Therefore it would appear that the mother did not die from a tragic accident as has been printed in Our Dogs and they failed to advise that his sister was dead and had produced offspring with a hereditary condition.

Please open your eyes and see that, while you guys on here might be trying to get the message across about health testing, good breeders etc., - there are others that are hiding things in order to climb the ladder.  This is the truth; these words were written by the US breeder herself.

So basically JH was not really that far off the mark.  His father is still alive so that bit of info was wrong but what about the rest! 

As I have said before, there are people who don't check their facts and I warned that if this came out there would be a backlash from the people who have all the correct information.  It still went ahead though.  What a shame!

> His father is still alive so that bit of info was wrong

> there are people who don't check their facts

Jemima - presumably!

As I have said before, there are people who don't check their facts and I warned that if this came out there would be a backlash from the people who have all the correct information.  It still went ahead though.  What a shame! .

What a shame that you didn't check the facts for Jemima!  You obviously have her ear!

I find it totally amazing that people who post on this forum and presumably think themselves well versed in dogs show by their posts just how little they know about dogs in general and the function of the KC in particular. Would be nice if a little effort was put into understanding before they leap on the bandwagon of unfounded criticism.

You just can't get it can you?  You still cannot see the wood for the trees!!!  You can never change the minds of people who don't want to be changed. 

Why pick up on that little bitty bit of info and ignore the fact the KC code of ethics means nothing; they are promoting puppy farmers breeding; they are not doing enough for the health of dogs; the background of the dog is in question etc., etc., etc., 

I don't understand why you think that everything written is the truth when you absolutely disagree with anything that JH writes.  That's a kangaroo court!! 

FYI I don't have the ear of JH; I just happen to believe that there are untold numbers of breeders doing no health checks and pretending to be holy!  Its just not true and you all know it. 

All is not good in the world of pedigree dogs.  What was written in Our Dogs is absolute tosh and yet no matter what proof you would have you would still believe it, such is your quest to prove that JH is wrong and you are all correct.

Jackie H, I am absolutely well versed in the workings of the KC and the world of show dogs.  I suggest you check your facts.  Where is the unfounded criticism?  I am telling you the truth.  It is you that cannot see the truth; preferring to live in your indoctrinated world that the KC is king!!  The KC are the biggest supporters of puppy farms; they are the ones that register the puppies.  Please enlighten me if I am wrong about anything; you seem to be sure of your facts!

Am I to believe that the KC does act on people breaking their Code of Ethics?  They don't!  Am I to believe that the KC actually adhere to their own rules and regulations?  They don't.  They bend everything to suit themselves and they are just a money making machine.  They take registrations from anybody without doing any checks whatsoever on parentage.  How do I know this?  I have the experience of dealing with them.  Do you?

Did not say I was referring to you - but as the saying goes if the cap fits.

Jo, this example was used purely in response to Polly who had stated cases where, following the PDE programme, an owner of a cavalier went to her vet and requested the dog be PTS in case it had inherited the awful brain problems featured in the prog.

I pointed out that other people were already putting healthy pups to sleep BEFORE the PDE prog and referred directly to the breeders of Rhodesian Ridgbacks who had ridgeless pups PTS!

There is a HUGE difference in between putting a newborn puppy to sleep that cannot see or hear and hasn't started life, and putting down a dog that is living life in a new home. No comparison whatsoever. You might as well say there's no difference between putting down a puppy and killing a flea. I don't cull, never have done, never will do -but comparing these two is just ridiculous. I assume you also should not worm dogs, or kill wild rats? It's all killing animals, after all.

no-one says absolutely everything under the KC banner is rosy, but the main problem in pedigree dogs and dogs in general is not the Kennel club, who at present have anything to do with just approximately 25% of the estimated dog population.

The breeders who do not health test abuse the guidelines etc under the KC system are even worse outside it, where they cannot even fulfil the basic requirements needed for KC registration.

Most people here would like to see the KCAB requirements the minimum standard for registration full stop, and the reason many of us were slow, or are still not joining is that the requirements are not strong enough, and we have been doing more than required for years.

The KC view is to tighten the main registration criteria slowly (when I came into dogs 20 years ago, there was no limit on number of litters that could be registered, or upper and lower age limits etc) so they don't suddenly loose those using the system with bare minimum/low standards, as there is a chance of getting them to up their game at present.  Next year they are cutting the maximum litter number down again to 4, and not allowing registration for a litter born by C section, if two prior sections have been required.

If suddenly they brought in the tougher rules they would loose a great number of dogs and also the gene pools of breeds would suddenly shrink.  Even some of the not so good breeders have useful bloodlines (often because they brought in good dogs a generation back). 

There is of course the argument that a sudden loss of income is the KC's main worry, a view I am sympathetic to, but then a sudden rather than gradual cut in income means the KC might not still be able to provide the level of services and investment in canine health and welfare they do now, as they are a non profit making organisation as I understand it.

Those who are determined to do as they wish will get around any rules or work outside them, or set up meaningless alternatives to the KC, sadly that is human nature.

The kind of breeders we think of as ethical don't need to verify parentage for example, as they have no reason to declare anything but the true facts, use health screening as a matter of course, as they want to breed and own healthy typical specimens of their breeds, and share these with other admirers of their breed.

The KC are the biggest supporters of puppy farms; they are the ones that register the puppies.

but most puppy farmers breed unregistered pups dont they? thats what i presumed anyway?

> The KC are the biggest supporters of puppy farms; they are the ones that register the puppies. 

There are at least two other commercial enterprises catering to the puppy farming community with pretty paperwork, to get more money for the pups than without 'registration'.

Approximately 3/4's of dogs born have no KC paperwork.

such is your quest to prove that JH is wrong and you are all correct.

We breed and show the dogs that prove JH to be wrong in her general assumption that all breeders are bad!

We are proud of our dogs - their health, their lineage - we - the good breeders - can tell you which lines are bad and why - and why we steer clear of them.   Why can you not see this?   Does it go against your belief that all breeders are bad?

Cannot see the wood for the trees?   Pot?  Kettle?

I am in favour of working towards healthier dogs - ALL dogs. In order for this to happen, the real problems need tackling - irresposnsible breeders.

The KC is not the problem. The problem lies with the fact that potential puppy-buyers see nothing wrong with choosing a puppy out of the classified ads (for example), picking on price/distance/mere whim. Not even knowing that health testing is available, let alone looking for a breeder that does it. The KC have nothing to do with the cross-breeds and allthough insisting the KC change how they do things will have an effect on KC registered dogs, it will do nothing to improve the health of non KC registered dogs.

Have a look at the minutes of the APGAW meeting - people churning out litters for quick cash are a big problem - the way to stop it - EDUCATE the PUBLIC as they have a massive influence. If pups from non-health tested parents are known to be an irresponsible choice then people will not buy them, therefore the irresponsible breeders can no longer make thier quick buck so will refrain from breeding.

Insisting the KC change rules along the lines of only registering litters from health-tested patents will only effect the KC registered dogs, not non KC registered & cross breeds. I think ALL dogs could do with some help to protect them from idescriminent breeding. Supply & demand = if the demand for indescriminantly bred dogs dies out, the supply will be forced to stop.

I have a pure-bred dog, I never got him form a breeder that health tests - why? Allthough I knew health tests were available I wasn't aware of the bigger picture. I was just concerned about the temperment of my chosen pup and decided if he did turn out to have any medical problems, I'd simply deal with it. But the bigger picture is the health of dogs in general (not just my chosen pup) is at risk thanks to people like me buying puppies from non-health testested dogs. If people knew this they would not be supportng the breeders that don't health test.

Since joining this forum I have learnt a lot and there is no way on earth I would buy another dog that had not come from health tested parents (health testing being the minumum as there is obviously more to breeding that the health of just the parents, but also understand that, in general, health-testing only lessons the chance of medical problem, not stops them).
EDUCATION will have a huge impact and I'll say again that it is a crying shame Jemima missed a perfect opportunity to do this. Once she had shocked people into paying attention she could have educated them as to how to source a puppy from a responsible breeder. :(

Knowledge is power - give the potential puppy buyers the power of knowledge to change things for the better by only buying responsibly bred dogs and that will effect even the most irresponsible breeder.

I for one do not believe that all is right in the world of dogs and that the Kennel Club are all that is wonderful. I have said on here before that a puppy being KC registered confers a mark of quality for many puppy buyers that simply doesn't exist for some breeders and their puppies. I said this long before Jemima and her PDE programme came along and I said it as a member of the puppy buying public NOT as a breeder.
However the biggest boost to puppy farmers and their ilk came from that programme when it implied that all breeders (particularly those in the show world)of pedigree dogs are bad - not helped by the idiot from the RSPCA who has the cheek to call himself a 'professional' vet! The programme did nothing to help people like me who want to buy a healthy pedigree puppy and was one-sided at best - sensationalist at worst - possibly not in its creation but most certainly in its editing!

When Jemima makes a programme that helps puppy buyers to buy healthy puppies and vilifies the puppy farmers and BYB - in other words gets off her ' all pedigrees are bad and show ones are the worst' high horse then perhaps her views will be listened to. Until then its just so much glory-seeking on her part! IMHO

> Knowledge is power - give the potential puppy buyers the power of knowledge to change things for the better by only buying responsibly bred dogs and that will effect even the most irresponsible breeder.

Exactly

However the biggest boost to puppy farmers and their ilk came from that programme when it implied that all breeders (particularly those in the show world)of pedigree dogs are bad - not helped by the idiot from the RSPCA who has the cheek to call himself a 'professional' vet! The programme did nothing to help people like me who want to buy a healthy pedigree puppy and was one-sided at best - sensationalist at worst - possibly not in its creation but most certainly in its editing!


So true you only have to look at the comments on this link to confirm the damage it's done.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/pedigree-dogs-exposed/#respond

The Kennel Club is the governing body for KC registered dogs.  The KC are the people who, with the breed clubs, set down the breed standards.  The fact that breed standards have changed so much over the years and, as such, has culminated in dogs suffering from severe, life threatening health conditions, is down to the Kennel Club and the breed clubs.  Nobody else is to blame for that; that is fact!

Disreputable breeders come in all shapes and forms.  It matters not if they win big in dog shows; what matters is that they are ethical, breed healthy, sound dogs and that the dogs are happy.  How can a dog be happy when it can hardly breathe on a hot day or suffers premature death because of some unseen genetic defect in its make up?  I have a girl in the next village to me that paid £2000 for a bulldog.  She can't bring it out in the summer during the day because she can't walk.  That came from a show kennel, and a well respected one at that.  It's not good that these dogs are being bred and suffering.  That is the case in point here and nothing else.

The Kennel Club has the rules and regulations in place, together with the code of ethics to ensure that anybody buying a KC registered puppy has the comfort that the very best efforts have been made by the breeder to ensure that the dog is healthy, well bred and fit for function - or at least fit for a walk in the park!  They don't uphold these rules and instead have brought in the KCAB scheme which just mirrors the rules and regulations and code of ethics they already have.  Unfortunately, they are now promoting this scheme as being the best thing since sliced bread and it is seriously flawed and most definitely not policed properly.

There are very good organisations out there who are trying very hard to stop puppy farming and the type of breeding that falls outwith the KC's remit.  The KC can do nothing about that but the people in those organisations absolutely embrace PDE and realise the good it did for dogs.  Why can't the KC embrace this way too? 

I have BRS that show KCABs breeding huge numbers of litters - 6 from one bitch - year on year.  That's not good breeding practice; that's breeding for money.  This is not an isolated breeder.  There are breeders breeding from dogs with known kidney disease; eye disease; joint disease etc., etc.,  It's very sad.  So, while I can understand that you think this programme was bad for you, it was in fact great for some dogs being bred by so called reputable breeders.  It exposed some of the breeders who should not be in the same league as the people on here who do everything in their power to produce fit, healthy happy puppies. 

The KC could use their vast amounts of money to educate joe public on how to buy a puppy.  They have enough money to advertise on TV but they chose not to.  A few well placed advertisements would work wonders but how can they do that when they know that they register puppies themselves bred by disreputable breeders?  How can they say only buy KC registered puppies if that is going on?  Why are they saying KCABs are the best thing since sliced bread when they know there are definite causes for concern?  That is why they stay quiet and that is why they try to discredit anybody that disagrees with their "regime".  They cannot alter anything outwith their remit but they can certainly alter that within it but they chose not to do so.  One has to ask the question why?

If you really want to help in the battle against puppy farmers then you must lobby the KC to bring in tougher laws on registration; you must join all the groups against puppy farming and you must advertise clearly on your websites about the dangers of buying from puppy farmers and disreputable breeders.  That is the only way to go; don't shoot the messenger but use it as a tool by which you can stand out from the rest.  You deserve that because of the work you do for your dogs.  Don't be lumped in with the other show kennels that don't give a hoot and who don't join your forum because you would vilify them within an hour. 

All the organisations that are out there who have a remit to protect dogs are not doing their jobs properly.  I mean all the organisations; that starts with the RSPCA and goes through to Local Councils to licence puppy farmers and the KC.  Its disgraceful.  Animals deserve more than this.  They don't have a voice.

> Approximately 3/4's of dogs born have no KC paperwork.

Just having a look on a puppy sales web-site.
Under 'Mastiff', out of 14 adverts, only 2 are KC registered, 10 are cross breeds (even a mastiff x poodle!!), 1 is 'pure bred presa' no papers, 1 is 'pure bred neo' no papers (looks nothing like a neo, perhaps thats why they have 'no papers'!).

@ Boody.  Ihave read the comments on this blog and cannot see how it has caused any damage at all.  People are commenting on the fact that we humans have carried out barbaric acts to creatures.  Nothing bad there at all in my opinion, just people horrified at what they saw.  One actually reports that on checking their registered pedigree they were comforted that the organisation was one that was trying to stamp out this type of practice.  The only people on there being criticised were the people who were once again burying their heads in the sand and trying to convince that everything was fine.  People arent stupid; they can make up their own minds.

What the documentary did for me was to open my eyes to the real suffering going on in some breeds and the fact that it was being ignored by some breeders - not all of them.  It made me more careful about buying only health checked dogs and being more ruthless in my questioning of breeders.

@ Mastiff lover.  These people are outwith the remit of the KC.  These are backyard breeders and some people may actually be registering their puppies with the KC.  Good, ethical breeders need to point out at every opportunity that this type of breeding goes on.  Its the only way because the KC arent doing it for you.

> People arent stupid; they can make up their own minds.
>
>

Sadly that is rarely the case, many simply believe what they are told, unless they choose to research further, which the majority don't.

> Good, ethical breeders need to point out at every opportunity that this type of breeding goes on.  Its the only way because the KC arent doing it for you.

Have you looked on the Kennel club website?  there are guides and articles that address these issues.

What always astounds me is when I ask people where they got their puppy they say "from a breeder in such and such a place".  When I ask if they are KC registered they say "no, we just wanted a pet so weren't fussy about KC registration".  Where's the education being meeted out to these people?  This isn't down to any documentary, its down to lack of information - but again how can the KC educate when they continue to register puppies from disreputable breeders, bordering on puppy farmers?

So you think the "I will never buy a pedigree" is not damning??  Funny that all the oodle doodle foodles noodles have had a huge surge in popularity then.

@ Brainless.  The people who are buying these puppies don't know to check the KC website.  I can also tell you that somebody I know who bought a puppy who has night blindness found the breeder on the KC puppy finder website.  Pretty sad and something you think the KC would police; bearing in mind the breeder has been known to the KC for many many years and is a renowned puppy farmer.  Puppy has a fake pedigree also.

@ boody.  That's only one comment out of 48.  You can't say that PDE had anything to do with the rise is popularity of any "oodle".  I think they have risen in popularity because they look cute; nothing to do with PDE in my experience.

what I find sad about "oodles" is that often they are the product of a breeder breeding back to back with a poodle after registering a pure bred litter to the bitch the season before.  Very sad.

I read 2 and also plenty on other webbys supporting PDE.

Well, that's fine but 2 out of 48 isnt a huge percentage.  I don't believe this documentary did any damage to ethical breeders but I think it put the wind up the breeders who were breeding for form not function.  Just my opinion of course and, as I say, I do not categorise anybody on this forum as being that type of breeder.  I don't think a breeder like that would last one minute on here as you are all so passionate about your dogs.

See there you go again, most of the oodles I have looked at are by pet bitch mated to friends or someone near by pet dog. Where is your proof it is done by breeders? Go look at the classifieds you will soon see.

> These people are outwith the remit of the KC.  These are backyard breeders and some people may actually be registering their puppies with the KC.  Good, ethical breeders need to point out at every opportunity that this type of breeding goes on.  Its the only way because the KC arent doing it for you.

I see what you are saying and it makes perfect sense, however regulating all 'breeders' is not really going to do much good overall, it will be the good breeders that adhere to guidlines and the irresponsible ones will find a way around it (just as those breeding illegal pitbulls find a way). If the public are targeted via education campaigns then they will be aware of how to avoid such irresponsible breeders.

With drink-driving, a series of messages in adverts helped change the way people think. It was allready wrong to drink&drive, but enforcing the laws is not very easy to do and doesn't tackle the root of the problem, they had a better chance of getting people to 'self-regualte' by educating them. They  "have affected public morality by creating a common understanding that drinking and driving is socially unacceptable." from here

I personally would have no problems if the KC had to be much stricter regarding resistration & health testing, but I can not see how that would have any effect to the health/well being of dogs in general and it would do nothing to stop indescriminent breeders :(

Not to mention that nearly all the commentators were blaming all breeders that show which is total toot.

Can I just ask you, would you buy a brand of car, washing machine, or even a kettle, without comparing it at the very least to the one next to it? 

I'm sorry, but if someone is buying a KC pup, it's up to them to look on the KC website, and read the information on how to go about their intended purchase.  The KC bit means nothing more, except that it comes with a list of ancestors, that is more likely to be correct than other lists available from other registration companies. 

The sooner people start taking responsibility for their actions when buying animals, the better.  It's far too easy to blame the KC, the breeder etc, the blame lies at the foot of people who do little or no research before buying a living, breathing creature.  If people did not buy from bad breeders, they simply wouldn't exist, nor would there be such a horrendous problem with rescue. 

From the KC website, the first paragraph on finding the right dog breeder:

When sourcing a healthy pedigree puppy it is the breeder that is the most important consideration - buying a pedigree dog should not be done 'on the cheap' nor should it come from a disreputable source. By going to a responsible dog breeder you stand the best chance of getting a dog that will enjoy a happy and healthy life.

It tells you there in black and white, pedigree does not mean responsible breeder!!! 

Spot on sleepinglion.

Well, you know a documentary has to have a focus and there are some pretty bad breeders that show their dogs.  I personally would like to see all the "rich" organisations working together to get some sort of publicity campaign on how to buy a puppy and, in the wider scheme of things, it is always the BYB or disreputable breeder that doesnt register their puppies so that could be a focus too.  Before that happens though the KC would have to make real progress in relation to health issues and they would have to do some sort of policing of their registration system to ensure that only ethical breeders were able to register their puppies.

I realise that feeling runs high on this issue but I am sure that the documentary was not out to get the ethical breeders but it is such a shame that they feel vindicated.  I personally would have seen this as a way to promote my kennel and make it stand out from the rest, who do not genetically test their dogs.

I realise that everybody is different though and its imperative that the good guys are rewarded and the bad ones (masquerading as good guys!) are exposed and brought to task.

@ Sleeping Lion.  I absolutely agree but money could be well spent by all the organisations working together to share an advertising campaign.  You've all commented that joe public doesnt do research before buying.  Unfortunately we live in a throw away society now so things have to be brought to the attention of these peeps; the best way to do it is through the media.  It wouldnt cost much if such organisations worked together for the betterment of dogs.

Oh, no I wouldnt buy a brand of car and expect it to be different.  However, with a car you have warranties and you can take the car back.  It is not something that one grows emotionally attached to (well I don't anyway, its just a dog mobile to me LOL).  With a dog its different; you just fall in love and want to do everything possible to help the little bundle in your care. 

I love my breed and if I was looking for another I would want one that looked the same as the ones I have.  I would however also want a healthy dog from a breeder who was ethical.  If the KC worked with the rules and regulations in place, together with their code of ethics they would be fulfilling all requirements and basic standards for dog breeding and puppies registered with them.  People shouldnt have to pay to become an AB when there are rules etc., in place without the KC having to do that.  Another money making scheme for the KC I think.  But that's just me of course.

Perhaps this is something that the new Advisory Council could get funding for?  That would at least be a start wouldn't it?  More people will listen if they see something like this on TV me thinks!

> Where's the education being meeted out to these people?  This isn't down to any documentary, its down to lack of information - but again how can the KC educate when they continue to register puppies from disreputable breeders, bordering on puppy farmers?

So how would you suggest we go about educating puppy buyers because on here we have been damned if we do and damned if we don't by some supporters of Jemima and even she had a go at us on her blog which will discourage people coming here to ask questions anyway?

@ Boody.  "see there you go again".  A person is a breeder if they breed a dog!  Yes, most likely the people will use a dog up the road but there are lots of puppy farmers on these websites that also sell purebreds which, funnily enough, turn out to be the mixture they are selling.  I wasn't making a generalisation; I was merely stating that's what often happens.  The bitch has a purebred litter one season and then a cross the second.  I have found this to be the way it happens.  I find very few breeders of "oodles" that actually specialise in "oodles" apart from some labradoodle breeders.

I think the "oodle" came from the USA.  One of my friend's sister had a cockapoo many many years ago.  It often follows that the crazes in the USA arrive here some years later.  I wasn't stating this as actual fact; just what I had read on websites etc.,  Sorry if it offended.

I nearly spat my tea on my keyboard, I'd hate to be the one tasked with getting any of the organisations you're probably thinking of, talking together, what a thankless task that would be. 

Re the car analogy, not if you bought a car from someone privately.  You have little or no guarantees, and yet people do this every day, after researching, finding out if it's a good make, is it reliable, take the care to be checked by a garage, or to have a friend go along and look at it at least.  Nowhere near the same care is shown when buying a dog, or any pet.

I do agree, the media is a good way forward, and I also think more should be included in teaching children from a young age, about animal husbandry.  They are so far distanced from the reality as it is, it's happening with the way people view animals they eat thanks to the celebrity chefs, perhaps the same could be done for general animal/pet welfare?  I think it'd need the backing of a very famous celebrity or two though, and unfortunately I don't know any, nor am I one (I wish, chuckle). 

How do you suggest the KC polices everyone who breeds?  I doubt very much, even though you seem to think they make a fortune, that there would be enough income to do this effectively.  It has never been a policing organisation, just a registration; it should, I agree, react to any of it's members that have been reported to them for breaching any code of ethics, and I think it should be very harsh on those members, removing all rights for KC registering dogs/pups with them.  That at least would give the KC registration a bit more value.

And, unfortunately, even if you do get the message out to people, some choose to ignore it, because they have a consumer approach to their purchase, and if they want a particular breed, they will have it.  So even when you tell people, ask about health test results, sire and dam, what achievements, how many litters, etc, etc, etc, then it all goes quiet and you just know they've completely ignored you because they wanted that puppy from that breeder, it was the right price and b*gga the ethics :(

@ Polly.  I think there is just a clash of personalities tbh.  I think both of you want the same thing.  Yes, the documentary was controversial but it got people talking.  Everybody is absolutely entitled to their opinon and of course I realise that feelings run deep with the good and ethical breeders on this site.  I can understand that wholeheartedly.  You are always trying to educate people on breeding matters and how to buy a health pup.  This is just one forum though and Joe Public probably won't read what you are saying because they don't bother to do research.  They want a puppy one day and get it the next day!  Very sad.

I think there is something that you can all do as a group of good, ethical breeders - and that is to contact the new Advisory Council and ask them if they could get funding from all the organisations involved in dog welfare to run an educational advertising campaign to bring this to the attention of the people who buy from their armchairs.  It makes me really angry to see puppy farmers and how they operate.  They have lots of protection but the dogs have none.  This could be a real way forward and a very positive step to raising the issue of good breeders and bad breeders.  Just a thought but I think everyone on here are exactly the type of people that should be promoted as doing the best for their breeds and breeding ethically for the betterment of dogs.

What do you think?

Responsible owners have no problem finding responsible breeders.  I've been quite happy here for the past 30 years, health testing my puppies and homing them with nice families who have given wonderful homes to my puppies and have come back in 14 years for another one.

The worst owners aren't interested in KC registration 'because they only want a pet'.  What do you propose to do to them?  It's a free country - they pay their money and take their choice and they won't be getting one of MY puppies!

If you want to change what the irresponsible breeders do, who don't health test - then find a way to contact them and sort them out.  You'll find very few on this site.

Kennel Club registered puppies are a VERY small percentage of the dogs bred each year and an even smaller percentage of those are not well bred and no system is perfect.  You're barking up the wrong tree!

> Kennel Club registered puppies are a VERY small percentage of the dogs bred each year and an even smaller percentage of those are not well bred.  You're barking up the wrong tree!>

Well said WestCoast!
I've been frantically searching the 'net for the facts / figures regarding your sentence!  But to no avail sadly.