> hen it would surely only be temperament issues (aggression or extreme timidity) that would make it 'not fit for purpose'?

Chronic ill health realting to causes before purchase too I suppose.

Would being ill stop it being a pet? I'm sure a good lawyer (and I'm not, but having recently been a defence witness I've seen how much to the fore dictionaries are in court, when the finer points of definitions are argued over!) could present a case supporting the supplier of a poorly dog.

> Would being ill stop it being a pet?

I suppose no less than a washing machine that needed regular attention from a maintenance man before doing the wash every week :)

It's a matter of degree, I suppose. A washing machine whose door was awkward to close but which washed the clothes adequately would be within normal parameters, as would a dog that couldn't manage a 2-hour walk but was fine curled up on the sofa with the owner!

> It's a matter of degree, I suppose.

The whole thing would be a devil to quantify whether health or temperament.  No wonder the legal eagles of this world do so well :)

Too right! :-)

An interesting news report on a legal case in the USA

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45873492/ns/today-today_pets_and_animals/#.TwhZFvFYCSO

Sick puppy help, do you ask where the puppy was obtained from ? and do you keep records, this sort of information would be invaluable in proving BYB are just that. If several sick puppies could be traced back to one breeder that would surely add weight to any case against them.

For it to be of any worth it has to be compulsory IMO, how great would it be in 20 years time to look at a 5 generation pedigree and know for an absolute certainty that those dogs are  actually your dogs ancestors and that their health tests etc are all verified. It would mean that puppy farmers and bybs couldn't register just any dog as a sire or even dam of a litter, as a way of getting around maximum litter number rules.

I decided a while ago that I would DNA profile any dog of mine used for breeding for this very reason and hope to be able to convince the owners of any stud dogs I use to do the same (some do already) but your comment got me thinking. If all KC registered dogs have to have a set of specific tests (whatever they may be) before they may be used for breeding and their offspring registered with the KC accordingly that would not be the hugest hurdle for those that do the very best for their dogs and currently go beyond what the KC require. However those that do not fall into this category will, I imagine, simply "jump ship" to an alternative registry or no registry at all. How then will they be policed?
We can't enforce the animal welfare laws we have now for a number of reasons, lack of staff, funding, poor enforcement etc etc. I just see the gulf between good and bad getting wider. That might not affect you or I but it will affect the dogs on the wrong side of the fence.
I don't have an answer by the way! :-)
Jeff.  

>However those that do not fall into this category will, I imagine, simply "jump ship" to an alternative registry or no registry at all. How then will they be policed?

Not only will they not be policed, those genes are lost from the registered gene pool; most won't be missed, but some may well be of value to the breed.

> I believe I am correct in saying the KC now offers this facility as well. Of course it is by no means compulsory -yet.
> Jeff.

DNA profiling which is what the KC offer, is not parent verification, though many people somehow feel it is, it simply verifies the dogs identity.  the only time parent verification is done is if there is more than one dog that could be the sire, or I suppose if a dispute arises as to a pups parentage.

So buying a pup whose parents are both DNA profiled does not prove that pup is by those parents unless the pups owner gets it DNA profiled and the three are compared.

If all pups had to be parent verified then some independent person would need to take samples from each puppy, as if left to the breeder there is room for anyone wanting to cheat the system to do so.

> Just thinking out loud here, but how would one define "not fit to be a pet"? It could be argued that if a pet is merely a companion animal, then it would surely only be temperament issues (aggression or extreme timidity) that would make it 'not fit for purpose'?

but if described as being of a particular breed surely it would have to be fairly typical of that breed, it may be fit to be a pet in the same way as any car would be fit to be transport, but if I bought a Golf and it turned out it was really a Skoda, with VW papers I would have recourse.

Thanks for clarifying that Barbara.
I am having my dogs DNA recorded and then any resultant offspring that I intend to use recorded as well and parent verified. This is very much a belt and braces approach by me I know!
Jeff. 

I would start DNA profiling if it was linked to parent verification for the puppies, but don't see the point as it is at the moment. 

The DNA proifle on record does not give information that can be used for future DNA health screening, so it's not the same as giving samples of my dogs as I have done to the AHT for future research.

>I think everybody needs to remember that the KC require no verification of parentage when registering puppies. They will take registrations from any parents that are KC registered. The reputable breeders are honest but there are more out there that are dishonest. Nobody can say with honesty that they know the parentage of their dogs - unless they have bred them themselves. The KC registered puppies from a bitch that was registered one week previously....added to a litter of 5 (which was confirmed by third parties only 5 in the litter!) to make it 6. The bitch was just under 2 years old. The KC do nothing to authenticate registrations so registered or unregistered nobody knows for sure if the pedigree is correct. I DNA profiled one bitch to find that neither or her parents were the parents in her pedigree....she was rescue and being sold as a named KC registered bitch. In order to get anything done by the KC you have to jump through hoops. They don't want to know about authenticating pedigrees because it would be too much trouble. That goes for all the other registration bodies too.<

The KC do take action when asked. re the rescue bitch that is a dishonest breeder, but as you point out you were able to DNA test the pup. Can I ask how you got DNA from the sire and dam to prove you were correct? Not too long ago there was a dispute in my breed over the parentage of a litter but it was proved because the bitch and dog had their DNA profile on record at the KC.
Interestingly when the KC first started the Accredited Breeder Scheme they did require all breeding stock to be DNA profiled, unfortunately a lot of the breeders who joined or were thinking of joining did not want to register their dogs DNA profile as they said the dogs had permanent ID of micro-chips. So to get people to join the scheme the KC had to change the rules to be DNA profile and or a micro-chip or tattoo. 

>
> As for Sick Puppy Helpline. This service has been set up by me to help people who have bought puppies from breeders who have since turned their back on them when the puppy became ill.

Had you been a member here for longer than you appear to have been Anne you would know that members of this site regularly offer the same support you are offering. They have offered this advice to owners of registered or unregistered pups.
It covers registered and unregistered puppies. I have an excellent understanding of the law.
Are you a solicitor? Just curious....

> Whether you like my ethics or not is of no concern. I am only interested in helping the people who fall prey to these types of breeder every year. It is not a database to name and shame.<

While it is not a name and shame site, obviously any breeder reported to you will have their details logged by you and I did question how this would stand with the Data Protection Act?  Who would have access to this information? Could somebody with access 'leak' the information and in the process get you entangled in a lengthy legal battle you may not want?

>It is merely an advice service and, hopefully in the future, a buddy scheme will be set up to support people through the whole process. This service is long overdue because at the moment Trading Standards and the KC are giving the wrong information to people. There is nobody specialising in this area of law.<

Oddly enough there is already at least two solicitors that I know of who will advise on this, one of whom has been known to give talks at seminars to interested dog owners.

>If we can make bad breeding less profitable for those that are churning out puppies then that is good. You can educate people as much as you like but the breeders involved in this area are excellent at sales and marketing and mostly hide their dealing in misery away from public eyes. <
I believe that is what the Dog Advisory Council is attempting to do at the moment. Even they concede that it is a difficult goal to achieve.

>
> Yes, people shouldn't purchase puppies if they feel sorry for them or are concerned about their surroundings.....but if they pay money for a puppy then they have rights under the law and can use those rights. If somebody is selling a puppy then one would expect that puppy to be "fit for purpose". If the puppy is not fit to be a pet then there are laws protecting the consumer.<

This also applies I would assume for a buyer purchasing a working gundog. If the breeder claims the parents are working how does the buyer find out if this is true? I have come across a number of people who claim they work their dogs yet when questioned it often turns out they only go out for a half day every so often or maybe one or two full days aweek. To me this is not a working gundog, a working gundog will be out on a shoot for every day required by that shoot for a full day through out the shooting season.

>
> I would have expected good honest breeders to be behind such a project and am saddened that some have made judgements on me personally, due to my indepth understanding of the real problems in dog breeding today.

Unfortunately you are not the only person who has an indepth knowledge there are many of us out there with this knowledge, so perhaps our knowledge has led us to question how this is going to be run rather than question your integrity? and again I would query the Data protection regarding any information you have. Also will you allow a breeder who stands accused by your puppy owners to have access to what they have said? I would expect to have access to any information held by you on myself under the Freedom of Information Act. How will you resolve this?

> We can all pretend its not happening and we can all hit back at those who are trying to make a difference....but the difference starts with you! Telling somebody that they just have to accept a sick puppy and put it down to experience is absolutely wrong.... That is not the advice that should be given out.....because it is not true! Everybody has a right under Consumer Law to expect a puppy that is free from defect - and if they buy a puppy that is not free from defect then the law is quite clear....the consumer can return the puppy and claim a full refund......or......they can keep the puppy and pay for all the necessary veterinary care and claim that from the breeder. The latter is called "damages" and, because puppies are not washing machines, fridge freezers etc., then the law accepts the emotional bond and attachment that goes along with purchasing a puppy.Sections 13 and 14 of SOGA make that quite clear. In addition, Section 48 of SOGA refers to the fact that if defects occur within the first 6 months then it can be assumed that the defect was there at purchase and the same rules apply.<

How would you help resolve a case where a young and keen vet just out of college tells puppy buyer their puppy has for example a slipping patella problem when the pup is 8 weeks old. The breeder offers to take the puppy back and in the process she also arranges for the whole litter to go to the RVC where they were tested by Dr Sue Guthrie an expert on this problem. Dr Sue Guthrie examines all pups and passes them clear of a patella problem but adds that if the puppy who was examined by the young vet has later problems it would be caused in her expert opinion by the young vet?

>
> I've seen some terrible contracts drawn up by breeders in an attempt to protect themselves. Clauses such as the owner not being allowed to discuss the puppy's health with any other breeder - or 12 month hereditary guarantees - that give less protection that SOGA 1979.

Clearly these are poorly written contracts, perhaps yu might be kind enough to contact these breeders and explain that you could help them write a better contract as I believe help in this should be offered both ways.

>
> Dog breeding is sadly an industry that is unregulated and the reason I would like to see health, welfare taken from the KC is due to the conflict of interest in relation to registrations and health. Registrations bring in money; health may reduce registrations so there is a conflict of interest. I think perhaps the quote identified above has not given my perspective clearly. For the record, I would like to see all health and welfare issues taken from the KC. The registrations can stay with the KC but they will require to work under the rules and regulations of an "independent" body that deals with health and welfare issues. I don't know who that would be .... but it will be a start. I know of some rare breeds in the UK whose whole foundation is built on stock with serious eye problems..... That is not the best thing for any breed and this needs to change asap.<

Why you would want the RSPCA or any other body taking this control is beyond me. If you are so concerned about the KCs failure, why do you use their obviously 'faulty registration scheme'? That to me is double standards. I know in working gundogs there are many gundog owners who agree with you but they have the guts to breed their own stock and not use the KC registration to sell their pups. My ex husband buys all his working spinger spaniels from gamekeepers who express the same sentiments you do, but they are honest enough to say that this being so they feel that they cannot register their pups with the KC.

I am not making these comments to get at you but to try to understand where you are coming from and how you will be running this scheme as one day it might affect a breeder member of us here we ought to be able to question you and expect an answer.

>
> Sick Puppy Helpline.

> However those that do not fall into this category will, I imagine, simply "jump ship" to an alternative registry or no registry at all. How then will they be policed?

Well they're not being policed at the moment so there's no difference there, the difference between litters for sale under that policy would be that KC registration would really mean verified, health tested, guaranteed puppies oppose to the others.

'' Registrations bring in money; health may reduce registrations so there is a conflict of interest. ''
The KC is not just a register any more and for many years has been promoting health schemes and research . The problem is how to legally enforce laws  on dog owners and breeders rather than ' suggest ' or 'recommend'.It is very complicated especially ,as like some I did not do a degree in law either..If you limit breeding a litter to  health tested parentage and say the dogs have to achieve a working certificate in such and such , or so many wins at exhibition , you will reduce the back yard breeders/farms but at the cost of a genuine breeder who may not have worked /shown their dogs due to other circumstances.
''I know of some rare breeds in the UK whose whole foundation is built on stock with serious eye problems.''
But steps can be taken by responsible knowledgeable breeders, over  several generations to sort that out , as it has been done with Irish setters and Rough Collies and the eye problems that afflicted those breeds,( as well as others).
Taking registrations away from the KC opens some very dangerous doors....the pathway to the RSPCA handling  it all, or having serious input ,being one of the most worrying.

I agree and sincerely hope that happens. The KC reg should mean the best and I hope they organise themselves so it does however that does not help the unregistered dogs and until somebody comes up with a way to stop people buying pups on a whim there will be plenty of them.
I worry that there seems to be a growing movement that thinks as "proper breeders" can't fill the demand for well bred, healthy pups that large scale, well run establishments should fill the void - whatever happened to waiting!
Jeff. 

Surely, depending on breed, you could reasonably expect  your dog to be able to go for a walk, fetch a ball and be involved in normal family activities?
Obviously the expectations would vary a lot according to breed, you would not have the same criteria for a yorkie as you would for a border collie.

> I worry that there seems to be a growing movement that thinks as "proper breeders" can't fill the demand for well bred, healthy pups that large scale, well run establishments should fill the void - whatever happened to waiting!
> Jeff.

If Champdogs had a like button I would be clicking it right now!

Indeed, well said Jeff, I don't know the answer either - education, education, education? The problem is that mass education takes a lot of money.

On a personal triumph note a chap in my work was thinking of buying a dog, after endless lectures and warnings from me he researched his chosen breed, met a great breeder, waited 4 months for a litter to be born, went to visit them, was vetted and has a contract, has seen the parents health certificates and picks up his puppy this weekend. This is someone who has never owned a dog before and was simply going to look online at a puppy sales site and get one, any one, instantly. Fortunately (I think, for him) I had every tea break to lecture him, how do we do that to Joe Public?

> Well they're not being policed at the moment so there's no difference there, the difference between litters for sale under that policy would be that KC registration would really mean verified, health tested, guaranteed puppies oppose to the others.

Breeders on the KC Assured Breeder scheme are being checked on and 'policed'. I have had Bill Lambert here, and I have only got one bitch and one dog, (flatcoats at the moment) and an Africanis bitch. I know of several breeders who have been visited by Bill and who are members here who would no doubt verify this, if they read it. Other members here may have been visited by other representatives of the KC scheme (I expect members will recall the poster who complained long nd bitterly over a number of forums for being asked to leave the Assured Breeder Scheme?).

Even if not breeding a recognised pedigree you can still be a member of the Assured Breeder Scheme, and would be subject to it's rules. Even designer dog breeders can be Assured breeders but they have to follow the rules or get kicked off the scheme.

So many people moan about the KC but fewer seem to know what they are actually doing for ALL dogs. The Kc should be singing this from the rooftops, sadly they appear to want to hide the good they do from all but those involved. Imagine Mr Dyson came up with a good idea to improve vacumn cleaners, would he boast about it and pay for expensive TV advertising or would he hide it away only telling people who already own vacumn cleaners?

Unfortunatly, the messages about the ABS are so conflicting and confusing that at the moment, there isn't a huge amount of incentive for an average new puppy buyer to go to the lengths of waiting and travelling to someone on the ABS list, when it appears they are able to get the same 'product' nearer, cheaper and quicker providing they get a KC registered puppy and it's from a breeder's home.

I read many comments posted by the general public in the aftermath of PDE, on newspaper articles etc. Many were 'afraid' of the ABS purely because it is a KC scheme and they now were under the impression that anything connected with the KC was to be avoided. This persists today.
Anyone who has probed a little deeper may have read discussions by breeders about the pros and cons of the scheme, especially in the early days. Even show breeders have their doubts so it can't be all that good, they will think.
The RSPCA, the Dogs Trust etc (organisations which carry a lot of weight with the public) do not wholeheartedly endorse the ABS, nor are puppy buyers directed to ABS breeders on many/any (?) advertising media other than those linked to the KC.

The KC itself is the most confusing, by saying how wonderful ABS breeders are and how they should be the first choice but still continuing to lend their name (in the form of registrations) to puppies that are not bred by scheme members. Even if a purchaser gets as far as the ABS, the message is further confused by the accolades (which mean little to Joe Public - Stud Book number, what's that??). Should they go for someone with one accolade, or aim for all three and what about the accolade of excellence? From the point of view of the general public, it is simple, either they trust the KC brand or they don't. Does any other organisation lend its name to products which it inferres are 'sub standard'? The KC are not saying that buying a KC registered puppy is the right choice, but buying an ABS KC registered puppy will give you something even better. They are saying the ONLY way to ensure you get a healthy, happy puppy is to buy from an ABS breeder. I can't somehow imagine a supermarket for instance only guarenteeing the quality/safety of their own brand yet continuing to sell other brands as well!

I don't find it difficult to understand what the scheme offers at all.
There were quite a few negative comments about it in the early days but that does not appear to have been the concensus for quite some time now.  Certainly if this board is anything to go by.
Nor do I think the general public are too dim to understand it, and yes, supermarkets do sell products of different quality.  The KC does not say it is unsafe to buy a pup that is merely registered just that the scheme offers more assurity.  Assured Breeders, get it? :)

>The KC itself is the most confusing, by saying how wonderful ABS breeders are and how they should be the first choice but still continuing to lend their name (in the form of registrations) to puppies that are not bred by scheme members.

Why is that confusing?

>I can't somehow imagine a supermarket for instance only guarenteeing the quality/safety of their own brand yet continuing to sell other brands as well!

I can - they all sell their own "Finest" brand as well as all others and their own "Economy" brand as well.

> I can - they all sell their own "Finest" brand as well as all others and their own "Economy" brand as well.

Very true - and there is one supermarket that has what I call its "Truly Irresponsible" premium range. Because I love playing with words, that was a foregone conclusion....

is there a decent, simply worded website that I can direct people to who are looking to buy a puppy ? I am a member of a lot of facebook pages for buying and selling pets and they are all anti KC because really they dont have a clue and just want a cheap puppy.  Would be nice to have something ?I can keep bumping to the top of the pages ...... if they can be bothered to read it !

> really they dont have a clue and just want a cheap puppy.

You can direct them to Champdogs... but there is no such thing as a cheap puppy.

I wish people knew that - but in reality, people don't care any more. If they buy a cheap dog and it has issues, they just get rid, and look for another. People buy something cheap from Ebay or from the free ads that they need, and if that doesn't work they will put it down to experience and try again - I've done the same myself - but the difference is I'd never gamble with something living.

I hit 'post' instead of 'preview' by mistake, then spent so long editing my post to make it a bit clearer - the time limit expired!
  :-(
Even if more breeders now support the ABS at least in principal, the public don't usually follow recent developments through the dog press. In 2008 when it was a hot topic, breeders (and others) unfortunatly did point out the flaws in the system and this is what will be remembered. The fact that it is the only assurance system, yet is not endorsed/promoted by any of the major charities doesn't help either. We may know why this is, but to the public it conveys the message that these charities don't have sufficient confidence in it.

'KC Registered' in the eyes of the public is a brand name for better or worse. To some it sadly now implies the dog is an inbred, disease ridden mutant, to others and hopefully the majority, it means the dog is somehow 'suprerior'. We know and understand KC registration doesn't actually mean anything other than the puppy is registered by the KC, but most people assume that by allowing their name to be used, the KC are confident the puppy is of satisfactory quality to carry this 'brand'. Like the OP, if they find there is a problem, the first thought is to contact the KC to complain/make them aware, especially if the breeder isn't interested, because they have trusted that KC brand and found it lacking.

Returning to the supermarket analogy, yes they sell products of varying quality, but even if you buy the bargin end goods you assume they meet some kind of minimum requirements to be on the shelf. Supermarkets do not only assure the quality of the premium range and imply anything less is a bit of a risk!

I agree the KC doesn't say that buying a puppy that is 'merely registered' is actually unsafe - that would be insane, but they are effectivly saying that they will knowingly register puppies without being confident as to a basic standard of quality. That is a PR disaster! If you have a well recognised, trusted brand, why sell it short? If people already believe KC Registered means more than it actually means, that is a massive bonus so to deliberatly errode this supposition by saying the brand by itself means virtually nothing, seems mad! Far better to raise the bar for everyone connected with the KC so that the myth becomes fact.
People will rightly wonder if only certain breeders are 'assured,' why the KC is prepared to have anything to do with 'the rest', as presumably if they are 'not assured' they are therfore doing something wrong? The simpler you can make the process of recognising what is 'safe', the easier it will be and the more people will be inclined to use it. Confusing messages like this serve no purpose.

Unfortunatly the ABS has been designed and evolved from the point of view of the breeder, rather than the buyer. The Accolades were introduced at the request of breeders to recognise experience, commitment and sucess, but this doesn't automatically mean a novice will produce inferior puppies or an established breeder healthier puppies so in reality, what use are they to a prospective owner other than to add further confusion? Now they need to find a KC registered litter produced by an Assured Breeder, who preferably has achieved all three accolades. Even better if they manage the Holy Grail of an Accolade of Excellence - it's turning into Top Trumps!!

If someone buys any puppy that has been registered with the KC, then it ought to mean the KC takes some interest in not only its parentage, but also its health and wellbeing, because that NEEDS to be what the KC now represents.

>> really they dont have a clue and just want a cheap puppy.
> You can direct them to Champdogs... but there is no such thing as a cheap puppy.
>
> I wish people knew that - but in reality, people don't care any more. If they buy a cheap dog and it has issues, they just get rid, and look for another. People buy something cheap from Ebay or from the free ads that they need, and if that doesn't work they will put it down to experience and try again - I've done the same myself - but the difference is I'd never gamble with something living.

I think that is so true, the throw away society applies to everything now, even pets.

I vividly remember when I was younger and worked in the pet department of a garden centre. A woman was buying a rabbit and I was explaining to her about vaccinations for the two main diseases which at the time were rife in the area.

Her reply "I don't care about all that. If it dies then I'll just buy another one!"

People are so used to everything being disposable they don't seem to worry about ethics any more. People buy new clothes because they are bored with the old ones or there is a new fashion trend and pets are treaed the same way.

This is why although I used product variations in a supermarket as an example, it isn't really a very good one. You buy the economy range if money is tight but it won't poison you, just won't taste as nice. You buy a cheap puppy and it is likely to have far reaching consequences. For the mother that produced it as she will be condemned to yet another litter, for you as the owner because you have to watch the puppy suffer and die or pay out huge vet bills, for the family because the puppy is too ill or bad tempered to be a companion and to the puppy who will pobably have a short and miserable life. Unfortunatly people only see the short term benefit of getting 'A Bargin'. :-(

>> Unfortunatly the ABS has been designed and evolved from the point of view of the breeder, rather than the buyer. The Accolades were introduced at the request of breeders to recognise experience, commitment and sucess, but this doesn't automatically mean a novice will produce inferior puppies or an established breeder healthier puppies so in reality, what use are they to a prospective owner other than to add further confusion? Now they need to find a KC registered litter produced by an Assured Breeder, who preferably has achieved all three accolades. Even better if they manage the Holy Grail of an Accolade of Excellence - it's turning into Top Trumps!!

I agree that I was surprised that the KC went down this line, but if that as the only way to get the breeders to support what is a good scheme and can be a great scheme if every puppy registered with the KC was from an assured breeder. I think they might have been better advised to make it buyer friendly with accolades awarded from feedback perhaps from puppy buyers and the scheme reps who visit premises.

Perhaps breeders could be given postcards to add to puppy packs which buyers can fill in a short survey and post back to the KC on a freepost scheme. To ensure the buyers have filled in and sent the feedback postcards not a dubious breeder perhaps the card should require a vets signature at the first vaccinations or perhaps the card could be issued to vets who fill it in when a pup has been for first vaccinations with the breeders name and details such as Assured breeder number? Doing this the latter way would allow the vet to see that the pup before them is a KC registered pup from a supposedly good source, which would weed out a lot of BYB bred stock and puppy farm stock.

One worry which has been brought to the fore by the Dog Advisory Council report and the decision that vets must collect info on pedigree dogs is the fact that the average vet cannot always tell one breed from another and certainly if a small dog is brought in and the owner says this is a Xxxx then it is recorded as such yet we all know puppy farm puppies do not always have correct pedigrees. Having seen a cocker spaniel from a puppy farm that looked much more like a long haired dachshund I would like a more regulated way for vets to record their findings, as most vets automatically assume a pedigree is KC registered, hence the KC reputation is always in the forefront of the firing line!

>Perhaps breeders could be given postcards to add to puppy packs which buyers can fill in a short survey and post back to the KC on a freepost scheme.

I had something like this included in my puppy pack. 

It asked if I had been given a puppy pack and diet sheet and had they both been fully explained to me.

The rest is a bit fuzzy, maybe something about how helpful the breeder had been and if he offered lifetime support. Also a bit to add my own comments.

There was an addressed envelope provided but it wasn't freepost, I remember thinking that was a shame because a lot of people (like me) don't send letters or keep stamps and although I was happy to make a special trip to the post office to buy 1 stamp I can understand a lot of people not being bothered.

Did the vet have to sign the card to say he had examined the puppy? Also if you could add this info on line do you think it would have made you more likely to fill it in and return it?
Had the situation been that you had to take the card to the vet when the pup went for it's first vaccinations and then it was up to the vet to send it back to the KC or enter his/her findings online would work any better.

I think if you could send the ABS feedback form back electronically it would make it much more buyer friendly - it is much easier to simply click on some boxes and hit reply. 

>Did the vet have to sign the card to say he had examined the puppy? Also if you could add this info on line do you think it would have made you more likely to fill it in and return it? <br />Had the situation been that you had to take the card to the vet when the pup went for it's first vaccinations and then it was up to the vet to send it back to the KC or enter his/her findings online would work any better.

My vet was not required to sign the card and I'm not sure I would want them to send back my feedback.  Maybe if they had their own part to fill out that was purely based on the health and condition of the pup. 

Entering on-line would be more convenient as long as the online form was easy to find.  I always seem to struggle to find what I am looking for on the Kennel club website but maybe that is just me.

I think it would be useful if vets routinely reported KC reg puppies that were unhealthy so the KC could build a database of breeders consistantly producing poor quality puppies.  But I'm not sure either party would be interested.

it would be also useful to know how many forms get sent back, I know only half my puppy buyers transfer the registrations.

I did ask the KC what proportion of feedback forms they get back but the person couldn't tell me.

With a low return it could be that the new owners can't be bothered, or more ominously it could mean they are not being given the forms.

I suspect that if the envelope was not prepaid and I was happy with my puppy and didn't want to spend the extra £12 to transfer I would be very unlikely to return the form, I don't like surveys and rarely complete them unless I am unhappy with the service.

Certainly I do feel that a form for the Vet to return could be a good idea, but as a breeder over zealous reports as we hear of here, on tiny hernias or innocent flow murmurs might worry me.

The ABS only really works for breeders who breed a least one litter per year. I didn't see the point of joining when I had a litter in 2009 as I would not be having another litter till we wanted a puppy to keep ourselves, I think there are a lot of people in the same position.
I show my dogs very successfully, have all the required health tests done and more, would only ever breed from parents who have the right temperament, I am a member of a breed Club etc. Apart from the puppy we kept most of the puppies went to other people within the breed so the fact that I was not an ABS member was immaterial to them.
I don't see the point of paying a fee every year, when I am never going to breed that much, but I feel that their should still be some way of recognising breeders like myself who breed quality not quantity.

If you limit breeding a litter to  health tested parentage and say the dogs have to achieve a working certificate in such and such , or so many wins at exhibition , you will reduce the back yard breeders/farms but at the cost of a genuine breeder who may not have worked /shown their dogs due to other circumstances.

It all works in Sweden. No puppies to be registered unless parents health tested, and unless parents have show or working qualifications, the price per pup for registration is increased by a fair amount. I think that's very fair.

I felt the same as you, even though I do breed a litter most years (some years not some years two litters, all depends how it pans out with timings for seasons bitches ages etc, but generally it's a litter a year), but felt compelled to join because of the way the KC were stressing that the best breeders were part of the ABS.

Now I do approve of the Accolades as any one beyond a complete Novice puppy searcher may be interested on how experienced and successful a breeder is if they wish to do more than simply have a puppy solely a companion.

Of course first time breeders can produce quality, usually because they have long experience in the breed as an owner exhibitor/competitor etc, rather than pure luck.  My very first puppy owner in 1995 has had 5 generations of our breed, has competed with success, breed and even competitive obedeince (which can be a challenge with a free thibnking breed like ours).

She bred her first litter in 2009 from which has come the top winning puppy in 2009 to bitch in the breed for 2011, and her first champion.  She like you has chosen not to join the ABS, even though she hopes for her second litter from the Dam in the next two months, and has spent a fortune importing a young male to enlarge our breeds small gene pool in this country.

> It all works in Sweden. No puppies to be registered unless parents health tested, and unless parents have show or working qualifications, the price per pup for registration is increased by a fair amount. I think that's very fair.

I like that idea that there is a financial incentive to health test, achieve good results in competiiton, by reducing registration costs, where here having an affix cost a yearly fee, joining the ABS costs a yearly fee, competing costs a fortune, and registration fees on top. 

BYB or Puppy Farmer only needs to pay reg fees.

I like that idea too, when I bred my litter it was not about money it was about keeping a puppy from the breeding lines we wanted. But showing, travelling, health tests etc. It would have been far cheaper just to buy a puppy in, but I would not have got the lines I so desired.
There should be some incentive to breeders to do all these things, otherwise we may as well all just sit at home, and churn out pups from parents that have never been independantly asssesed.

With a low return it could be that the new owners can't be bothered, or more ominously it could mean they are not being given the forms.

If an AB is inspected, the paperwork sent back stating what was found will also say how many new owner questionnaires have been sent back to the KC by puppy buyers.

but you can't make new owners fill in and send back the questionnaires.

I did point out that they were important, but short of making them fill them out while still at my house (which might be intimidating and effect what they answered), then I don't see how the KC can get meaningful feedback, they are in fact most likely to get feedback from people with not so good experiences.

> they are all anti KC

Well, that is a shame because the KC guide takes some beating.

Quick question re ABS I have heard that some breeders have failed the inspection because they do not have a seperate sink to wash feeding bowls. I would think that this applies to small scale breeders who breed from home. Has anyone else heard this ???

> Unfortunatly the ABS has been designed and evolved from the point of view of the breeder, rather than the buyer.

I don't think that is true and is probably why so many breeders could not see it's value at the beginning :).
I also think the accolades are of some value to purchasers as they indicate not just the experience of the breeders but also their success in gaining stud book numbers.  Most purchasers, after all, are looking for a typical dog of the breed.  Infact, I am not sure what benefit they are to breeders if not to inform purchasers of the level of experience and quality they hold.

> If someone buys any puppy that has been registered with the KC, then it ought to mean the KC takes some interest in not only its parentage, but also its health and wellbeing,

All breeders registering their puppies are obliged to observe the general KC breeding code so it is not without any regulation or come back.

> For the mother that produced it as she will be condemned to yet another litter, for you as the owner because you have to watch the puppy suffer and die or pay out huge vet bills, for the family because the puppy is too ill or bad tempered to be a companion and to the puppy who will pobably have a short and miserable life.

If people are observing even the basic registration requirements of the Kennel club, limitation on age and litters etc should prevent quite such the portrait you are painting there :)

> Quick question re ABS I have heard that some breeders have failed the inspection because they do not have a seperate sink to wash feeding bowls. I would think that this applies to small scale breeders who breed from home. Has anyone else heard this ???

I have heard that they do not :)  but it would be very simply to demonstrate that you have a seperate washing up bowl dedicated to the purpose which really ought to do the job just as well.

> but you can't make new owners fill in and send back the questionnaires.

What time limit would you give for the questionnaires to be returned, as health problems wouldn't necessarily show up until the dog has matured?

> The ABS only really works for breeders who breed a least one litter per year. I didn't see the point of joining when I had a litter in 2009 as I would not be having another litter till we wanted a puppy to keep ourselves, I think there are a lot of people in the same position.
> I show my dogs very successfully, have all the required health tests done and more, would only ever breed from parents who have the right temperament, I am a member of a breed Club etc. Apart from the puppy we kept most of the puppies went to other people within the breed so the fact that I was not an ABS member was immaterial to them.
> I don't see the point of paying a fee every year, when I am never going to breed that much, but I feel that their should still be some way of recognising breeders like myself who breed quality not quantity.

I have not had a litter from my bitches since 1986 since then I have owned dogs but I am still a member of the ABS. I know that seems mad but I could see this scheme had potential so joined when it started. It has changed a lot in that time and still has a way to go. I now have a bitch for the first time in years so maybe I will have a litter from her when she is old enough.