Celtic Lad funnily enough so did I !
And being pedantic.... I really don't  think you were at all. You merely highlighted a significant case of double standards! Do as I say and not as I do ... as the saying goes.

> I always thought that 'reputable' breeders worked within the perameters of the Breed Standard.

Unfortunately, we cannot do that for other breeds :) 
Having said that, I could be pedantic and say these do breeders are working within the perameters in what they produce.
It would appear, Celtic Lad, you are attempting to do a JH and condemn all pedigree breeders on what a minority of breeders choose to do. 

> and not as I do ...

It is certainly not what I do!

White Lilly nor was I using Jean either, but I made reference to her comment specifically as it was relevant. Plus, she is someone on here I have always admired as a very knowledgeable, long standing breeder. Her comments are always very fair too :)

yes cavlover we are and have been saying the same thing all the way tho this threed! :)

Sorry Stooge but do not understand the wording of your post.Also who is JH ?

> Sorry Stooge but do not understand the wording of your post.

Can you quote and I shall try to rewrite the part that is not clear.

>Not being pedantic at all just trying to understand your position on this.I always thought that 'reputable' breeders worked within the perameters of the Breed Standard.

Yes, and within the recommendations of the breed club (as the KC advises).

Not all breeds are the same; tiny toy breeds mature early and can safely have puppies at a younger age than those from larger, later-maturing breeds, for example. A toy breed's reproducing days are often over by the time a large breed is just starting!  What's acceptable for one breed isn't necessarily acceptable for all.

Thank you white lilly, we have indeed :-)

So, are you saying then Jeangenie that it is perfectly acceptable for those who breed a toy breed not to exhibit their bitches first, even though you believe it is not acceptable for all other breeds? ie we can make exceptions for toy dog breeders? I am asking as we were not referring to the AGE people breed from their toy breed bitches, as you are inferring, but that they breed from larger bitches that would not be deemed suitable for showing, meanwhile showing smaller bitches which would not be deemed suitable for breeding! Crazy if you ask me!

> but that they breed from larger bitches that would not be deemed suitable for showing, meanwhile showing smaller bitches which would not be deemed suitable for breeding! Crazy if you ask me!

I agree although at least the offspring are shown to be typical of the breed. With this tiny minority of breeds I do think the standard needs to go up a little in line with the KCs fit for function drive, however I would not have thought this would apply to Cavaliers and, I have to say, I have not heard of this being common practice in this breed.  I would have thought the breed standard of up to 18lbs being generous enough to avoid it.

>that it is perfectly acceptable for those who breed a toy breed not to exhibit their bitches first, even though you believe it is not acceptable for all other breeds?

Personally, no, but I can appreciate that if it's a welfare matter then that is more acceptable than simply not wanting to show; if the puppies produced are then shown successfully it seems that no real harm is being done to the breed. I would personally prefer the standard to be very slightly altered to accept the slightly increased size of bitches for this reason. The use of larger bitches for breeding only really applies to the very tiny breeds, where individuals under 2 or 3kg would seriously suffer; in breeds of about 6kg and upwards this really wouldn't apply.

I used the age of breeding simply as an example of how the different breeds shouldn't all be considered the same in a species where there is more size differential than any other on the planet.

I am also involved in other forms of livestock breeding as well as the dogs so I thought I would add this in relation to bitches and size.

I have friends who breed show rabbits and it is highly unusual in some breeds for the does to be shown at all. In fact it is actually frowned on as showing is percieved to make the females more highly strung and less suitable mothers. I have seen critiques for females saying "should be in the breeding pen"! The other aspect is that the best breeding does are those which DON'T conform to the breed standard too closely, as the features in the standard conflict with the ability to easily give birth - such as having large heads or narrow hips. The best sire is mated to a homely, 'earth' mother doe and this practice has resulted in very sucessful typey offspring. C-sections in small animals are not really a viable  option so it is essential that the ability to give birth completely naturally is regarded as a high priority. The fact that only one of the parents is of 'show quality' seems to be of lesser importance than the prepotency of the sire to pass on his qualities to his offspring and providing the doe has no massive construction faults or faults which are highly heritable, she is perfectly suitable for breeding. In rabbits at least, both animals do not have to have proved their worth in the show ring in order to produce top quality offspring. It is more important not to double up on faults and to ensure that if one parent fails in a particular aspect then the other must excel in it. (However, it might be argued that there will often be a less uniformity in the offspring than if both parents closely conformed to the breed standard.) Obviously a certain degree of knowledge is required to 'get it right' (as well as luck!) but rabbit breeders are more fortunate in this respect as their generation periods are much shorter!! None the less, experienced mentors are invaluable for helping with assessment of breeding stock and help avoid the rose tinted glasses being worn too often.

The other aspect which is of concern is that 'correction' of faults (through clever grooming/training/handling/surgery) may mean they are disguised so as to win in the show ring or simply to make the animal more comfortable but they are still present in the genetic makeup and may unwittingly be passed on. Surgical correction of a mouth/teeth for example may well mean the animal is fine as a pet or even for show and suffers no ill effects but it should never be used for breeding. It relies very much on the intergrity of owners to be upfront about problems for the good of the breed and future generations rather than focussing on immediate gain. This applies irrespective the species or purpose of the animal.

> I have friends who breed show rabbits and it is highly unusual in some breeds for the does to be shown at all. In fact it is actually frowned on as showing is percieved to make the females more highly strung and less suitable mothers.

I used to show and breed rabbits and that is something I have never heard of and doe classes were always numerous as of course in your rabbitry you tended to keep more does than bucks, and of course your good does would be busy producing kits some of the year usually the months that woudl give you the best chance of youngsters of 3 - 5 months for the young stock shows..

I can only think that might possibly apply to one or two very exaggerated fancy breeds if at all.

>However, it might be argued that there will often be a less uniformity in the offspring than if both parents closely conformed to the breed standard.

You can always eat those that do not conform, or who have issues, but in breeds where most of the points are for correct markings you can't rely on a buck to make a silk purse out fo a sows ear and you need both to conform as closley as you can in hopes of getting something showable.

In the past show kennels kept many dogs that were not shown just for their lines, or beign particulary strong i9n a trait needign improvement as they could afford to keep a  good brood with a good pedigree as well as her more showy sisters space not being an issue.  Now our breeders need their dogs to be Jacks and Jills of all trades, and often it's the cae we breed from what we have based on our educated guess when they were puppies,a dn fi they don't turn out champions they are likely to be typical specimins and we look to improving on theri wekaer points by choosing the right mate. 

So yes we have always bred from dogs/bitches that aren't neccesarily outstanding, but typical worthy specimins none the less, which clever breedrs utilise with success.

>In the past show kennels kept many dogs that were not shown just for their lines, or beign particulary strong i9n a trait needign improvement >as they could afford to keep a  good brood with a good pedigree as well as her more showy sisters space not being an issue.  Now our breeders >need their dogs to be Jacks and Jills of all trades, and often it's the cae we breed from what we have based on our educated guess when they >were puppies,a dn fi they don't turn out champions they are likely to be typical specimins and we look to improving on theri wekaer points by >choosing the right mate. 

>So yes we have always bred from dogs/bitches that aren't neccesarily outstanding, but typical worthy specimins none the less, which clever >breedrs utilise with success.

In addition to this, one thing which has also changed dramatically is that pups with bad faults or health problems would have been culled and not passed on to pet homes as they are now, so pet owners who did breed, and they were not as common as today,  would have been starting with much better animals - or at least, ones with fewer or less severe faults to pass on to their offspring. 

Nowadays, pet breeders seem to be everywhere.  I've stopped talking to people with young pups/dogs as I'm heartily sick of hearing within seconds of speaking to them and their barely recogniseable new baby that they are going to breed it!

These were lops and dwarfs so probably conformation and temprement was more of a problem than the more 'rabbit shaped' breeds. The 'surplus' went for pets rather than the pot as well! :-) Certainly in these breeds showing anything other than young females was regarded as something of an oddity and the emphasis was definitly on the males.

The point I was trying to make was not that the mother could be a very poor specimen providing the sire was good- rather that it wasn't necessary for the credentials of both parents to be proven in the showing environment in order to produce show quality offspring.

Showing is only a positive contributor to the selection process if poor quality dogs are consistently unplaced and as a result are not bred from. However, this relies heavily upon the knowledge and integrity of judges to place the best and of breeders to take a decision not to breed from dogs that are poor specimens or carry a fault, even if that is all they have.

Seemingly it is perfectly acceptable to breed toy bitches that are too small to be considered capable of breeding from, so long as they do well in the ring?

Can't say I've seen anyone but you say so, unless somebody I've got on ignore has -plenty of hidden posts in this thread. I for one show AND breed from the same toy bitches, how else are the pups going to end up the correct size! I have one bitch I'd say is too small for breeding and she is NOT shown.

Sorry, Tricolourlover, you lost me there.  I definately think that you need to be in it for generations to correct faults and I'm talking minor faults and it's a really difficult thing to do(and get wrong!).  I chose not to breed from anything with faults be it mouths, height, colour.  This is a choice as I don't want to take my lines the wrong way.  Putting a small bitch to a big dog will not bred a litter of middle-road pups, you just get a mix of big and small!!
Regardless of the ins and outs of JeanSW's reasons, the fact that she is fighting against the tide for the good of her breed, makes her a hero in my eyes!  Shows the TRUE love of her breed

PS, Where is this ignore button? And why do you chose to ignore good debates like these? Did I miss something??lol

> the fact that she is fighting against the tide for the good of her breed

Indeed, but how can other breeders know what she is producing and, therefore, how can it benefit the breed?  This is why you need to show, not just to improve your own lines but to allow others to consider what you are doing.

>PS, Where is this ignore button? And why do you chose to ignore good debates like these? Did I miss something??lol

If you click on a member's username, it gives you the option to ignore their posts so you no longer see them. You might choose to ignore someone who you feel is deliberately and consistently argumentative - the number of "ignores" a member attracts helps Admin decide whether that person should continue as a member of the forum.

Stooge, Are you saying the breeders that are not bothered about self-whelping bitches that attend shows should be able to pick apart what JeanSW is doing? I think with all her years of experience with dogs, not just one breed, gives her a head start before most people.  Just because a person CHOOSES not to show for whatever reason, doesn't mean they loose all the experience and knowledge they have gained.  I am the worst judge on any of my dogs, always have been.  When you know what you are looking for and have had the best, it's hard to ignore the tinest of faults.  Just because I and JeanSW don't show at this time, doesn't makes us any less a good breeder and in fact, with JeanSW sticking her neck out and going against the grain, she is by far a better breeder and a benefit for that breed for many generations to come.  KC have allready started restricting the amount of sections a bitch is allowed(rightly so) so how long do you think before it is banned altogether?  I think it's coming in all but emergencies.  So if it wasn't for the likes of JeanSW, the breed would die out.

Jane, Thanks for the explanation.  I wouldn't ignore as I like a good debate!  Eeeek, I hope that's not put me on anyones hate list!!lol

> Are you saying the breeders that are not bothered about self-whelping bitches that attend shows should be able to pick apart what JeanSW is doing?

No, not at all, I'm saying they are not getting to see what she is doing.

> I wouldn't ignore as I like a good debate!

I feel the same but unfortunately having a different opinion is seem as personally challenging by some so I am sure I am on a few :)

Actually, in my breed it isn't necessarily that they might be too small to be bred from, just that a larger brood bitch would be considered more suitable. But said larger bitch would not do as well in the ring....

As for people showing, I can think of quite a few who show one or maybe a few of their dogs, but back at home they have a number of bitches that are not shown but are bred from... but hey they are a "show kennels" because they have one dog in the ring doing quite well, it clearly doesn't matter that most of the brood bitches never set foot in the ring.

Double standards everywhere!

Ps. as for the ignore button, I can see why some people do make use of it - there are a few on here who seem to get a great deal of pleasure from goading others and being generally argumentative. But doesn't it make some threads difficult to get to grips with, say if someone is replying to a poster you have on ignore?

> Indeed, but how can other breeders know what she is producing and, therefore, how can it benefit the breed?
> This is why you need to show, not just to improve your own lines but to allow others to consider what you are doing.

I agree about showing - I do think it an important part of assessing one's stock, or having it assessed as one needn't do the actual showing part yourself.  However I've expressed my views about that several times now

What I am becoming less comfortable with in this thread is using one person to illustrate your points (be they positive or negative).  This is an internet forum, we only ever know what one person chooses to share with us and in the most part by what questions they choose to answer or topics they regularly contribute to.  With a few exceptions most of us don't know each other and cannot claim to have the full story.  Constantly referencing JeanSW isn't necessary - your points could be made without it.

Somewhere at the beginning of this thread were some observations that there might be some middle ground and that there are exceptions to every rule.  It is up to puppy buyers to do their research, to know what they are looking for and then find a breeder that best represents their chances of getting that puppy.  If I were researching a new breed, there are definitely people on CD that I would want to talk to as part of that process.  Over the years they've said enough to make them a 'person of interest' to me!!  Mind you I'd expect to know a whole lot more after our conversation :)  I genuinely worry that it's the research stage where puppy buyers are making the biggest mistakes.  They 'just don't know what they just don't know' (Maslow's unconscious incompetence) is a state of blissful ignorance from which there is often a rude awakening when the puppy comes home :(

> Constantly referencing JeanSW isn't necessary

I agree.  I did not introduce her as an example just challenged anothers reference as I felt she was being used as a stick to beat other breeders.  I will not mention her again. :)

Me neither.  Sorry!

Stooge, Everyone can see what anyone is doing as it's all registered with the great KC.  Wouldn't take anyone a minute to work out who's breeding what to who.  I suppose that's where pet breeders arguement wins as no-one knows the pet KC names but you can usually follow her pedigree back to work out wether it's got a good basis or not.

> Everyone can see what anyone is doing as it's all registered with the great KC

Unless you see the dog at a show you are unlikely to go investigating the pedigee.  You just don't know what people are doing if they are doing great work in isolation :)

> KC have already started restricting the amount of sections a bitch is allowed(rightly so) so how long do you think before it is banned altogether? 

I hope that never happens.  In my own bitches I have had two need a C section, (one was the Great Grandmother of the other) fortunately both were for their third and last litters. 

The second had already whelped one puppy (I caught it as it flew out across the living room) and then the bitch became highly distressed and it was obvious something was wrong.

There are many non hereditary reasons why a bitch perfectly capable of self whelping may need a C section, so the new rule quite rightly allows for this.  One section allows a second chance, a second section means no more pups and the breeder can evaluate the reasons, and decide if that bitches genes should not be continued.

> These were lops and dwarfs

In both those breeds being head breeds the male sexual characteristics of a stronger head make for a better show specimin.

>As for people showing, I can think of quite a few who show one or maybe a few of their dogs, but back at home they have a number of bitches that are not shown but are bred from... but hey they are a "show kennels" because they have one dog in the ring doing quite well, it clearly doesn't matter that most of the brood bitches never set foot in the ring.

Why do you assume that would be acceptable, when all along people have stressed the importance of having the breeding animals assessed? However the brood bitches might well have been successfully independently assessed in the past, so there's no need to keep on doing it, especially if they've retired for maternal duties.

>Everyone can see what anyone is doing as it's all registered with the great KC.

You can't 'see' the dog from a piece of paper - you need to see it physically. The breeding might look great on paper but not necessarily translate well into the flesh!

Oh no, I am talking about bitches whom have never entered the ring as oppose to those who have been retired from showing for maternal duties.
Anyway, we are just going around in circles on this thread...

> As for people showing, I can think of quite a few who show one or maybe a few of their dogs, but back at home they have a number of bitches that are not shown but are bred from... but hey they are a "show kennels" because they have one dog in the ring doing quite well, it clearly doesn't matter that most of the brood bitches never set foot in the ring.
>
> Double standards everywhere!

It's only a double standard if those people are doing one thing and saying another...  If I were researching them as a possible breeder for a puppy then I'd be looking for their history of results and would decide whether to proceed based on a wide ranging conversation, and a number of facts.  There are many reasons why some dogs aren't shown as much as they used to be and a good breeder would willingly explain them.  If I wasn't happy with the facts then I don't have to buy from them...

We all keep saying that a show breeder doesn't necessarily make you a good breeder - a puppy buyer must still do the research and ask the questions.  Interestingly one of my criteria is whether a breeder is polite (or not) about the other breeders and dogs in the ring. It's perfectly possible for them to explain what is good about their breeding choices, without 'slagging off' the others  :)

Nowadays, pet breeders seem to be everywhere.  I've stopped talking to people with young pups/dogs as I'm heartily sick of hearing within seconds of speaking to them and their barely recogniseable new baby that they are going to breed it!

Completely agree Dill. At Crufts my friend was approached by someone who has a dog of my chosen breed. She intends to use the dog at stud!!! Didn't know the pedigree, didn't know its KC name, didn't know the breeder. Really done her research then! Oh, and it came from Wales. Not saying there aren't good breeders who happen to live in Wales but I am sure you would know the breeders name if they were reputable. I find I just have to walk away or I end up getting quite snippy.

>Oh no, I am talking about bitches whom have never entered the ring as oppose to those who have been retired from showing for maternal duties.

How is that different to a breeder who breeds from her bitches and never shows at all? Playing devil's advocate you could say she's better because she's keeping up to date with the state of the breed.

Again IMO she's a "could do better" breeder - neither particularly good nor particularly bad. The 'middle ground' that has been suggested?

Agree with you on that one Jeangenie.

I had a beautiful (in my eyes then) Golden with the most fantastic pedigree (by far more red on her pedigree than black) I was told to show her by more than one person, which is were I started with showing. She did okayish but only really at the Open shows but by going to shows I learned more about what is a quality Golden. She was short in the neck and quite straight in the stifle but wow what a fabulous temperament. However I bought another in to show and that is when I started to get my eye in. The problem is that people think that just because their dog has a good pedigree that it should be bred from but there is more to it than that.

This is an interesting topic given that most dogs end up in pet homes. I don't breed but I do show one of my dogs. Maybe there is an opportunity here for the KC. Perhaps they should offer 'assessment days' for those excellent breeders who do not wish to show/work their bitch for what ever reason. Breeders may not show/work their dogs for a variety of reasons - including distance from shows for some in the far North or west of the country. I know of someone in my breed who has a 3-4 hour journey South to SKC which is her closest champ show!
We have discussed on here many times instances of judges who only like a certain 'type' or 'colour', not to mention the ones who judge the wrong end of the lead or the all rounders who can't tell one breed from another in AV classes. Getting a picture of whether your dog is a truly excellent example of the breed from two or three shows is not as easy as it sounds, especially when some classes are either very small or huge, judges critiques are thin on the ground or your particular 'type' is currently out of fashion!

If the KC were to offer 'assessment' days for both bitches and prospective stud dogs with breed specialists available to give a proper written critique of the dog against it's breed standard then surely this would be something that excellent breeders whether they show or not would be keen to access. This takes away all of the competitiveness of the show ring while giving breeders confidence that their stock is of the best quality and standard for breeding.

Those who enjoy showing/working/competing can carry on as normal but the 'rose coloured spectacles' that we all have when we look at our own dogs in relation to the standard would be removed when thinking of breeding!

Maybe there is an opportunity here for the KC. Perhaps they should offer 'assessment days' for those excellent breeders who do not wish to show/work their bitch for what ever reason.

This is done in France, the dog gains an actual title proving it has been recommended for breeding (Sujet Recommendé , written as sr before the dog's name) -but it has to be entered in actual show for this. Although if somebody did not want to show again, that one time should be enough -it's not just the one judge chosing the dogs to be recommended.  My Dutch import took part in this last summer and was one that gained his qualification. They also have temperament tests which he also took part in and passed.

Excellent post and points well made Dakkobear.

I think that would be just the job Dakkobear and something the KC could really consider as removing the competitive angle could well help dampen down the desire to push the standard towards exageration as has happened in a few breeds. 
However, I guess people do like to compete with each other :)

Just tagging to the end with my view of where it all should start from when it comes to breeding pedigree dogs...

Something that was mentioned before was nordic countries and how things are done there, I do think in many countries they have done much better job than the UK kennel club as a head organisation for pedigree dogs.

For a starters in my opinion UK KC should be more friendly to general public, not something that is seen as sitting high up somewhere supporting "deformed show dogs"...
In many countries anybody can be a member of the KC and they publish a monthly magazine filled with articles for everybody from pet owner to person who works/breeds etc. Bit like some commercial dog magazines here but better (more educational, just my opinion :) ), you can also buy the publication in the shops.
In Finland for example, the KC magazine has the biggest printing numbers across ALL hobby magazines in the country! That I call getting it right to get your word out &educating general public and the general public IS so much more educated, rescues are not filled with dogs, people are not breeding their pets left right and centre etc...
So anybody interested in dogs is welcome to be a member and learn BUT TO BREED under the KC, you have to confirm to some standards.

KC elsewhere put limitations on what can be registered so even the puppy buyer who has not done loads of research will know the parents of a registered puppy have had relevant test done and passed within the limits set to the breed for registration (different breeds have different limits on hips/elbows, breed relevant tests required etc). Something I strongly feel should be done in UK, instead of accredited breeder etc!
It should be forced on breeders to do the tests or you will not register the pups under the KC as simple as that. No wonder people don't understand the difference between various registration bodies as really, KC has not made themselves stand out as somehow better (with the negative press are seen worse by some!).

Some countries there has to be a show result as well or all breeding dogs need to be confirmed, e.g attend a session where they get graded suitable for breeding structure/temperament wise.
At shows all dogs get a critique so even if you have a dog that does not get placed high enough, you get an idea of why this is and after few shows probably have a good idea of the faults listed in the critiques (Judges seem more comfortable listing good/bad in the dogs compared to UK). You will actually learn about your dog, instead of paying your money and being chucked out of the ring not much wiser, makes it much more meaningful to attend shows even with a dog that is never going to be a big winner as you are there to get the judges opinion on your dog, not compete against others & hope to be placed to get a critique. The grading system used at shows also makes it possible to use the results when it comes to breeding, e.g. dog must have at least 2 very good grades from 2 diffident judges.
So if you are going to breed, you will need to show the dog for at least few times and will get few critiques and would have mixed a little with people in the breed and had an opportunity to see good specimens of the breed.
I don't think it is too much to ask from anybody who is breeding registered pedigree dogs and says they are doing it for the right reasons, whether you "like" the showing or not?

Not only do the breeding animals have to be assessed but to get a affix, you need to attend seminars on basic genetics, husbandry etc.
Of course it is easy to go and attend few weekend courses and still not care/learn but at least it is more than paying a fee and you start looking like a proper breeder with a kennel name in the eyes of general public. This I believe should definitely be done by the UK KC, you have to pay to attend the seminars so the cost is covered by those wishing to take their hobby to the next level and have an affix.

I believe in some countries, breed clubs work with KC and each and every registered litter gets inspected?
This is of course is more easily done as KC is not registering the litters of just anybody but has the minimum limitations in place in the first place for registration. In these countries it really does mean something to get a puppy from the right source, you know the breeder has had to match the minimum standards when it comes to the dogs they use for breeding/ litter environment etc...

I actually believe as a starting point and organisation that supports pedigree dogs the KC here in UK should do so much more to differentiate between good stock and not so good stock...
Make it obvious why even when buying "just a pet" it is important to have a puppy off a "good breeder" and what makes a good breeder, why even for a pet, it is good if parents have been show/have the health tests...

Brilliant posts!! And, you are all correct, KC DO NEED to change but then they are just in it for the money like the BYB's!
I love the idea of testing all breeding dogs for breed standard and temprement tests.  What a fantastic idea.  And would make Buying a puppy less of a minefield for the typical pet owners.  Anything not tested, pups don't get registered :)  Sorts the good from the bad, right enough.

But the KC won't:( They will lose far too much money from the BYB who, lets face it, are their best customers.  Everyone is too busy attacking who they think isn't getting it right when their is one organisation that could sort it all out, full-stop.  Maybe we could start a petition or something to make them see?  Stop all these puppies coming from Joe Bloggs that has a pedigree so why not make a quick buck.

> But the KC won't:( They will lose far too much money from the BYB who, lets face it, are their best customers.  Everyone is too busy attacking who they think isn't getting it right when their is one organisation that could sort it all out, full-stop.  Maybe we could start a petition or something to make them see?  Stop all these puppies coming from Joe Bloggs that has a pedigree so why not make a quick buck.

That is what the Canine Alliance is asking the KC to do.  The KC needs reforming so that all of us have a real voice.  None of us gets asked what we think, when it comes to KC policy.

This is where the younger Kennel clubs which have taken this view had an advantage to start with as they did not have the volume breeders using theri services so started off with teh premise that registered dogs had to prove their worth.

When the Kennel club started there weren't any puppy farmers, ordinary people did not normally have or want pedigree dogs, the club was started as a Gentlemans club to regulate the competitions that had started.  Then when the Pet Market developed for purebreeds they too used the kennel club.

so yes if the Kennel club next year required every dog used for breedign to ahve the minimum of Hip Scores and Eye tests they woudl loose quite a lot of revenue (but they already have to seveal spurious puppy farm registers already because fo the restrictions already introduced slowly.

25 years ago there was no minimum or maximum age for bitches to have litters, no restriction on number of litters etc.

I personally belive the KC have brought in each measure slowly so that ti woudl minimise the effect, which in soem ways i can understand their hope was that breeders as a whole would up theri game rather than cease using their services.  Thsi at least woudl keep larger gene pools.

I do now feel the time has come to make at least Hip scoring and eye testing compulsory for all breeds, and then additonally any of the compulsory items for given breeds as on teh ABS.  The health requirements of the ABS should become the norm, I do not want to see a two tier system.

> KC DO NEED to change but then they are just in it for the money like the BYB's!
>

You do realise they are a non profit club and that all the money they collect goes towards health research etc.  The more they collect the better as far as I am concerned.
Also the less registrations they take the less the Governement will regard them as the "voice" of dog breeders.  Who would that leave us with? DEFRA? DogsRUs?

> This is where the younger Kennel clubs which have taken this view had an advantage to start with

That's the trouble.  We have probably missed that boat.  We don't have the culture and we certainly don't have the legislation to stop people simply breeding without Kennel Club registration, after all they now have alternatives.
It's a massive problem but I do think the KC are moving in the right direction in pointing people towards the Assured Breeder scheme.  Health testing should be appropriate to breed and the breed clubs need to take the lead on that, as I believe many do.

> we certainly don't have the legislation to stop people simply breeding without Kennel Club registration,

That is the thing where other Kennel clubs have tighter rules the majority of dogs re bred without KC registration, so it doesn't improve dogs overall, just makes KC reg mean something.

Depending on the culture in the country the majority don't consider KC reg relevant to the person not interested in showing.

We have that in popular breeds here, so those looking only for a pet are still unlikely to approach the best breeders.

> That is the thing where other Kennel clubs have tighter rules the majority of dogs re bred without KC registration, so it doesn't improve dogs overall, just makes KC reg mean something

Exactly.  By proceding in a measured way, as I believe the KC are at least trying to do, you are more likely to improve dogs overall including their welfare. 

Breeders already have the power to control who breeds from their dogs by endorsements. My breeder endorsed her pups promising to lift it for each pup once they were health tested and they proved to be low hip/elbow scores, clear eyes etc. So atm although the Kennel Club don't insist on this, breeders already can. Maybe the KC could make it a compulsory part of the criteria for being one of their assured breeders that they must endorse their pups insisting on health tests before breeding? But I think the jist of this thread initially wasn't about the health of the dogs produced, rather that they should look right in the opinion of certain people.

Endorsements in themselves do not prevent breeding they stop the registering of pups.

> But I think the jist of this thread initially wasn't about the health of the dogs produced, rather that they should look right in the opinion of certain people.

I don't think so, the OPs very first criteria listed concerned health but I think if you are creating pets for people you have to do both.
Health and temperament must be at the top of anyones list as they are a welfare issue to the animal but if you are selling something you also have an ethical if not legal obligation to suppy goods to match the customers expectation.