I am putting together some opinions and ideas about the ABS - I know we have discussed it here severla times and lots of us have many ideas  about it, both pro and con.  Could I ask for your ideas about it - it's strong points and it's failing as you see them, plus what it would need to do/require to make it worthwhile/more worthwhile in your eyes?

This is a little research for a piece to be presented at the CA meeting next week, not for an article or anything like that.

I can start off - I think the idea behind having an AB scheme is good (I was a founder member) but I don't think it's current form does enough or means enough.  I would like to see all prospective members of the scheme inspected before being accepted, for a start.  Over to you now ...

I am not an AB but never the less have views. Think the scheme has merit but is very much a work in progress, the acceptance still seems too loose and although there has been improvement I think if it is to mean anything requires more care on who is able to call themselves a member of the Assured Breeder Scheme and how you check this in the true KC scheme.

Looking at the ABS I do think more should be done to promote the scheme to the general public many of whom do not know about it and even those who do are unsure what it means or how to confirm if a breeder says they are a member that they actually are, not surprising when most buying puppies do not understand the registration system and just why it is so important either.

Following on from this comment I feel the KC has no idea when it comes to public information and when it does make announcements or information available it seems to be adept at shooting itself in the foot and this applies to the ABS as well as other initiatives. The GP consider the KC either aloof and unapproachable or aloof and irrelevant so although I think the ABS requires work I think perhaps the whole institution that is the KC requires some deep spring cleaning, they do a great job but they need to be seen to be doing it, poor information and continual publicity errors just will not do, the whole club needs to be brought up to date and be come more of a public organisation open to all and far less of a private club irrelevant to most.

IMHO not even an excellent publicity department can cover over the need to re-thing the whole system if the many excellent services and initiatives are to work as intended.

Think the scheme has merit but is very much a work in progress, the acceptance still seems too loose

I don't get that point. Surely we want as many breeders as possible to join, so it shouldn't be something not everyone can join. The whole idea is to encourage health testing and responsible breeding, so why should it the be harder to join? The accolades sets the newbies/pet breeders etc apart from the rest.

Surely we want as many breeders as possible to join, so it shouldn't be something not everyone can join.

Did not mean that the breeder pool considered was too loose but the criteria for acceptance and continued membership was. In other words the acceptance of new breeders and the policing of existing ones was not sufficiently thorough enough or is not perceived to be.

We do not want everyone who has a litter to join as a right, only those who meet a criteria and the KC should be able to guarantee those given the AB title even if that means the restriction of numbers accepted for the ABS until it can be properly policed.

Did not mean that the breeder pool considered was too loose but the criteria for acceptance and continued membership was. In other words the acceptance of new breeders and the policing of existing ones was not sufficiently thorough enough or is not perceived to be.

That IS what I meant. I still don't get it. You have to do the required health tests to be able to register pups, so how is that too loose?

We do not want everyone who has a litter to join as a right,

OF COURSE we do! That's the entire point! Because that would mean ALL registered litters would have to have health tested parents! It's the only way at the moment to be able to refuse registrations from parents not tested.

The accolades sets the breeders apart once in the scheme. Simply using my own main breed as an example -just 4 ABs (one joined only yesterday). One has no accolades, one has one, one has two and one has three. Very easy for the potential puppy buyer to see the level of experience, success and involvement in a breed. (Although, and here is one for Gwen, I think it would make FAR more sense to show number of years in a breed as opposed to counting 5 litters as experience. Any idiot can get a few bitches and knock out 5 litters in one year. Maybe add or change to number of years as a breed club member?)

We do not want everyone who has a litter to join as a right,

OF COURSE we do!

Are you suggesting that the only criteria should be to have a litter and to have done the very basic tests that is I agree better than nothing but hardly where one should be aiming. That would include those who may well do the required and very basic tests but cheat on what they register, on how they bred and what they bred and for example breed one bitch and enter the litter as out of another, if that sort of behaviour is possible then the whole ABS will mean nothing even if most puppy buyers had heard of it anyway.

I am happy and would love to see every one who bred a litter included in the ABS but what is the point if it is not stringent enough to mean anything and is not properly policed or advertised.

Why have a scheme at all ? Why not insist that any breeder  whom wishes to register a litter with the Kennel Club meets all the criteria anyway?

I think I know the answer already though!

That would include those who may well do the required and very basic tests but cheat on what they register, on how they bred and what they bred and for example breed one bitch and enter the litter as out of another, if that sort of behaviour is possible then the whole ABS will mean nothing even if most puppy buyers had heard of it anyway.

But there is no way you could EVER prevent that from happening.

Why have a scheme at all ? Why not insist that any breeder  whom wishes to register a litter with the Kennel Club meets all the criteria anyway?

I think most of us would prefer that and I have said it many a time here, but as it's clearly not going to happen, the next best thing is to have as many people as possible join the ABS.

" the next best thing is to have as many people as possible join the ABS"

I agree, but only if more stringent checks are put in place. Certainly in my breed, there are plenty of unsavoury assured breeders, who use the fact to help sell their puppies, in fact it's the only motive for them joining the scheme :-(

I have come across a lot of people on the search for a new puppy who genuinely belive that an Assured Breeder is someone that has been inspected by the KC and then awarded membership of the ABS as a sign that the KC believes this breeder to be one of the best and that is why they are being recommended.  When told that anyone who has had a litter can apply they seem genuinely miffed that not every member is checked before joining.

I agree, but only if more stringent checks are put in place.

Agree, and I have a strong feeling that those who want to join for their own ends are doing so without check - there is another thought in my mind and that is that lack of suitable publicity and explanation has left me with a totally wrong impression of the scheme. So, which ever of my impressions are correct they need addressing.

Certainly in my breed, there are plenty of unsavoury assured breeders, who use the fact to help sell their puppies, in fact it's the only motive for them joining the scheme :-(

Once they get inspected hopefully bad people get weeded out -we know it happens. I'd say for your breed though the problem is there is not enough REQUIRED health tests -in fact I think it's the one single breed that really lacks very seriously in this respect. To only have eye testing as a requirement, with MVD and SM as recommended, is disgraceful.

Agree, and I have a strong feeling that those who want to join for their own ends are doing so without check

But they will be caught up with eventually. We know those that register 3 litters or so per year get inspected first. And what is the KC to do really, there just isn't enough people to go around inspecting everyone.

"To only have eye testing as a requirement, with MVD and SM as recommended, is disgraceful"

Totally agree, but the wheels are in motion to change this.

Abolish the recommended health testing and make is mandatory, all breeds to be eye tested as a min. I think that the results of said health tests like hip and elbow scores need to be taken into consideration, no point doing these tests only to ignore them!! Doesn't make them any healthier if used when there clearly is a problem!
No breeder to have more than a set number of litters a year of a particular breed, will not breed from with less than a 12mnth gap between litters.. All members will belong to a breed club for their breed and abide by their CofE's!!

This will help stop byb's, money makers and also puppy farmers!!

Suejaw, you bring another point to the fore, having a dog tested is of little use unless the results are acted upon and that brings up another problem how can you control what is actually bred from. Pass/fail tests are easy your breeding stock must be passed clear but what about carriers and those with hips & elbows on the edge of the breed norm and are you more lenient with those with breeds of low numbers.

This is something that will take year to sort but a start has been made and I would like to see far more checking not just physical but of the recorded paperwork as well.

> And what is the KC to do really, there just isn't enough people to go around inspecting everyone.

Exactly.  As I understand it they are volunteers, probably getting expenses nevertheless there will be a limit to the time and effort that can devote to this.  We should not forget that there is also the feed back system providing another layer of audit.
If inspections were to increase I would imagine it would have to involve training and paying inspectors which would obviously increase the costs considerably.  If someone, the CA possibly :), was going to push the idea of more inspections to the KC they really ought to support it with a business plan but it is hard to see how one might be devised that would leave costs at an acceptable level to the average breeder.

> Certainly in my breed, there are plenty of unsavoury assured breeders, who use the fact to help sell their puppies, in fact it's the only motive for them joining the scheme

Don't have any problem with that.  They are going to be breeding anyway, this way they breed to a standard that protects the welfare of the bitch and puppies and ultimately to the benefit of those that buy their puppies.  This is what it is all about, it is not an elitism thing we have the show ring for that :)

> will not breed from with less than a 12mnth gap between litters..

I do hope you mean only with same bitch, and even then what about 11 1/2 months?  With the number of litters now limited to 4, there would seldom be a need for breeding on successive seasons, but occasionally there is good reason (long season intervals, singleton pups etc for example).

I would say all breeds should be hip scored and eye tested as a minimum, as HD is known to occur in all breeds/non breed and even wolves.

Stooge, you might not have a problem with it, the puppy buying public might! Personally, just because a breeder may be carrying out health tests as set out by the scheme - in my breed this currently means only eye testing (!), I would not wish to buy a puppy from them if their only motive for breeding in the first place was to sell puppies!

As a breeder I'd like more feedback on feedback.

At present I have only bred two (now three litters) under the scheme, but I have no idea what percentage of people return feedback forms, if ti is similar to the numbers who transfer pups to their name it's perhaps less than half, but I have no way of knowing.

It would be nice for there to be an annual report of things like what is most often found in feedback forms (positive and negative).

As for these 'Puppy Plan' booklets for the breeder to complete. Hello we do not rear puppies as an experiment in a laboratory.  Also it gives the impression that there is one right way to do things, whcih there isn't as with babies.  soem belive is having them in yoru bred, soem in a cot in parents room for varying lengths fo tiem, some belive in ahving a baby in it's owne room from the start.

I don't own a video camera or photo printer, and I have better things to do that tickle puppies toes with Q-tips!!!  I don't buy Q-tips, and am more likely to be kissing newborn pups toes. 

Pups will know what wet and cold feels like when they step on the puddle that they have just done on the vetbed before it sinks in.  We are constantly handling the puppies, for cuddles to weigh them to photograph them, and cuddle them yet again ;)

I am busy caring for, playing with, cuddling and loving my pups.  ALSO HAVING LOTS OF NEW PUPPY OWNERS VISITING  often several times each.

It seems they want us to be like nursery staff and teachers, spending more time completing assessment forms than caring and teaching.  I think I am better placed to know what my puppies socialisation needs are, pups vary as to their development, I do not believe in 'hot housing' techniques for children or dogs. 

As for visiting breeders it makes sense to visit also those producing more than, is it three litters first, then once all those are visited, then those who register more than two, and eventually all those who breed less than two litters can eventually be visited.

> I would not wish to buy a puppy from them if their only motive for breeding in the first place was to sell puppies!

Personally nor would I but plenty do which is why I don't have problem with the KC raising the standard of these breeders so at least they are bred to better health and welfare standards and the information is easily available if the breeder has achieved accolades within their breed for those of us that do concern ourselves.

Agree with all that has been said so far. I joined the scheme at its inception because I believed it was ,and indeed is, an attempt to improve standards of breeding. But it should not have been necessary in the first place to have  such a two tier registration system. The KC should not be accepting for registration  puppies from non health screened  parents. Nor should they be allowing, by default, the irresponsible, unethical  and dishonest breeding practices that we know tick along beneath the KC radar - bitches bred from consecutive seasons, 'paper puppies' where more puppies are registered than are actually born thereby enabling the breeder to register litters that would otherwise be unregisterable. There is no system in place to ensure that dogs bred from are good examples of the breed nor is  any check made on the litters to ensure that they are healthy and that the number in the litter corresponds to registrations applied for, as other countries do.

  It has been far to easy to join the scheme and there are many Assured Breeders churning out puppies of several breeds, usually those currently in vogue which therefore sell well. The Assured Breeder status gives such breeders a veneer of authority when in fact they know b....r all about the breeds .I'm not that convinced by the accolades either, Awarding one for number of breeds registered seems to be encouraging over breeding.

The inspection process seems to be very slow in terms of inspections undertaken. I know of many ABs around here who've never seen 'hide nor hair' of an inspector despite complaints made to the KC about bad practice.
I had my inspection last year and it was fine. The emphasis was on health and welfare of the dogs . No multi sinks requirement. I will not, however, be cooperating in the tick box booklets which have arrived along the recent registration documents. They are currently in the recycling bin. I have an old fashioned nurse's aversion for such things. Brainless - I agree entirely with you !

>The KC should not be accepting for registration  puppies from non health screened  parents.

Surely that would create an enormous problem? What size gene pool would be left?

Jeangenie, you make an an interesting comment. Whilst we all agree with health testing, are you saying that we still need those who don't necessarily health test to continue breeding for the general good of the breed, ie to promote genetic diversity?

will not breed from with less than a 12mnth gap between litters..

No it should be 11, because otherwise those of us that have had litters after for instance 362 days could not register the pups! It makes no sense to wait another 6 months for a season (could for instance mean it would be wrong time of year for the breeder and for buyers) just because the bitch may end up giving birth early and the litter be born just one or two days too soon to be registered. In particular with certain toybreeds where they need to finish breeding at a younger age than bigger breeds.

>Whilst we all agree with health testing, are you saying that we still need those who don't necessarily health test to continue breeding for the general good of the breed, ie to promote genetic diversity?

In an ideal world all dogs would be health tested. But even dogs which 'fail' various health tests (ie are carriers of a condition, for example) shouldn't necessarily be ruled out of breeding because they may excel in another genetic aspect. It's knowledge of the situation that's important, to avoid mating carrier to carrier if at all possible. However an untested, functionally unaffected dog is a potential mine of useful genes - to ban him from registration (and thus his progeny also) would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I think it's accepted that gene pools need to be kept as wide and open as possible, not further restricted.

> I think it's accepted that gene pools need to be kept as wide and open as possible, not further restricted.

I agree with this and so do the folk at the Animal Health Trust. At seminars Sarah Blott and her colleagues have strongly advised against breeders narrowing the gene pool. Geoff Sampson also used to caution against this, and against popular sire syndrome. Breeds that do this risk, if nothing else, diminishing fertility. 

I believe all breeding stock should be health tested for the relevant conditions for their breed. The results should be published. Then breeders can take the results into account when planning matings.

However, I can see that some sires may be, or become, popular by virtue of their health test results. And that could be a problem.

Health testing is important as a' tool' in good breeding practice. The results should not be ignored but neither are they the' be all and end all' of good breeding. Temperament and genetic diversity must of course be considered.
As regards Esme's reflection  that sires may become popular only by virtue of their health results, I agree that is indeed undesirable. I am reminded of the breed show in which a judge was bitten  and the offending dog was banished from the ring. The handler complained bitterly at the injustice since the dog was 'the only GR in Germany with 0/0 hips.'

The greater risk seems to be sires popular because of success in the show ring. The gene pool of some breeds must be under threat due to this phenomenom.  You only have to look at Champdogs puppy list in certain breeds to note that the same sire can account for up to 70% of matings within a geographical area. And is resurrecting popular sires from the past,through frozen sperm and AI, who have already significantly contributed to the gene pool, such a good idea ? To create a winning 'look' for the showring, many breeders are breeding with high coefficients of inbreeding. The breeder stakes is evidence of this. Several dogs trotted out , all look the same. Where's the genetic diversity there ?

Jeangenie, I totally agree with you - keeping gene pools as wide as possible should definitely be the way forward, that is why I picked up on your post.

"Health testing is important as a' tool' in good breeding practice. The results should not be ignored but neither are they the' be all and end all' of good breeding. Temperament and genetic diversity must of course be considered."

Absolutely agree :-)

Mini longhaired dachsies were given 5 yrs from when the PRA cord1 DNA testing was rolled out for general use in Feb 2005 to build up the gene pool and then pups where the parents didn't have a PRA status or the match could cause affected pups had to be tested before registration.

The breed was very badly affected by the results from those involved in the trials started in the 90's, many of those dogs had passed away before the test was available for general use, some were multi used sires, those with clear results were unwilling to part with pups and waiting lists were long, carriers were easier to come by but then you had to find a clear partner.

There was the worry about " throwing the baby out with the bath water" but luckily that didn't happen and now clear pups are easy to come by and clear studs too.

I was lucky that the only dachsie I bought before the DNA testing started was clear when I tested him, neither parent had been tested or any dogs in the first 3 generations, I was on pins waiting for his result to come back.

Eventually the same rule will apply to smooths and then wires.

I have thought about joining ABS but I don't breed that often, when I spoke to the KC re inspection she told me as I was breeding less than one litter per year it could be years before I would be inspected unless my litter numbers increased dramatically.

What puts me off is there is a show/ breeder in my breed who produces several litters per year,more than one litter per breed register recently found out she breeds a bigger breed too, I feel this then reflects badly on the rest of us trying to do this the right way.

I am sure the criteria for becoming an ABS was different when it first started, you had to have register at least 5 litters which made me think it will be eons before I reach that target.

I have to agree that we should all be breeding to the same high standard rather than them and us but there wouldn't be enough weeks in the year to inspect everyone.

My difficulty with the scheme is that I know of several breeders in my breed who are members of it, and are not - by most people's standards - good breeders.

These breeders breed several litters a year (from different bitches), and the pups are raised outdoors in sheds/outhouses.  They are whelped in the house, then moved outdoors when they start to get messy.  The dogs themselves (when not being bred from) live in paddocks a bit like cattle, for the most part and receive little to no training and human contact.

It's not any one of these things, it's the overall feel of the thing - which is that this is a BUSINESS and the main purpose of it is to MAKE MONEY - not to better the breed.

Still, they tick all the boxes, and they health test the breeding stock.  They show their dogs at Champ shows - some of these breeders with great success - but, given the sheer number of dogs they breed, this is unsurprising.  I believe they have been inspected a couple of times after being reported to the KC, yet nothing was found to warrant their being chucked out of the ABS and they continue to be members.  One of these breeders buys in champion stud dogs from abroad and uses them on her own dogs and rakes in money from stud fees.  It is a huge enterprise.

I have had contact with folk who have bought puppies (unknowingly) from these breeders, then later having learnt more about what to look for in a breeder, feeling bad and that they wouldn't have bought from such a source, had they known more beforehand.  In my eyes, all this is puppy farming dressed up as something else.  Surely this is not what the ABS should be about? 

In many ways this is what Rhodach also says, for their breed.

I would like to see the emphasis be on small-scale breeders, whose dogs live in the house - not outdoors in kennels - the majority of their day.  I'd like to see there being a limit on the number of dogs an AB can have in their name on KC regs - even if, from our perspective, that is a lot (ie 10) - that would ensure that these mass producers can't be included.  You can't breed dogs ethically if your no 1 priority is making money and running the enterprise like a commercial business - the 2 things are incompatible.  There need to be checks and balances in place to exclude those whose priority is money, rather than the dogs themselves, and things to stop it all getting too large-scale and commercial.

Rabid, I'm sad to say I know of such breeders and to my shame and horror have unwittingly referred puppy buyers to such people. I have been seduced by their websites and success in the show ring. The feed back I have received has shocked me. My breed are renowned for their intelligence and require high levels of activity and engagement with humans. I have been informed of dogs are  stacked in small crates most of the day , stacked as in one crate on top of the other, and left 'home alone' whilst the owners/breeders attend shows. Apparently,complaints have been made to both the KC and the RSPCA but their misery continues . Yep, the boxes are ticked in terms of health screening and accolades but the images people have described keep me awake at night.

> I'd like to see there being a limit on the number of dogs an AB can have in their name on KC regs

According to KC records I have over 50 dogs in my name, the vast majority are those bred by me whose owners have not transfered registrations into their names.

The list also includes 3 of my deceased girls (and  possibly some of the deceased ones I have bred).

In fact I own 5, and one from my current litter will make it 6 again, as we lost Kizi in August.

No matter what I say to puppy buyers about the advantages of registering the puppy in their name, I too have dogs listed in my name even though they have been with their new families for up to 10 years. Perhaps there are not sufficient perceived advantages. The old system whereby the new owner got 6 weeks free insurance when they registered puppy in their name was more of an incentive to do so. The new system requires the breeder to set up the policy at the point of sale. I suspect that many just shove the documents, contracts, info packs etc into a cupboard in the excitement of bringing puppy home.

> I suspect that many just shove the documents, contracts, info packs etc into a cupboard in the excitement of bringing puppy home.

I have had dogs back for re homing, including a 9 year old with the folder of documents I had carefully prepared still in the wallet I had given them and obviously never looked at.

As the average pet owner what the registered name of their dog is and they are unlikely to know, even less so what the parents names are.

I think the accolades are totally pointless. Anybody can join a breed club and be showing at what ever level. I think if we need to have accolades how about one for breeders who have consistently health tested their stock over many years so breeders could earn a bronze accolade, then a silver, then a gold and finally a diamond. There are breeders who get a bad health result but still breed from the their dogs for example a dog scoring 25/25 hips in a breed known for an average score of say 10, so maybe the KC should look at this kind of thing.

I think the accolades who should be based on sensible breeding, so people who allow their stud dogs to be over used or are found to breed one liter registered with the KC and six months later breeding from the same bitch but selling the pups unregistered with the KC should ban these people from the scheme. I am sure we can all think of some top people who have allowed a stud dog to be over used or used too young before any health tests had been done, or who breed back to back litters.

The whole point of PDE was health and over exaggeration in breeds, and the ABS which was launched at Crufts in 2005 should have been based on health and responsible breeding, had this been the case would PDE have been quite so bad news for all good breeders?

> These breeders breed several litters a year (from different bitches), and the pups are raised outdoors in sheds/outhouses; They are whelped in the house, then moved outdoors when they start to get messy.  The dogs themselves (when not being bred from) live in paddocks a bit like cattle, for the most part and receive little to no training and human contact.
>
> It's not any one of these things, it's the overall feel of the thing - which is that this is a BUSINESS and the main purpose of it is to MAKE MONEY - not to better the breed.
>
> Still, they tick all the boxes, and they health test the breeding stock. They show their dogs at Champ shows - some of these breeders with great success - but, given the sheer number of dogs they breed, this is unsurprising. I believe they have been inspected a couple of times after being reported to the KC, yet nothing was found to warrant their being chucked out of the ABS and they continue to be members. One of these breeders buys in champion stud dogs from abroad and uses them on her own dogs and rakes in money from stud fees. It is a huge enterprise.
>
> I have had contact with folk who have bought puppies (unknowingly) from these breeders, then later having learnt more about what to look for in a breeder, feeling bad and that they wouldn't have bought from such a source, had they known more beforehand. In my eyes, all this is puppy farming dressed up as something else. Surely this is not what the ABS should be about?

I agree but the KC does let commercial breeders on the scheme and I cannot see them or the people who win lots at champ shows as described above allowing themselves to be chucked off the ABS so I would instead suggest that as in a trade paper like Exchange & Mart that these more commercial breeders have to display a (T) for trade or similar symbol. It is easier to make up champions and gain a reputation if you breed a lot of puppies compared to a breeder who may have one litter a year or every couple of years.

>
> In many ways this is what Rhodach also says, for their breed.
>
> I would like to see the emphasis be on small-scale breeders, whose dogs live in the house - not outdoors in kennels - the majority of their day. I'd like to see there being a limit on the number of dogs an AB can have in their name on KC regs - even if, from our perspective, that is a lot (ie 10) - that would ensure that these mass producers can't be included.You can't breed dogs ethically if your no 1 priority is making money and running the enterprise like a commercial business - the 2 things are incompatible. There need to be checks and balances in place to exclude those whose priority is money, rather than the dogs themselves, and things to stop it all getting too large-scale and commercial.

If this commercial type of breeder stays in the ABS then the public would know they are commercial if they had to display a traders symbol. What constitutes a commercial breeder a puppy farmer and a hobby breeder from each other would need to be finally identified and rules laid down so that everyone knows which category they would come under.

>I think if we need to have accolades how about one for breeders who have consistently health tested their stock over many years

Then the KC would need to record details of many tests that they don't currently - BAER, for example.

> But even dogs which 'fail' various health tests

Also, this is exactly why the KC should not have prescribed results for all tests.  If only dogs with a hip score on or below the breed average were bred from, for instance, the pool has to be constantly reduced and it may be that a breed has bigger concerns.

> What puts me off is there is a show/ breeder in my breed who produces several litters per year,more than one litter per breed register recently found out she breeds a bigger breed too, I feel this then reflects badly on the rest of us trying to do this the right way.
>
>

Why?  If she is in the scheme, and presumably inspected to confirm that these litters are bred and purchasers supported in a way that the scheme demands what is the problem?

"Anybody can join a breed club"

Maybe in some breeds, but not in mine. You have to proposed and seconded by existing members and even then it can be rejected. If you have already bred a litter then unless your motives were honourable, you would have difficulty in becoming a member. I think this is how it should be - breed club membership should be reserved exclusively for those who have their breeds best interests at heart.

I think the problems potentially lie with breeds that have a number of health issues for which health testing is available and required, where the risk is a narrowed gene pool, restricting genetic diversity.... which ultimately, over the generations could prove detrimental for any breed (ie. the worry that yet another hereditary health issue/s could arise).  It is very difficult to know for sure that you are doing the right thing by the breed, I am more talking about in the long term, as oppose to the here and now.

Just been reading The Breeder Newsletter that arrived with my registration documents.Under 'New Rules to clamp down on puppy farmers' Bill Lambert sets out the requirement for all breeders who breed five or more litters a year to be licenced by their local authority. Failure to comply with the new rule will result in registrations being refused.
This is an enormous step in the right direction. It won't stop the breeding of unregistered litters and cross breeds but it should ensure that ethical ABs can be distinguished from those breeding on a commercial scale.

Well done KC !

P.S. This applies to all breeders not just ABs

I'm another for KC registration to mean parents must be health tested, silly to have "two levels" for breeders and confusing for GB. KC registration should mean something as it is and KC needs to differentiate puppies it registers from one that is not KC registered, no need for Assured breeders etc...

Whether limitations should be put in place reg health tests results that could be argued, although I don't think cutting out the worse results would do no harm in most breeds.
At least if parents need to be tested, the health info is there for all to see and can be used in the future instead of carrying on blind folded and with the "the dogs shows no signs so must be healthy".

I would also like KC to introduce limitation on litters sire can have as this would put stop on over using males and the diversity of genepool (much more so than cutting out dogs that did not pass the relevant health tests out of breeding). It would make dog owners think little harder on where they let their male to be used and would cut out the "pet litters" some breeders let their males produce with people who -only want a litter from their girl- and are not aiming to do anything for the breed.

In all honesty countries that limit both amount of litters male can have and dogs that can be used (based on health tests results) have generally much lower COIs than the country where anything is registered...

Absolutely agree Noora ! Particularly regarding limits placed on use of males at stud. Trouble is, some breeders are making huge sums of money out of their boys. £800 +  into the bonkbank ! Too little regard for the impact this will have on the gene pool and COI. 

Jan is that £800 per mating? Maximum I have paid is £250 non champ and £350 champ.

In many breeds the stud fee is equal to the price of a puppy, it is in my breed, but then most males rarely get used.

An influential stud dog that I imported with three friends sired 8 litters, so nowhere near covered the cost of buying, importing, Quarantine and keeping him, yet there are few dogs around at present where he is not in the pedigree because we are a numerically small breed.

Using the FCI advice re limits on pups any dog is advised to sire would limit a male in my breed to 24 puppies, around 4 litters.

Even then it isn't simple it all depends how many of the offspring then go on to make a contribution to the gene pool.

Some dogs have sired large numbers of puppies yet left virtually no impact on the breed with offspring not bred from.

Another dog may sire few litters, maybe because the owner considers that best for the gene pool, but eh has good offspring and a proportionately larger number of these are used for breeding.

In numerically smaller breeds like mien often we need to import new bloodlines as all the bitches re related to available males, so a dog is im ported and everyone uses him as they have little choice and back to square one in the next generation.

I mated my bitch abroad and three of the resulting bitch puppies will be bred from in UK and one in the USA (out of 5).

I am trying to be careful to ensure each of us owning the sisters use males from as different pedigrees as possible (but there are few dogs that are not related at least slightly if you go to third or fourth generation.

A dog I would like to use has already sired around 6 litters, but so far none have been shown past puppy (owners lost interest/had other commitments) or likely to be bred from (though a couple from most recent litters might be.  So as a breeder I prefer to consider a dog that hasn't' bee used too much, but ti's about more than number of litters sired.

Sadly with a late maturing breed and small gene pool many males never sire a litter as the available bitches in their youth are too closely related to him, and in maturity he either never gets the hang of stud work, or by the time people think to use him he becomes infertile/sub fertile due to lack of use.