Notwithstanding all of the issues regarding breeding a litter (health, experience, expenses etc etc etc) how do people reconcile the concern that while you may vet the owners of your litter wonderfully, if you have 6 pups, and some of them are bred from, how can you be certain their owners will vet the next lot of prospective owners well enough and so on down the line? Maybe you need to be less of a control freak than me to ever breed - and it's not something i am considering i don't even have a unspayed bitch - it's just something I wonder about when reading this very interesting forum. I am not sure I could sleep ever again for worrying that someone hasn't done things 100% and there's a pup of mine out there in a rescue, or an unsuitable home, or being bred from with pups going to further unsuitable homes!

This is why you endorse all pups and only lift it under certain circumstances -I wrote a CD blog about this subject a few months ago. It's easy to say endorsements will be lifted if health tests are carried out with good results and show or working results are good enough, but it's far from as easy as that. You need to be able to be a mentor to the person who will breed from the dog/bitch you bred, and you need to really trust them so this type of worry does not crop up. I've only ever lifted endorsements for 2 bitches I've bred and both owners I know very well (since years) and have very frequent contact with. I helped vet homes for the first litter, the second litter isn't born yet but I will be involved there too to a certain extent. (That owner has more breed experience than I have!)

You can only do your best to find the right homes by interview, home visit, past experience of dogs (theirs not yours) and keeping in touch, making another visit should you have that sinking feeling. Must say I know a number of people who will not breed because of the problem of finding a suitable home for your beloved pups and at the same time one that will not sue you at the first case of the trots or the vet hearing a mummer.

Endorsements are not at all common in my breed which would be concerning to me as a breeder. I would feel the same about allowing a dog of mine to be used as a stud, perhaps even worse because the dam's owner will have the say over where the pups go more or less entirely.

I find it hard enough to even find homes for well adjusted, lovely, healthy dogs in rescue let alone trust someone with a pup who may choose to bred from it in the future.

I think breeding and exporting endorsements are being used more now from what seasoned breeders have told me, exporting/importing dogs is so much easier these days and can be done when the pup is so much younger than used to be the case.

You have to explain to puppy owners what the endorsements mean and get them to sign to confirm this or the KC can over rule the endorsements.

My mentor told me she sold a male pup to a well known breeder and felt no restrictions were needed, there was only 2 in the litter and she was keeping the bitch, time passed and she didn't really give it a thought, one day out of the blue she was contacted by a chap in Japan asking if she had any bitch pups for sale, she was curious as to why he had picked them as they were only a small breeder/show family, it was then he told her he had this male pup,he had paid 4 times as much as she had sold him for,now an adult, he had done very well in the ring so wanted a bitch of equal quality and decided to cut out the middleman and go straight to the breeder, she turned him down, he started offering huge sums of money but she stuck to her guns, since then she has endorsed all her pups including the ones she is keeping. Needless to say she hasn't let this breeder have any more pups, she put the word out about what happened to be told that there were several incidents of this breeder acting as a broker but no one knew that she had been exporting any of them.

Even with endorsements it doesn't mean they can't be bred from, unethical breeders will simply sell the pups as "not KC registered."but not tell the puppy buyers the reason for this or use one of the other registries and the buyers think they are fine till they look into things closer by which time they have fallen in love with the pup and don't want to return it which is what the breeder is banking on.

I have an endorsed male here from my first litter, my plan was to sell him but he ended up being pick of the litter so I kept him as my first show dog as there would be no complications of seasons to contend with, if he ever sires a litter then I will lift the endorsement.

Unfortunately no matter how carefully you vet buyers someone will always find a way around the rules. I am thankful that my breed doesn't have huge litters to find homes for

> Endorsements are not at all common in my breed

Then you can start a trend, it's up to you.  It wasn't that common in my breed 20 years ago ( I have done so since first litter in 1995) but most do so now.  I even know some stud dog owners that insist in Their stud contracts that endorsements are placed.

I think I will have to add to my contract re lifting endorsements in addition to health testing.... and be able to offer the level of commitment required of an ethical breeder.

Over the years I have bred the only ones to go on to breed have been those who became more deeply involved in the breed, joined the breed club and agreed to be bound by it's code of ethics, and appreciate the enormity of their responsibility.

Sadly a bitch bred by someone where I bred it's grandmother, and the sire's sire was bred by me, was bought with endorsements and contract, by someone who mated her to their own dog,  and a litter was born at only 17 months, they tried emotional blackmail to get endorsements lifted, and as my friend rightly would not they were registered with a mickey mouse puppy farmers registry and the breeding repeated several times over and we regularly see adverts for adolescents in unsuitable homes for sale :( 

The stupid thing is had they done the parental health tests (and been more responsible in breeding) the offspring's pedigrees may well have been useful. 

They simply were not prepared to lay out the £1000 to do the tests.  The bitches breeder would have been prepared to lift the endorsements as soon as the health tests had been done ( the mating was witnessed, the litter planned to go ahead, there was nothing stopping DNA and eye tests during pregnancy, and hip scoring the male before pups were born) bearing in mind you can register a litter for up to 12 months from birth. 

"I know some stud dog owners that insist in Their stud contracts that endorsements are placed."

I think that is very wise and have come across this myself. I endorse all pups in a litter, including the one I keep and only lift it once health checks are done and I am planning a mating. Haven't as yet lifted one for anyone, but would consider it if it was the right thing to do - taking absolutely everything into account.

I think that there is a tendency to verge on control-freakery and omnipotence (again!), behind the idea that you can somehow control the issue of your puppies and puppies' puppies (and presumably puppies' puppies' puppies...)....  :)

Yes, there is good practice and it is great to abide by that as much as possible.  But then, again, you have to know when to accept that you've reached the limits of what you should be trying to control. 

If you have chosen puppy buyers wisely and used your discretion, and if you have put endorsements on pups and stayed in touch with them to some degree, then you do have to have a degree of trust and to use judgement to decide whether to lift the endorsements.  Presumably if you chose them well, and if you have had good conversations with them about their breeding plans, and stressed the commitments involved, then that degree of trust would be warranted.  At some point, you have to let someone stop being under your control (if you trust them), and show them that you have faith in their capacity to make good calls, independently.  (And independently means, in my eyes, without that person 'having' to be mentored by you or you having to be present in a physical way, in any part of this process - whilst you obviously remain available where needed for support.  But there is a fine line between support and control.)

If you are using endorsements, then you need to stipulate in your contract exactly what criteria someone would have to meet, in order for those endorsements to be lifted.  That can't be vague criteria like 'when I judge you to be experienced enough' (over-controlling and would not stand up or carry any legal clout), but has to be very specific - 'when the bitch is X yrs, has passed X tests, has achieved X show or working qualifications' and so on.  So - even endorsements are not about your judgement, and it might be possible that someone meets all the criteria you laid out in the contract and yet you still have reservations.  But you have signed that you would lift the contract...

Barbara would you mention the lifting of endorsement to someone who is buying the pup as a pet? My contract has a seperate page re endorsements for the new owner to sign but I haven't mentioned lifting them if certain criteria is met, my plan was if I was selling to a show/breeder then I would include an extra paragraph explaining said criteria.

would you mention the lifting of endorsement to someone who is buying the pup as a pet?

Not Barbara but I feel it is those who buy a pet puppy who are the biggest risk, the pup grows into a very nice animal, people tell them how nice and suggest they breed it, they have the seed sown, they meet the owner of a dog of the opposite sex, hopefully the same breed and they decide to breed them

Now your puppy breeder does not know how to check to see if the pair are genetically suited and they will not even be aware that they need to be so off they go and breed their pups and then find out they can't register. So yes explain in great detail.

Jackie wouldn't I then be sowing the seed that there is a possibility I would lift the endorsement when I have sold the pup as a pet, I have put in writing what the endorsements mean as well as going over the subject verbally and checking they fully understand what they are signing, stating I may change my mind at a later date will give them false hope if the pup is clearly of pet quality at time of sale.

Luckily all my adults and studs used have been PRA cord1 clear so pups are all hereditary clear and that is the only testing required before progeny can be registered by the KC, no other tests recommended by breed clubs either so they would have no tests to carry out, they then have to get someone who knows the breed well or by showing it and prove it is a good example of the breed, aren't those judging an obviously pet quality pup going to wonder why I was supporting them in order to get the endorsement lifted?

I know what I want to say,not sure I have worded this right,had 2 nights of very little sleep and trying to keep awake till nearer bedtime tonight.

He he not Jackie but I find if you explain what the responsibilities are of breeding the costs involved of a litter (especially a first litter with all the equipment to buy) and no certainty of finding homes easily, the cost of the health testing (hip scoring and eye testing even if hereditary clear for prcd-PRA) is enough to put of most casual potential pet owners from breeding.

You can never know which of your owners (or for that matter which puppies) will turn out a real breed enthusiast (asset) down the line, many people in our breed start with a pet, decide to show, and Bob's your uncle.  Sadly I have so often been dissapointed when a promising puppy was homed with people who said they wanted to show and didn't, or they didn't last the course (usually in Junior).

One of my pet owners started showing their boy at nearly two years and made him up to a champion, bought a half sister from another breeder and ditto, they even started judging, but did not contemplate breeding due to the commitment required.

Could not have put it better myself Barbara, tell it as it is spell it all out or sooner of later you will hear of one of your pups in rescue because the breeder did not understand just what producing a puppy entailed.

yes if those pups have been bred well ,this would worry me so much! :(

That is why as a conscientious breeder all pups leave me permanently identified and linked to me for life via the dog tattoo registers database.  Unfortunately none of the chip registries keep forever record of the breeder.

Unfortunately none of the chip registries keep forever record of the breeder.

There is space for 3 different phone numbers so I put owner's landline, owner's mobile and my own number as the emergency contact.

That's fine is you fill out the details, but if they move and change their address or telephone numbers your info is lost.

There is no facility for you to add your change of number or address, once out of your hands that;'s it.  The tattoo registry will have your details and if you inform them of a change it will be noted against your details in the database, so a dog you bred comes in and they can reach you.

They reached a friend of mien as the breeder after she had moved three times from when the pup was tattooed.  The owner had also been checking with the dogs home in Bristol for a Blue Merle collie and they said they didn't have him even though he was there for weeks.  No-one had identified him as a Border collie!  His tattoo number was picked up on a vet check (I assume they were going to neuter him as unclaimed).

My friend was able to provide the owners up to date details.

There's lots of ways around it. We know PetLog is planning a way for breeder's details to be kept on microchip registration, but you could also keep the chip in your name forever with the owner's number as the emergency contact -there's nothing to say you can't. In fact I own two bitches whose microchips are still registered to the breeder and will remain so. As I learnt earlier this year when having a dog returned to me, Pet Log will let you change the microchip registration without a signature of previous owner if you explain why and how you got the dog -BUT they contact previous registered owner and if there is a reply and an objection, they will not do it. 

Sorry, not sure if I'm posting this in the right thread or not.  The breeder that I got my bitch from, supplied knowingly sold as a pet with endorsements, has agreed to lift the endorsements but with many conditions, one being that I sign the bitch over to them so that they will have a say in where the pups are homed (understandably so) and still retain full control of any future litters or to ensure no future litters.  This would be my first experience of this.  Is this a normal request? It doesn't sit comfortably with me to sign my dog over (even if only on paper) to someone else. I don't foresee any issues but have read so many stories where long standing friends/breeders have fallen out over what apparently seems a minor detail.  Some advice would be much appreciated.

> I sign the bitch over to them so that they will have a say in where the pups are homed (understandably so) and still retain full control of any future litters or to ensure no future litters.

I've never heard of that one and would not like it myself. 
The bitch is either suitable for breeding and you are a competent, responsible person or not and she should lift the endorsement accordingly but if this was not all agreed beforehand and set out in your contract she has you over a barrel really.
Personally, I would not enter into an arrangement with such a person but would set about looking for a more reasonable breeder who is willing to be more helping in guiding you through showing and breeding your dog without being such a control freak.

Thanks Stooge.
I was expecting a Yes/No answer from the breeder, not a Yes BUT answer and not sure what my decision will be as yet.  It feels like it should be a resounding No.  I was fully expecting lots of advice which would have been very welcome but I feel that this is not just about maintaining breed lines for the future but loosing control as I know that quite a few people have asked the same question.

I think sometimes dogs are signed back over to the breeder so that the puppies will have the same kennel name. I would have a look at the contract you should have recieved with your puppy to see what the terms and conditions are.
Did you pay full price for your bitch or was she sold on breeding terms ?
At the end of the day nobody can force you to have a litter, so if you are not happy about the situation you could just enjoy your girl and not go through all the hassle and worry that breeding can bring.

I asked if they would consider lifting the endorsement as I would like to have a litter and I don't have a kennel name so the pups could have their name, but I didn't realise that I would have to sign my dog over to their ownership to do it and that's what doesn't sit well with me.

I would in essence say no.. I do know of a good friend who didn't want the responsibility of a litter, so when her girl was almost due took her to the breeders who raised the litter and also the bitch was put back into her name so the affix could be added to it. The bitch went back into the owners name and so did a pup... I think you have to really trust the breeder to do this or anything like it.
Why would your breeder want full control, what is she worried about? Surely if she wants to help choose the stud fine, the endorsement can be lifted once mating has occurred and pregnancy confirmed.. or even litter on ground.

There is no harm in breeder helping find homes, this could help you a lot if she has the contacts for potential puppy buyers.. However I wouldn;t allow the bitch to go into the breeders name, ever...

> It doesn't sit comfortably with me to sign my dog over (even if only on paper) to someone else.

It would be an issue with your insurance and, whilst they may not find out, it isn't worth the risk.  As Stooge has already said you are either a responsible owner or not, and the breeder made that decision when they sold you a pup.  If they do not trust you to do the right thing with regards to endorsing any pups that are produced then it says little about their faith in you as an owner.  However, they may be putting all these obstacles in the way to prevent you from going ahead with a mating they disagree with? If the bitch was sold as a pet only, with endorsements, then they are under no obligation to lift them...

Were terms discussed when you bought her as a pup?  Most breeders will want to see that the bitch is a good example of the breed, has been shown or worked with good results, and has had all the relevant health tests for the breed (again with good results).  Is that the case?

Even if everything else was ok - good bitch, good results etc - I would not sign ownership of my dog over to the breeder.  You could however think about a Loan of Bitch Agreement which is a different arrangement and is perhaps what the breeder is referring to.  Have a look at the KC site for more information - I can't seem to find the relevant page at the moment - perhaps someone else could find you the link

That is what I thought....they either think I am a competent person or not.  I knew there were endorsements and   I filled in a questionnaire which asked if I intended to breed and the answer was No, but now I have her and see how lovely she is, I think that her pups would be beautiful too and I of course, would want one of them.  No, I have yet to ask about a Loan of Bitch Agreement, but I don't think they will agree to that but I thought that would be a way of allowing me to retain ownership of my dog and for them to have a say in homing the pups.  I'm not too sure what would happen about kennel name in this respect as in effect it would be being done in reverse, me loaning them the dog (on paper) to allow me to have a litter.  I know I don't really have a leg to stand on as I was fully aware of the endorsements but just not prepared for the 'yes' answer with just as much of a restriction placed on us.  The loan of bitch agreement can be for a specific length of time, minimum 6 months - I thought that seemed reasonable.  What do other breeders do in similar circumstances?

> It would be an issue with your insurance and,

Not playing devil's advocate as I agree with all you have written, BUT most if not all insurance companies do not cover anything to do with mating/whelping/breeding in general, so I don't see how it would affect that, especially if the breeder is happy to cover any and all expenses in connection with the breeding aspect.

> BUT most if not all insurance companies do not cover anything to do with mating/whelping/breeding in general, so I don't see how it would affect that, especially if the breeder is happy to cover any and all expenses in connection with the breeding aspect.

If you transfer ownership - you no longer own the dog and therefore lose the right to maintain the insurance.  Once the dog gets put back into your name you'd effectively be starting again and all previously covered conditions will be ineligible as pre existing.

I know that in this instance it's a 'paper' transfer, as far as the owner and breeder are concerned, but the insurance company wouldn't view it that way if it were brought to their attention.

I wondered about the insurance aspect and assumed that she would not be covered.  We haven't yet discussed who would be responsible for the costs but I assumed that since I asked for the endorsements to be lifted and I was the one wanting to have the litter I would be the one paying for the health checks and vets bills.  I'm under no illusion that it will or could be a very expensive experience.
Does anyone have any experience of this?  What would be a 'normal' agreement?

For a start endorsements can only be placed on dogs in the physical ownership of the person at the time they are placed, so they would be unable to place any endorsements on the puppies bred from your bitch, but the pups would officially be bred by them, so the Kennel Club would not know they were not in their possession, unless you or the new owners told them.  If the new owners wanted them lifting the kennel club would as they were improperly placed.

Unless they re going to breed the litter and carry the expense they really have no moral right to appear as breeders of the litter.

You would find yourself in difficulties selling the owner on paper would have the certificates and have to sign for them to be transfered.

As someone else has said, they either trust you, or not.  By all means they could ask you to sign an agreement that you will put endorsements on any puppies bred, and in your turn only lift them after conditions are met.

I bred a litter under a Loan of bitch agreement.  In effect I was breeding the litter for them as the wifes health was too poor for the rigours of puppy rearing, and the husband was still working part time, and they wanted their bitch to have pups.

So the bitch remained in their ownership and for the purposes of breeding she was loaned to me for a period of 12 months from the agreement. 

This meant had she missed the agreement still covered the next season.

Of course she came to stay with me and the litter was bred, reared and registered as one of mine and I placed endorsements on the puppies in the usual way.

Of the three pups shown from that litter one became a champion, another won a RCC and bred from (but none of the offspring bred from), and a third was bred from, and currently two granddaughters are doing quite well at shows, having only started showing as adults.

So having this litter kept the bitches genes in the gene pool, where otherwise they may have been wasted.

As for kennel name, a litter does not need one, as long as the pups names are of at least two words.  If the bitches breeder wanted to buy a pup from the litter they are able to add their kennel name to the end of it's name.

Someone mentioned that the breeder may wait till the bitch was pregnant/litter on the ground before lifting any endorsements, what happens if the breeder changes their mind, you are left with a litter of unregesterable pups,I would expect any progeny  endorsements to be lifted before any stud searching/mating took place.

Never heard of the breeder of any bitch wanting them transferred back to them temporarily, wouldn't that increase the number of bitches in their name when it comes to having to be licenced by the local authority etc?

I have agreed to breeding terms without progeny endorsement when buying a bitch but in each case the ownership has been transferred into my name from the start, I would worry that the breeder may change their minds at a later date or I lost contact with them.

There is always some variable arising on CD for us to think about when it comes to making out/agreeing to contracts.

> wouldn't that increase the number of bitches in their name when it comes to having to be licenced by the local authority etc?
>
>

Well the need for a License at present is not based (quite rightly) on number of bitches owned. 

Of course it would count towards the number of litters bred (but no biggy if they only breed occasionally), and if that is five or more they will need to be licensed.

The breeder of my most recently acquired bitch lives in Wales and is only allowed under 5 intact bitches without a licence, a breeder she had a falling out with reported her to the authorities, she had 6 bitches at the time including some under a year old[ one was the bitch I got who had been returned when her owner down sized] and was forced to either spay some of the bitches or get a licence, she did the latter but the licence still restricts how many intact bitches she is allowed at any one time, litters produced didn't seem to enter into it.

> Wales and is only allowed under 5 intact bitches without a licence,

And exactly how are the council going to prove that a bitch is intact? very difficult as not all spay scars show.

I presume the breeder would have to prove the dog had been spayed, vet confirmed with colour/pattern and microchip details.

> I presume the breeder would have to prove the dog had been spayed, vet confirmed with colour/pattern and microchip details.

Mmm. yes. Guilty until proved innocent. Totally against all judicial principles in this country. Should be the other way round I would have thought. the Local Authority should have to prove a bitch is entire.

I have come across this previously, where litter is born under loan of breeding bitch ( ownership not affected) or transferred into joint ownership and No affix used for litter. Bitch often staying at their usual home and not physically going back to breeder.

IME this is however not that common but I believe it is a common practice in USA / Australia where breeders retain co-ownership on pups sold on full register ( can compete / progeny can be  registered.) These countries don't have endorsements as we know them but have option of limited register ( can't be shown/ progeny registered) such pups are usually on compulsory spay/neuter contract. Suspect we will see more of this in time in Uk

IME this is however not that common but I believe it is a common practice in USA / Australia where breeders retain co-ownership on pups sold on full register ( can compete / progeny can be  registered.)

Very common in Belgian Shepherds to have 2 or even 3 owners, with the breeder being one of them. Not entirely uncommon in Papillons as well.  The way it seems to be done here though is that it is a way both for the breeder to retain some control, and for the new owner to get a free or very cheap puppy.

These countries don't have endorsements as we know them but have option of limited register ( can't be shown/ progeny registered) such pups are usually on compulsory spay/neuter contract.

What, so if the dog can be shown is can automatically be bred from? That's terrible. No wonder they don't have many non-breeding exhibitors :(

Goldmali that is my inderstanding hence pups sold as pets are sold on limited register for this reason.
The only way breeder can ensure consultation on breeding on potential show dog will be to retain co ownership
K

The same would apply here, as if both the breeder and owner are owners then both need to register puppies and have to sign to place and remove endorsements.

So a breeder who wishes/needs to retain more potential breeding control (there can be good reasons such as the dog/bitch in question being a carrier of a hereditary condition for which a DNA test exists).

So in the original posters position, say the bitch in question could be transfered into joint names and both the owner and breeder would have to register puppies, place and remove endorsements.  Don't know how the placing of the endorsement back on the bitch would work, as she would be resident with one of the joint owners, so I suppose ti would stand.

After the endorsement was re-applied the bitch could be transfered back to the owner.  to be honest though there are few circumstances where the breeder would need to have that much control, as surely they should trust the owner if they are to work withe them regarding breeding.

I dislike that system, as surely a dog can be shown but not necessarily suitable to be bred from (or perhaps the owner not yet proved themselves suitable to breed).

> as I would like to have a litter and I don't have a kennel name so the pups could have their name

Ah, this sounds as though you asked them to do the breeding in their name.

No I asked if they would lift the endorsement and as I didn't have a kennel name I said I didn't mind if they were in their kennel name, but I did not ask them to have the litter.  However, this is the only way they will lift the endorsement, so that they have control over the pups. 

Then personally I would thank them, and say you will not be going ahead, as you do not wish to be tied this way.  They will be the looser in a way, as if they wanted the bitch to be bred from, they now won't have this option, it cuts both ways.

What did the contract say re endorsement lifting?

I would then look out for a litter from parents you admire and approach the breeder making it clear that you would like a bitch to show and in due time breed from with their help, but with no strings other than fulfilling reasonable conditions of endorsements such as health testing and quality being suitable for breeding, but that you would take into account their experience and rely on their advise..

> I knew there were endorsements and   I filled in a questionnaire which asked if I intended to breed and the answer was No, but now I have her and see how lovely she is, I think that her pups would be beautiful too and I of course, would want one of them.

I'm not sure if you said whether your bitch has passed all her necessary health tests, is a good example of the breed, has done well in showing or working tests?

If not, could the breeder simply be putting obstacles in your way to discourage you - rather than telling you an outright no?

Can someone post the link to "loan of breeding bitch" on the KC website, my searches have come up with some really weird suggestions but not the right one.

Thanks in advance.

What did the contract say re endorsement lifting?

There is a standard paragraph which just states that the endorsements have been placed permanently for the life of the dog.  It is sold as a pet and is not to be bred from or exported.

I have made enquiries about having all the health tests done and was going to have them done if the answer from the breeder was yes, but otherwise I wouldn't have gone to the expense as there would be no need.

She is a good example of the breed and has a stud book number.

Can someone post the link to "loan of breeding bitch" on the KC website, my searches have come up with some really weird suggestions but not the right one.

Weird -it is missing. It should be on the page with all other forms, and used to be, but it is not there now.