I have just had a very bad experience with a breeder over endorsements of the registrations of her litter sired by my boy. My boy's stud page states that I expect registrations to be endorsed but nevertheless this lady has advertised 'no endorsements' on her puppy page and has refused to redress the situation. I feel angry and humiliated. This lady is a KCAB and I have known her for many years. My failure is that I did not ask her to sign a stud contract and neither did I insist verbally at the time of mating. But I honestly thought that as a KCAB she would be endorsing  papers as standard good practice. Her reaction has been to say that I'll never get any stud fees if I start making conditions !

I believe passionately in endorsements. Okay, once they're gone they're gone but at least it is the best possible start to breeding, when all relevant health testing has been done. I will worry forever that one of my boy's progeny will be used in lines affected by hereditary disease.

Am I alone in requiring endorsements ?

>> Am I alone in requiring endorsements ?

No, definitely not!  I have always put endorsements on my litters.  If the pup I keep is good enough to be used for breeding, then I write to the Kennel Club asking for them to be lifted when the time comes.  So I don't have one rule for me, and one for the others.  It's all or nothing.  And for me, it's all.  :-)

All of mine are, even my own.

> I believe passionately in endorsements

Ditto and as a buyer I want my breeder to fully support them too and expect to have them applied to any puppy I buy.

But this breeder clearly does not believe in endorsements and does not agree that I, as the stud owner, have any right to insist on them.

The situation is more complicated because the bitch is a CEA carrier.

Its not just her not endorsing them but putting ''no endorsements'' may as well be a free for all and breed whenever you like to whoever you like! This is the problem of stud work unfortunately, why many prefer to just have girls ( i can see why )

I can understand why you are upset, but it comes down to what is possible and practical.  IF you are willing to let your boy be used at stud then there is not way you can apply conditions unless you have a signed stud contract, and even then would doubt it would be enforceable.  Your are offering a paid for service and lose all control once you have handed over the signed paperwork.  In future, if you want to let him be used again I suppose you could retain the KC application form, fill it in together with the bitches owner when the pups are due ot be registered and then send it off yourself, other than that it is a matter of trust, and some folk are not trustworthy.

Contract...contract...contract. I also had a problem with a stud dog owner and was let down.I put trust in them and our verbal agreement.You live and learn.

I endorsed all our litter, even the bitch we kept, to advertise with no endorsements is like holding a big red flag up to me.

In reply to Gwen, on line registration takes away that control.I have been too trusting but cannot help but feel aggrieved that a fellow KCAB does not endorse registrations.It is particularly disturbing in this situation because the bitch is a CEA carrier. Unless her progeny are DNA tested, there is no way of knowing whether they too are carriers. Should one of the owners of the progeny decide to breed, there is no guidance /imperative for them to DNA test. The progeny could be registered and hey ho, a new generation of carriers in the gene pool! We are trying to breed these conditions out, albeit gradually. I write a very measured letter to the breeder and got a rude and defensive reply. Her bottom line is that I won't get any stud requests by making conditions. Frankly,' I couldn't give a dam' if I never get a stud fee again. I know my boy's worth but will find it hard to trust again

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies. At least I feel I'm not alone in this.

Sounds like she's holding you over a barrell and is a right one.  Could you write to the kc and state progeny not for registration and explain about the Dam being a carrier.

> In reply to Gwen, on line registration takes away that control.

No, it should not, as theoretically the stud dog owner should still sign the form (you get a letter when the litter is being registered) so if you object and the bitches cannot produce a signed form, then the KC may act in your favour (may, as I don't know anyone who has acted in this situation).  I do understadn how upset you must be because of the DNA situation,  and it's been an unacceptably harsh lessons for you.

So much of breeding is about trust too.  Such a shame when things don't work out as we'd hoped.  Contracts are a must so you can prove to the KC what was agreed at time of mating.

AS Gwen says, you can always respond to the letter you should have received by the KC - must be worth a try and hopefully they will act especially if she's a KCAB.

Good luck

I thought endorsements were a requirement to be placed in if a KCAB? Or did I think that wrong

I think it's too late to reply to the KC letter. When  I received it I had no idea that this lady would be so irresponsible and intransigent. She is a KCAB and I thought this alone meant that  her breeding practice/standard would be of the very best. Yes, I've learned the hard way and have to live with my poor judgement on this occasion.
As regards endorsements being a requisite for KCABs , I'm not sure but I'll follow this up.

Thank you all again.

Rather than think it is too late why not find out for sure ? You haven't got anything to loose ?

Did she give any specific reasons why she doesn't want to do it ? Have you mentioned anything to your breed club about this ?

Will do ! I hadn't thought about contacting the breed club but will consider this.

No you don't have to endorse under the ABS.

Our breed club certainly requires members to endorse puppies bred from a carrier, as at time of regsitration they won't have been DNA tested. 

Our breed club also says that such puppies should be DNA tested to establish their status.

Cannot believe that KCAB scheme does not require endorsements. They bl.... well should . I wouldn't be in this situation if they did. It is just good breeding practice to do so.

The breeder has removed the ad from the puppy page so I assume all are sold, unendorsed, and each puppy with a 50/50 chance of being a carrier of CEA. Having spoken to this lady on one occasion about the need for testing puppies bred from carriers and having received a reply that left me gobsmacked by her ignorance of basic genetics, I am pretty sure that the need for testing will not have been explained to any potential  buyer who may wish to breed.

Cannot believe that KCAB scheme does not require endorsements. They bl.... well should .

I agree. As it is SO easy to lift it, without any cost involved whatsoever, I cannot see any reason at all NOT to demand it. It doesn't matter if the puppy end up keeping is endorsed as it still so so easy to lift, and quick too, should the need arise.

Compare with cats where I have to pay £17 to change the registration status from non active to active (i.e. endorsement lifted)!!

I think the endrosements should be an opt out not opt in.  In other words all regsitrations should have endorsements unless the breeder asks for them not to be applied.

What is the breeder thinking to let pups go without endorsements, no wonder you feel upset.

Oh boy, sounds like you got hoodwinked KCABS or not this is not a breeder looking after his/her breed or pups is it? Looks like the pups produced will end up in the wrong hands being bred by who knows what.

The KCABS needs a massive overhaul to take care of our dogs, certainly contact the KC Jan as the more complaints about the loop holes in the scheme the more likely to sort them out and fill in the holes.

So sorry, I'd by so worried about the pups too.

Just spotted this quote on Facebook, don't know who the given author is but it certainly is true!:
"Breeding means you enter your breed's gene pool and leave footprints for eternity! Take care that the footprints you leave are worthy of being followed!" - Carol Sloan

Like! That should be the KC's bible too. :-)

oooh i feel for you!! as others have said contract all day long.i endorse everything! i have a pup here from my white litter shes endorsedandso is the lad i kept,i knew he'd never come to anything because its my luck but even if i thought he was the best thing since sliced bead and id use him as a stud he'd still be endorsed....ALL my pps are..its the respomsible thingto do..i really feel for you...all you can do is speak with the kcand see what u can do or if nothing just learn from it...
As for the bitch owner thinking you have no right i think its a bit naughty if you ask me! just shows u actuallya cant trust anyone....

ive not read all other posts but if it were me id do EVERYTHING in my power to stp the registrations unless she agrees to endorse!!!!!!
just me!

Goldmali 

Thank you ! I feel humbled but in a positive way ( sounds contradictory I know !)  If I had a breeding mantra, this would be it. My breeding ethos concurs with the sentiment and I feel my footprint has lost its way some what in my recent experience. Mea Culpa ! I will not allow this to happen again.

> Mea Culpa ! I will not allow this to happen again.

Im afraid with the best will in the world, if you use your dog at stud, you cannot say this with any certainty.

> Im afraid with the best will in the world, if you use your dog at stud, you cannot say this with any certainty.

My point exactly for my earlier post.  Everyone would LIKE to be able to control situations - puppy sale contract, breeding contracts, but the sad fact is that once you enter into the financial transaction of sale/stud fee you have to deal with the fact that you don't have any rights to set terms and keep some degree of control.  We can try, via contracts, but we can't force our wishes to be carried through.

Point re endorsements being automatic -I may be less organised than many, but there are occassions when I don't have the KC paperwork ready for pups to go, so any endorsements would be invalid anyway.  Delays can be down to lots of things - something simple like wanting a particular name for a pup I am keeping but not knowing till 6/8 weeks which pup it will be, names being refused by KC so causing delay, but it means the pups are with new owners and paperwork follows.

As long as you get in writing the understanding of endorsements the paperwork need not be to hand.

If the KC made it automatic then it would definitely stand as I expect then the KC would expect people to sign something re if and when it may be lifted.

What I would not like to see is the system as used in Australia (and US I beleive) of Active and Inactive, where Inactive cannot be shown. 

We all know of ugly ducklings that turn into swans, and also people who buy a pet but sometimes two years down the road, as in one  couple who I sold to, who come into showing and do well.  They made their dog up to a champion, though he is still endorsed at 12 years, as was never used.

Also in Australia some stud dog owners insist all the progeny except the puppy the breeder keeps are inactive, and this can only be changed in the first year.  Now if it could be changed at any time might be better, and if 'inactives' could be shown/compete then perhaps yes.

> As long as you get in writing the understanding of endorsements the paperwork need not be to hand.

Are you sure?  My understanding was that Endorsements would only be upheld by the KC if  both the signed contract specifying the endorsement and the KC paperwork was handed over at time of sale.

> What I would not like to see is the system as used in Australia (and US I beleive) of Active and Inactive, where Inactive cannot be shown. 

Does anyone have any idea why the endorsemnt "Not to be shown" was removed as an option?

> Does anyone have any idea why the endorsement "Not to be shown" was removed as an option?

It disappeared along with the Name unchangeable one.

I expect the kennel club don't want to discourage anyone from participation if they so wish.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1735
this part refers:
"1. When a dog whose registration is endorsed is transferred to a new ownership, the endorsement(s) will be maintained. However, the person who placed the endorsement(s) must obtain written and signed confirmation from the new owner(s), at or before the date on which the dog is physically transferred, that the new owner(s) is aware of the endorsement(s), regardless of whether or not the endorsed registration certificate is available. If requested, the person(s) who placed the endorsement must be able to produce a copy of such confirmation."

My bold

This part of the endorsement advice might be used to apply to the original situation. 

"5. The General Committee reserves the right to impose, remove or maintain any endorsement. In particular, the General Committee reserves the right to impose an additional endorsement "not eligible for entry in any event held under Kennel Club Rules and Regulations, nor any unlicensed event recognised by the Kennel Club"."

As the KC can impose them, and might consider it appropriate in this case with the mother being a Carrier.

I think the KC should automatically apply endorsements to the offspring of dogs DNA tested as Carriers of health issues, until their DNA status is known to be clear, and only allow registration of progeny to clear mates.  In effect it would be an additional endorsement of, 'progeny ineligible for registration until DNA status confirmed, and if carrier only offspring to clear mates registration allowable' .

In fact I don't see why all dogs whose DNA test results are Carrier could not have the restriction added of "only offspring to clear mate allowed for regsitration"

I am appealing to the KC to have endorsement applied. I am also writing to the breed club at national level to request a directive on endorsements of carriers.

Thank you again.

You may not get what you wish but it will put the issue out there.

Certainly with DNA tests coming on-line the KC will have to put in some rules and safeguards to limit the potential for inappropriate/harmful breeding combinations in registered stock at least..

> regardless of whether or not the endorsed registration certificate is available.

I had missed that Barbara, is it a recent change as I am sure the last info I had was that it was essential to hand paperwork on at the time or the endorsement would not be upheld.  Good news anyway.

That page was last updated July 2012, but I am pretty sure that has applied for quite some time (years) now.

It is high time the KC supported the stud owners in their wishes re endorsement as their dog is 50% responsible for the genes the pups have and wouldn't exist without them. The OP needs to let the breed clubs know what has happened and warn members about bitch owners not upholding their side of the bargain, other stud owners will then get the chance to think again before allowing their dog to be used, if all those with decent dogs avoided them they would have to seriously rethink their future actions.

Sorry off topic.

The KC won't register mini long dachsie pups if the parents PRA cord1 status is not known or is likely to produce affected pups, is this the only breed this is going on in? Five years after the DNA test was rolled out for general use it was decided the gene pool  was big enough and there was no need to risk producing affected pups any more, there are still dogs being tested later in life turning up on the affected list,some of which have been used in breeding before testing.  don't think carriers should be removed from any breeding programme provided that they are mated with a clear mate, the worst outcome then is cariers, no pups will be affected,gradually the number of carriers will get less and number of clear get more, no point in developing all these DNA tests if the results are just ignored.