I see that today's announcement of changes to the Assured Breeder Scheme requires breeding animals to be vaccinated, whereas previously they simply had to be 'health screened'. I can see that might cause a kerfuffle in some quarters!

hmmm I agree JG I know of people that will go a long way to get a pup from a good breeder who does not vaccinate either the dam and sire or the pups.
Not sure I agree with that been a requirement  

Have you got a link to where they have mentioned the changes please ?

The rule states that breeding stock should be protected 'as far as reasonable possible' and it also says routine immunisation (note not yearly) unless advised otherwise by a veterinary professional.

In other words, if you have them titre tested, give homeopathic treatments or if your vet says that immunisation is not needed, that would meet the requirements of the scheme.

>give homeopathic treatments

With no evidence that homeopathic treatments are at all effective I doubt they would be taken as reasonable protection.  Titre testing maybe.

I read it in Our Dogs this week, Lucy.

According to the KC they will.

Does it actually say so anywhere?

It doesn't, but that information came from direct contact with the Kennel Club. They believe that breeders should be able to make their own choices about what method of protection they use.

The key point is that ABs are now expected to consider the risks and protect their animals accordingly.

> The key point is that ABs are now expected to consider the risks and protect their animals accordingly.

Well, yes, but the directive on how to do that is also spelt out.  If people are going to be left to their own personal decisions on what constitutes protection what is the point of a directive?
The only cop out appears to be if a vet says an individual animal cannot be vaccinated for a health reason, for instance, but then you would not be breeding from it would you?

> The rule states that breeding stock should be protected 'as far as reasonable possible' and it also says routine immunisation (note not yearly) unless advised otherwise by a veterinary professional.

Well I don't vaccinate or titre test and my vet has not advised me not to vaccinate so I guess thats me out of the scheme.~I won't waste my £10 renewing it.

As long as a dog has had the puppy shots, it is (theoretically) 'vaccinated'.  It doesn't say it must be 'up to date' or receive 'annual' vaccinations.

I don't think many would consider just puppy shots as "routine" immunisation. 

I'm with you Rabid, mien get puppy vaccs, first booster and that's it.

Interestingly it seems that has been common practise with all the dog training peeps I know.

My dog trainer has never done anything except puppy shots and interestingly most of her dogs manage to live to over 14, and that includes rescue GSD's.

It's only in the last 10 years that she and her OH (sadly died recently) had fewer than 12 dogs.

These dogs travelled up and down the country to Obedience shows when they were younger and when age and ill health restricted them from Open and champ level, more to Exemption shows within an hours drive most weekends.

>I don't think many would consider just puppy shots as "routine" immunisation.

I certainly would.  So would Barbara.  Open to interpretation, then, isn't it?

> Open to interpretation, then, isn't it?

If you think so although I would say the vast majority of people would see "routine" immunisation as following the manufacturers recommendations. 
However, the question is does the Kennel club see it as open to interpretation? Perhaps ABS breeders should seek clarification.

in the sense that puppies are routinely vaccinated, anything after that is pretty much on what your beliefs re the pros and cons and perceived needs are.

For example many people do not believe boosters after maturity are needed for viruses.
http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/lifelong-immunity-vets/

This is interesting re the lepto http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/lepto-comeback/

If the ABS really does require boosters then I will be leaving.

Also importantly we now have to put it in our contracts that the puppy buyer should take their pup to the vet "shortly after sale" , OR we have to take all the pups to the vet ourselves before sale.

Always have said on the contract that new puppy buyers have to take them to the vets within 3 days.  I am also a person who only does puppy vaccination and first booster.

This is the wording for ABS  re vaccination :
4.3) Ensure that all breeding stock is protected, as far as is reasonably possible, by routine immunisation against current common infectious diseases, unless advised otherwise by a veterinary professional. All dogs should be examined and treated for internal and external parasites on a routine basis.
Details of immunisation and any other treatments must be kept for each dog and be up to dateG2.8.
A Breeder Assessor will confirm this during a visit.

Don't think just puppy vac will be acceptable unless your vet will support your choices.

K

Can see that this change may well mean a number of people leaving the scheme, many who have been in dogs for more than a few years do not booster without need and if they are to insist on annual booster I think people will put their dogs before the dubious benefit of being an ABS breeder. A lot of people think that routine immunisation is not the best way to go and only give boosters when they find it is needed.

>and only give boosters when they find it is needed.

Just curious, but how do you think they'd know when it was needed?

>the question is does the Kennel club see it as open to interpretation? Perhaps ABS breeders should seek clarification.

This really is the only sensible way any debate can go forward! Because for now it seems you're all just chasing each other's tail with personal takes on the semantics.

You would think that as the KC uses the word 'routine' in vaccination then also uses 'routine' in the next sentence 'internal and external parasite' checks and treatment, that it is using the word 'routine' in the same context..!? i.e.not a 'one off'

But as we have people posting on here attributing a differing view from 'someone' inside the KC it seems, if that's the case, clarification is absolutely needed... I really hope it does get clarified before this becomes yet another round and round the (argument) maypole thread! ;-)

You will never get clear direction from an organisation that is run like the public sector and also has no way of letting in new blood , especially if they have such a closed way of making changes.

> But as we have people posting on here attributing a differing view from 'someone' inside the KC it seems, if that's the case, clarification is absolutely needed... I really hope it does get clarified before this becomes yet another round and round the (argument) maypole thread! ;-)

I can only assume it's their way of trying to make sure any puppies sold don't go down with Parvo or other preventable diseases after sale. Parvo does happen on a regular basis with BYBs and puppy farmers, for whatever cause; but if by insisting all breeding dogs are up to date with vaccs then it does cover that base.

There is also the issue that the Govt would like to regulate dog breeding by casual breeders (as would I!) and if the ABS scheme works then some of its measures could potentially one day end up as law.

I really don't know what the answer is.... My own dogs are not yearly boosted but then, I don't breed.

If I did? well if I lost a litter to Parvo either before or after sale, and my bitch wasn't vaccinated then I'm not sure I could live with myself.  I once lost a litter of carefully planned, well reared pedigree kittens to an untestable-for and un-vaccinatable-for feline disease (FIP).... and it totally broke me in every way. Words can't describe how devastating that was.

However I do understand why people choose not to vaccinate. And maybe it's some kind of a get-out clause by the ABS, should the worst happen, god forbid it doesn't.

I can only assume it's their way of trying to make sure any puppies sold don't go down with Parvo or other preventable diseases after sale.

The press release says the changes are to make sure they can become accredited, and are ones demanded by UKAS.

It means they're tightening their criteria, which for dogs (rather than people) can surely be a good move.

If it means that puppy farmers and casual bybs are discredited, who can possibly complain?

Me!  I don't want to have to give my dogs an annual booster in order to belong to the ABS.  Like Barbara, I'd leave.

> The press release says the changes are to make sure they can become accredited, and are ones demanded by UKAS.

But there has to be some rationale behind it.
As we're seeing, it will put off a lot of people from joining or remaining with ABS, so it would help if we know WHY they are asking for it.

But there has to be some rationale behind it.

Well it's not exactly uncommon to ask for vaccinations -look at show cats, they can't get into a show without a very up to date vacc cert (no more than 7 days past the date they were vaccinated the previous year). The GCCF has just today launched their breeder scheme and I had to get my vet to sign a form stating I was known to bring my cats in regularly for vaccinations, in order to join. (But it didn't state ALL my cats had to be done.)

Personally I would never leave a dog unvaccinated, unless it had a problem. That's only happened to me once in over 30 years and thankfully the one dog I won't vaccinate again is one that will never go far from our house. The experience of buying a pup with distemper from a breeder who did not vaccinate won't leave me.

Well as I breed between two years and 7, I'd need to additionally boost again at 4, and probably only 7 if I wanted a late litter, but I won't do yearly Lepto, so if the KC insist then I will leave the scheme.

Also they say we have been written to and it applies from 4th of march.  Not had anything.

Frankly I think it depends on what is meant by routine. Like so many of the KC rules it is open to interpretation and if you ask someone at the KC you get an answer but ask two days later and you will get another, so a written reply from their own legal department is the only way to know what they intend.

If they mean annually or six monthly in the case of some virus then most will disagree, if they mean when a blood test or local situation suggests that the dogs immunity may be compromised then that would be agreed by most. It needs further information on what is meant by 'routine'

I haven't received anything either.

i havnt had anything either.!

I haven't had anything either, will be speaking to a representative at Crufts next week, as I suspect a lot of people will!

I had been thinking of joining since I was hoping to have my first litter in quite a while but sadly my bitch wasn't in whelp so I hadn't bothered. But I don't routinely vaccinate my dogs so it doesn't look like I'll be joining now

I've just left Brainless, I like you don't vaccinate annually, I give puppy vacs and a booster pre breeding if I decide to breed either gender but thats it and only a precautionary measure for the benefit of potential pups rather than the adult animals.

I've been a member since inception in 2004, its just got to the point where I can no longer be a part of a scheme that permits animals with poor health test results to breed and register a litter as some way superior.

I appreciate there can and are good reasons to breed some dogs with poor results on occassion but there should be a cut off point as to how far a score is bad whereby permission to breed and register as an ABS litter is withdrawn.  In exceptional circumstances the KC should be reviewing the case and deciding on health grounds if a breeding is in the interest of a breed/progeny prior to a breeding taking place.  A breed mean average for COI, and health scores should be in place as the norm ie anything over those levels has to be approved by KC before a breeding is permitted.  Having said that my own breed allegedly has a COI of less than 6% ----- erm I think not even at under 12% I was surprised, now i'm just not convinced. I used to have thousands of my breed in a database with everyone of them COI scored to 12 generations with some COI's coming out in the 40's dropping to less than 14% on just 5 generations - incomplete data is to blame i suspect.

My contract already gives 2 - 3 days to have pup at vets and vaccinated, I refuse to do so prior to them leaving thru experience, still there seems to be many vets who say they don't use that particular vaccine as its not the best just a cheap alternative that breeders use, you'll have to start again with our vaccine of choice coz its better!  They have x amount of time for vet visit and vacs, health check, copies of all health test results adults have undergone, a huge list of links to KC website for local training classes, vet practises in their area, an 18 - 20 page booklet with information on health, training, diet, grooming etc along with our phone numbers to get in touch when/if they have problems etc.  Each litter has their own folder in my filing cabinet same with the adult dogs so non of that is an issue with the scheme as its what I'd do anyway bit ott being ex military but hey its conditioning training lmao. 

For me its a moral issue that doesn't sit well with my own moral compass or ethos so bye bye ABS membership.  I've not had anything either Barb nor has Kath as far as I'm aware so thats 3 long term members missed lol

Not in direct answer to Schip, but i read the piece in 'Our Dogs' on Friday and wonder how you all view this... I read it as saying its ok to deliberately breed crosses as long as you don't use ABS when advertising the 'designer' pups?

Crossbreeds
ABS Members are not to use ABS Membership to promote the breeding of crossbreeds or mixed breeds. Breeders who choose to breed crossbreeds are eligible to join the Scheme, providing that they fulfil all other requirements, but must not make claims that they are unable to substantiate regarding the outcome of puppies and therefore must not use their status as an Assured Breeder to promote the breeding of dogs that may be an unknown quantity. The Assured Breeder Scheme is designed to promote good breeding practice, which includes encouraging the breeding of dogs of known temperament, type and physical characteristics, to enable buyers to select a suitable dog. Where breeders choose to mix breeds or types of dog, the temperament and physical traits may be more difficult to predict and therefore it is more challenging for Breeders to achieve the aims of the Assured Breeder Scheme.

ps, don't breed and had 3 accidental xbreeds and 4 pedigree dogs

yep i read it as its ok as long as you dont use your a "ABS" id of thought they would be against this kind of breeding?? after all we want health tested dogs and heathy pups i know we cant control everything but breeding from good stock is trying right?!....ummm :(

What does that mean?!?  That if you breed crossbreeds, you can join the scheme - but not tell anyone that you are a member of it?  Why on earth would you want to join it then??  Even if these breeders don't put on their websites that they breed crossbreeds, they are still going to mention it verbally to puppy buyers and gain credibility because of it.  Why haven't they just banned breeders who breed crossbreeds?!?

As for the vaccination thing, I also haven't received anything in the post. 

And the ABS is only as good as the breed club, it seems.  One of my breeds has an awful breed club which doesn't care about breed health at all.  Because they haven't submitted health test info to the ABS, breeders of this breed can join the ABS doing no health testing whatsoever.  (This is in a large minority breed, which should at least be tested for hip dysplacia.)  So what use is the ABS, if they are dependent on how good the breed club happens to be??  We have a couple of breeders in the breed who are essentially puppy farmers - both of them are ABS members!

I think the KC is being realistic enough to accept that Society is changing. There will always be people who produce crossbreeds and/or mongrels for whatever reason; after all, lurchers aren't a pure breed, and many people who work their dogs whether to the gun or livestock work (as an example) are more interested in working ability rather than breed. Terrier breeds are interbred and it doesn't stop them being excellent vermin controllers - and that's what they're for. With the microchipping law coming into force whereby all dogs of whatever parentage will be required to be chipped by 2016, the KC has been clear-headed enough to recognised that, if it wants to have its finger on the pulse of canine affairs, it will have to somehow bring all the non-pedigrees under its umbrella, because otherwise some other body (the RSPCA?) will be given the task.

Ans, to be fair, isn't it right that all puppies, whatever their ancestry, are bred from health-tested parents and reared in the way we believe is appropriate for our own dogs? This is all about dogs as a whole, not just those on the breed register.

> What does that mean?!?  That if you breed crossbreeds, you can join the scheme - but not tell anyone that you are a member of it?  Why on earth would you want to join it then??

Some ABS members breed so-called designer dogs as well as their pure breds. I think they will only come unstuck if any of their breed clubs specifically make it a condition of membership (in the ethics), that a member shall not cross their breed with anything else. And then someone would need to report them to the club concerned.

These people can put 'ABS member' on their websites, I'm sure it helps them to sell puppies. I even know someone with two websites, one for her pure breds and one for all her crosses.

Also we haven't received anything through the post regarding vaccination.

The Our Dogs website hasn't been working for a few days when I click to log in to the members area I come to a page from 2011 and can't go further. Hence I haven't been able to read the article yet. What did it actually say about vaccination? What surprises me is that it said nothing about vaccinations in the KC news release about it, and I've just been through all the details about the ABS on the KC website (the main page of which is recently updated) and I can't find a single word about vaccinations there either.

How odd - the site's working fine for me.

The relevant section of the Itemsays: "Immunisation: Previously breeding stock had to be health screened regularly but now it has to be "protected, as far as is reasonably possible, by routine immunisation against current common infectious diseases, unless advised otherwise by a veterinary professional."

I had the same issue with the Our dogs website yesterday.

Thanks JG.

Has ANYONE had a reply from the KC yet? The response I had might as well have come from a politician it was so guarded and said so little! All I got was the KC "stance" on it and the same paragraph repeated. When I wrote back and said I wanted a simple answer to a simple question i.e if people choose to only do puppy jabs only, or puppy and the first booster, or every 3 years are all those patterns acceptable and  would the individual therefore  remain a member. I have not had any more correspondence after that. I just want to know if the only acceptable routine for themm is an annual booster (like licenced kennels). They seem to be saying it has to be acceptable to your vet and you are following their guidance. I replied that most vets would opt for annual boosters as it is an easy form of revenue. Would you not agree? I think they need to come out clearly over this asap to ensure people who wish to leave will not have paid another year's fee! I will try face to face at Crufts.

This is the link to the Guidance notes that give greater detail of the ABS scheme and what inspectors are looking for http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4779. This is the wording for the guidance notes relating to immunisations

6.4)    Health. The Member must have a veterinary health plan for their dogs as agreed with their veterinary surgeon.  As a minimum, this should include an annual examination by the veterinary surgeon, immunisation, and regular treatment for external and internal parasites.  All veterinary treatment must be recorded. Routine health screening should be performed to ensure that the health status of breeding stock is current.

Took some finding on the website. I hope it is helpful

I expect we all had our new paperwork regarding this today.
it says 9under section 4)
ensure that breeding stock is protected, as far as reasonably possible by routine immunisation against common infectious diseases, unless advised otherwise by a veterinry professional.

the point I am currently taking up is what is "routine" because as far as I am concerned every 3 years is "routine" too. (as is any other system any of you use).
I am asking for a straight answer to a straight question here.
Are all of us who's routine is not that of annual boosters expected to leave or will the Kc allow us to use our own judgement.

I understand where you are coming from 'summer' it seems that the KC are past masters at ambiguity, hardly any of the rules can only be read the one way and some seem to contradict one another. Phoning is not satisfactory you need to write or e-mail to get a definitive answer (well one you can wave about should the need arise) only problem being that the answer to a query is also likely to be ambiguous.