that's exactly it! You should see the replies I have had thus far! The thing is not even the regional advisers know the answers and as you can imagine are being asked by all and sundry! I will actually be asking face to face over Crufts as i just need to know!

> The Member must have a veterinary health plan for their dogs as agreed with their veterinary surgeon.

Apart from their puppy vaccinations and first booster, and specialist health screening, my dogs may never see the vet unless ill, especially as I no longer bother scanning bitches for pregnancy, and that is the way I prefer to keep it.  So the vet most likely to see my dogs within a year of breeding is the eye panelist when eye testing.

As for worming and parasite control, I deal with that myself thank you.

I see my own doctor just as infrequently.  Must easily be more than five years since I have seen a  medical professional, and that was routine gynae/birth control.

> 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.

Oh well I am completely out of it then. not only do I not do annual vacs. My dogs are only seen by a vet when they are ill. not yearly. nor do I have a health plan agreed with my vet.
I don't flea regularly in fact have only treated once in the last 7 years. I do worm a couple of times a year though :).
I don't record the vet treatment myself but I am sure my vet keeps records.
I do the recommended health tests for my breed but dont do a routine screening before I mate a dog. Obviously I am not a decent breeder and neglect all my dogs woefully. I better just save myself £10 per year and register my puppies like the other plebs do :)

I'm the same newyork so that's me out of the ABS too.

Really do wonder who the KC are writing these rules for, what is the audience that is supposed to be taken in by all this.

Surely the KC only accept breeders of intelligence and knowledge into the ABS or is the whole scheme set up appease those who know nothing about breeding responsibly and little about dogs.

The trouble is what they seem to be trying to do is 'standardise' dog breeding.

Now you can standardise commercial purpose built facilities for anything, be it tents, swimming pools boarding kennels etc. 

You could even standardise commercial breeding Establishments, re buildings, staff etc.

You cannot and should not be tying people in knots and restricting their freedoms of choices of what is best for them and their dogs.  Standardising peoples homes and lives is inappropriate.

Breeding that is a by product of peoples involvement in canine activities, and not the principal activity should not be regimented in this way. 

There are as many ways of doing things well, none of which will suit all dogs, people or facilities.

The end user if you like of a breeders efforts will also be as varied as the breeder, and the pups produced will be fitting into homes as varied.

You cannot and should not be tying people in knots and restricting their freedoms of choices of what is best for them and their dogs.  Standardising peoples homes and lives is inappropriate.

Totally agree Brainless.  We are dealing with living, breathing things who share our homes and lives.  How can you 'standardise' that?  Maybe we should all  become puppy farmers, get tha LA approval and just churn 'em out.  Seems to work for many folk but will never be my idea of how to raise dogs.

Well the bone of contention for me is 'as agreed by a veterinary surgeon' or whatever.  My vets are great at most things, but vets where I live all insist on annual vax.  I could travel much, much further (impractical distance!) to see a vet I know titre tests and only boosts when needed, but why, when I'm happy with my vet for all other things??  Yet I'm not following my vet's recommendations.  I also don't see how any of this is enforceable - when they visit an Accredited Breeder, are they going to want to see proof, if you're not vaccinating annually, that your vet agrees?  A letter from your vet?  If not, this clause is meaningless and unenforceable. 

Completely agree Brainless.

Yes they will want to see proof. The new ABS conditions which I have been sent as an AB say that  'A Breeder Assessor will confirm this during a visit'.
I also do not vaccinate after puppy jabs and booster, also I do not routinely worm and flea treat as a preventative but treat when needed.
Interestingly we have just imported a puppy from Sweden and in puppy pack from the breeder it states to worm following  the Swedish Kennel club recommendation which is to only worm when there is evidence of worms present.
I really feel that the changes to the ABS are aimed at those keeping dogs in a kennel environment and to be excluding the 'hobby breeder' who breeds occasionally in their home.
As it stands I will not be renewing my membership as I will not vaccinate annually nor worm and flea treat routinely as a preventative (which our local vets recommend should be done monthly now) as I feel both are detrimental to my dogs long term health (after much research). I also wonder how long it will be until ABs will be told how and what to feed their dogs going on these changes.

I also will be leaving.  (Tried phoning today but held for ages because everyone at Crufts...)

I spoke with a breeder advisor at Crufts yesterday. She said that if you have a valid reason for vaccinating as puppies and then one booster and no more then that is fine. I gave her my valid reason and she said that was acceptable! It is also fine to use homeopathic nosodes or titre testing.

Puppies do not need to be microchipped before leaving the breeder. I also spoke with a Petlog representative who said the fine print of the 2016 legislation has not been confirmed yet. They seemed to think there would be a window in which to get dogs microchipped! Interesting!

I wish I had all this in writing!

Would not rely on that information unless you got it in writing, best way is to write in and then after Crufts they will give you a written explanation and you need that to be sure you have cover should you need it. Far too many times I have been given opposing answers to the came question.

I was told pretty much the same when I questioned re the vaccines and the being seen by a vet yearly (mine only see the vet if unwell).

After all vets are not canine care experts they are experts on disease diagnosis and treatment, and treatment of injuries.

Exactly Barbara, same here!

I was told pretty much the same when I questioned re the vaccines and the being seen by a vet yearly (mine only see the vet if unwell).


Then why are they bringing in rules they have no intention of enforcing, if a member of the ABS can decide that what they do fits the rules (no matter what) there is not point in them at all.

Don't get me wrong but if routine and protecting against illness can mean anything you like what is the point in mentioning it in the first place.

I suspect if you have appropriate evidence that your vet supports your management plan then it will be ok but not sure it would be acceptable without this evdidence.

As an aside when discussing vaccines with my vet recently I was told that insurance companies are asking for vaccine records on claims and getting difficult with paying out on claims if boosters not up to date even if claim has nothing to do with vaccines/ preventable illness. It is in most policies vaccination is required and if not done can be used to refuse claims :(

Nothing insurance companies do would surprise me but I have not used them for years so no problem to me personally.

How are vets supposed to help, you tell them what you want and they do it, so their agreeing with you is neither here or there, no one can prove that any regime is better than any other, (with the exception of a few unproven methods) so what I do not understand is why the KC has made these rules that one could drive a whole fleet of buses through,  just what is the point..

I spoke with a breeder advisor at Crufts yesterday. She said that if you have a valid reason for vaccinating as puppies and then one booster and no more then that is fine. I gave her my valid reason and she said that was acceptable! It is also fine to use homeopathic nosodes or titre testing.

Puppies do not need to be microchipped before leaving the breeder. I also spoke with a Petlog representative who said the fine print of the 2016 legislation has not been confirmed yet. They seemed to think there would be a window in which to get dogs microchipped! Interesting!

I find this info regarding the microchipping rather alarming (irrespective of whether you want microchipping or tatooing or the choice) as I understood that the KC/Petlog were fully behind the call for breeders to microchip dogs before they left the breeder. 2016 is 3 years away, it does not take that long to say ... actually we want all ABS breeders to microchip. They can boot very good breeders off their scheme as they are in mid-move when an inspection due :-O but they can't implement this very simple requirement? Bonkers. Unless of course the breeder advisor had no idea of what they were talking about.

Can't imagine why I'm not rushing to join the ABS though I am EXACTLY the sort of breeder they should be encouraging!

The KC has just issued an announcement about vaccinations and the ABS. I seem to remember we are not allowed to reproduce entire press releases here, but this is part of it:

There are number of ways that breeders may choose to protect or immunise their animals, and whilst vaccination is a commonly used method, the Kennel Club would wish to make clear there is no blanket requirement for members of the ABS to use conventional vaccination either annually or otherwise.

Crufts
Following the announcement of some updated rules for the Assured Breeder Scheme, the Kennel Club has sought to clarify the requirement for members to protect their dogs against common infectious diseases.

The rule clearly states that a member must "Ensure that all breeding stock is protected as far is as reasonably possible, by routine immunisation against current common infectious diseases unless advised otherwise by a veterinary professional".

There are number of ways that breeders may choose to protect or immunise their animals, and whilst vaccination is a commonly used method, the Kennel Club would wish to make clear there is no blanket requirement for members of the ABS to use conventional vaccination either annually or otherwise. The Kennel Club does not normally dispense veterinary advice, and would refer any such enquiries to the appropriate veterinary authority. Guidance for Assured Breeders is available on the Kennel Club website and further guidelines on protection from common diseases are in draft format and will be added once approved by committee.

and that's as clear as mud as the rule still says

> The rule clearly states that a member must "Ensure that all breeding stock is protected as far is as reasonably possible, by routine immunisation against current common infectious diseases unless advised otherwise by a veterinary professional".

How many vets would say no don't vaccinate

I'd say it is clear as it says:
There are number of ways that breeders may choose to protect or immunise their animals, and whilst vaccination is a commonly used method, the Kennel Club would wish to make clear there is no blanket requirement for members of the ABS to use conventional vaccination either annually or otherwise.

You would need to have a vet say don't protect your dog at ALL to contradict the above.

All I have ever asked is for them to define "routine" and they either can't or won't. My every 3 years is a "routine" just as only doing puppy jabs is a "routine". They reply like politicians and just keep quoting paragraphs back at me that are very ambiguous. I also pointed out every time I have spoken to them that if they will only accept the breeders stance  on this provided their vet backs them up then we are all stuck as the vast majority of vets want yearly boosters. It is after all a good source of revenue. The article this morning in "Dogs World" said it would be a wonderful opportunity for the KC to finally put an end to over- vaccination but somehow I doubt that this is the aim. I feel they will want to appease the vets, RSPCA etc who all seem to want annual boosters and yearly M.o.T's. All of this seems very rushed and not thought through. Running a draft copy past a few breeders would have pointed out the pitfalls surely.

Frantic back peddling seems to be going on so would guess the rules will end up even more confusing than they are now. What is required is for the rule to be withdrawn and rewritten so it can be understood, ambiguity it worse than no rule at all.

No amount of explanation of what is meant helps, rules need to be understood without continued explanations - back to the drawing board is what is required and then a rule that says what it means.

It still says: all breeding stock is protected as far is as reasonably possible, by routine immunisation against current common infectious diseases (my bold).

Of course there is passive immunity, aquired by low level exposure to disease.  I suppose all animals not kept isolated from the world would recieve this.

It still says: all breeding stock is protected as far is as reasonably possible, by routine immunisation against current common infectious diseases (my bold).

Of course there is passive immunity, aquired by low level exposure to disease.  I suppose all animals not kept isolated from the world would recieve this.

It's back to what you accept as "routine" isn't it?

Don't expect KC to confirm anything soon.....no faith in them at all, in fact not sure what they do apart from take your money.