I was at the Scottish Breeds Canine Club show in Edinburgh yesterday and I overheard a conversation between two well dressed gentlemen. I didn't hear all of it (my ears are not as good as they could be) but the gist of it was that the KC are seriously considering registering Labradoodles on the breed register and also allowing breeders of these dogs to enter the assured breeders scheme.

gotta be an  APRIL FOOL... :) nice try

Oh, well spotted! :-D :-D

haha I did almost fall for it

lol for a minute there so did I!!! 

Nice one Mark. :-D

Can you imagine, they all look so different I'd never know what breed any dog was anymore. :-D

Haven't been caught out yet, but it's early............. expecting my sons to try their best. :-)

I was just picking my jaw up from the floor, thinking "but ... but ... but ..." when I read willwood's post and remembered the date! :-o :-D

hahahahaha

>

I was just picking my jaw up from the floor, thinking "but ... but ... but ..." when I read willwood's post and remembered the date! 

Same here lol!

Me too! :-D

This thread popped up on my FB page and I couldn't get over here quick enough !

I was taken in at first, Good one !!!

We should have a 'like' button!  Very good.

Maybe not a joke after all !

http://www.champdogs.co.uk/blog/kennel-club-registered-labradoodles

The KC are supposed to be about pedigree, pure bred dogs.   Now they are saying that since you can't stop people breeding  crosses with stupid names for money, they will open up their Approved breeder scheme to them - and appear to be actively encouraging it ?

If the KC ever had principles, they have completely forgotten them.

They could have used their clout to educate the public about badly bred designer crossbreeds- and I have wondered why they didn't do this.    But they've chosen to get into bed with the breeders of them instead, clearly they've followed the money when making this decision.

I've seen adverts stating non-kc registered and heard tales of these breeders saying it's because the kc registration is pointless unless you want to show.   I'm starting to agree with them - it's certainly no mark of quality any more :-(

I've seen adverts stating non-kc registered and heard tales of these breeders saying it's because the kc registration is pointless unless you want to show.   I'm starting to agree with them - it's certainly no mark of quality any more :-(

Two things occur to me straight away. The first is that one report of one AB assessor saying something does not mean it is what the KC actually say or believe or encourage -be a good idea to contact the KC and ask them about this. Remember the "two sinks" saga, where one assessor most definitely DID say this as it was in writing, and the KC has backtracked on it ever since? (I don't think I will contact them though as I reckon they will be fed up with me by now as I e-mail them so frequently! LOL) The other is that surely KC registration has never been a mark of quality -it's just registration, nothing more. Unless they start to refuse registrations from parents not health tested with good results, it will never be any indication of quality, just traceability of lineage and health testing.

If you follow the link on the blog, at least one breeder is on the KC Approved scheme with claims that this is to help the Labradoodle become a recognised breed in the future.

After reading the blurb, I've come to the conclusion that my last litter of purebred, health tested, DNA tested pups from  champion parents was well under-priced.   But then it's not all about the money - unless you're breeding designer crossbreeds.

What I find sickening, is that te KC do seem to be encouraging the breeding of crossbreeds - and have no problem with commercial breeding - if the numbers from the same addresses in just one quarter, published in the BRS, is any guide.

"The Labradoodle is the first cross-breed the KC are supporting in order to prevent the high demand being produced outside of KC regulations.

Am I being cynical by suggesting that the KC are more concerned at how much they are losing in KC registrations?!!!!

Am I being cynical by suggesting that the KC are more concerned at how much they are losing in KC registrations?!!!!

Nope, I don't think you are being cynical at all........... this is exactly what it is all about.

Unless they start to refuse registrations from parents not health tested with good results, it will never be any indication of quality, just traceability of lineage and health testing.

I agree, the KC have over the last few years, had the opportunity to hold their heads up and make KC mean quality rather than this two tier system they have, which may well now become a 3 tier system.  Sad times ahead.............

I've come to the conclusion that my last litter of purebred, health tested, DNA tested pups from  champion parents was well under-priced.

Maybe this is the only way to go..... make pedigree dogs with all health related tests and from good lineage so much higher priced to show the difference, alas it could cut our own throats and it feels so wrong, but maybe it is the only path left for people to recognise the cream from the milk?

Well guys... All breeds of dog were originally created from pre-existing breeds by being crossed together until something standard enough to be recognised as a distinct breed emerged...

Maybe this is the only way to go..... make pedigree dogs with all health related tests and from good lineage so much higher priced to show the difference, alas it could cut our own throats and it feels so wrong, but maybe it is the only path left for people to recognise the cream from the milk?
Sadly that would, IMO just give rise to the JH crew who use 'hybrid vigour' and 'Look how unhealthy pedigrees are' card to leverage that their cock-a-doodle-doo puppies are much healthier and that pedigree breeders are in it for the money!

Logically and morally I totally agree with you, but when it comes to dogs it just doesn't seem to work that way for some reason. JH and co. are already stating about pedigree health etc, seems the higher the price of a cross breed the more it is wanted, we/I can't believe what people are paying for 'mongrels' if these cross-breeds with their farcical names (and we've all heard dozens of them) were £50, bet people would not want them, because they are £500-£800 and above, seems people are happy to buy them........makes no sense......... or maybe it does, a fool and his money....... if it is expensive they believe it is quality.

I don't breed for myself anymore, although I help out with my breed and my prodigy, so I'm not saying it for any gain to myself, but as the KC are doing nothing to show the difference between a good reputable breeder and a BYB, perhaps price may be the only way to go? A show dog or working dog litter, maybe should have a different price bracket?

After all, why shouldn't people breeding quality pups not? Declaring why. Well bred pedigree dogs used to mean something,  I can't think of any other way to do it as the KC are letting us all down.

It's definitely hard to know what to do for the best, as someone who doesn't breed it certainly has out me off ever even considering the possibility of having a litter or ever using a dog out at stud. What I would do, however is buy from a show breeder at all times!

I think the KC are aware of several points:

1) 'The Public' have been told that pedigrees are inbred and unhealthy;
2) Public opinion is demanding greater control of dogs in society;
3) by 2016 all dogs, of any ancestry, will be required to be microchipped and owners registered.

Point 3 is going to require a centralised database run by an official body. Naturally the KC, already having such a thing up and running, want to be in the best position to be put in control of this, rather than have it handed over to the RSPCA or some other inexperienced newbie. What better way to strengthen their case for being the best people to control all dogs, not just the minority which are pedigrees, is to already have non-pedigrees under their wing? I prefer to think of it as not so much lowering the KC's standards, more raising everyone else's.

Mark, I assume you have verfied the breeders statements with the Kennel Club!  The quotations... are they from the breeder, or directly from the Kennel Club? 

I am coming from a different angle, as I am thinking if people want this type of crossbreed, then wouldn't it help if they could find one from health tested parents and background?

The Labradoodle is not just a passing fad,  and there are too many unregulated BYBs, if people genuinely want one then they deserve a way of sourcing the best.

I have never been comfortable with the hybrid vigour theory, as there are already too many health issues and rogue genes within dogs to discount random recessives coming together in even the most remote breed pairing.

Only this week has someone I know, had their crossbreed into the vets for xray due to lameness and found that at 4 years old it has severe HD.... they have owned it since a puppy, no injury or trauma, believed to be a BC cross with maybe husky and perhaps some terrier input.

All these deliberate crosses have the potential for HD and a raft of other hereditary issues... I would welcome some kind of reliable database and health tracking for them, even if it was only to combat the myth that they are more healthy, which in many cases they aren't,  but at present there's no means of recording that.

Kay I have asked them for a statement.

http://www.facebook.com/lucy.spensleywasgray/posts/10200919828495971

Every pedigree has a purpose for being bred. The purpose for the Labradoodle was as a guide dog as it was to be non shedding.
Ideally there might have been a place for the Labradoodle to have become a recognised breed but this hasn't happened. It hasn't achieved what the original breeder hoped it would (and has stated openly that he wished he hadn't done the breeding) and so I don't think there is any reason for this mix to become a recognised breed.

>Every pedigree has a purpose for being bred.

Every dog should have a purpose for being bred, whatever its ancestry. We're not going to make crossbreeds disappear by disassociating ourselves from them! It seems the KC thinks, logically, that by acknowledging their existence (and they're already accepted on the Activity reghister and the Companion club) their breeding standard might be raised, which is most definitely to the benefit of the dogs.

If they want to have them registered, and have the money that goes with it! Then as they already have an Activity Register, why don't they have a Non-Pedigree Register and register all the crossbreeds on that. Personally, having had a Poodle owner (who had health tests in place) want to use our dog to produce a Goldendoodle (and bragged that he already had people waiting for the pups and was most annoyed that we wouldn't permit him to use our boy). It was very worrying when 'chatting' to him to have him state 'I'm not bothered about the temperament'!!!

I would support them registering cross breeds that have a purpose for being bred as part of plans to produce further generations of the 'breed.' What you see often though is F1s or even F1bs were they're back crossed with a full poodle. If they were bred with a view of registering a breed, and demanded some health testing of the sure and dam before a littler could be registered, it would benefit the breed and allow people to know, to a certain degree, the quality of a pup health wise.

We're not going to make crossbreeds disappear by disassociating ourselves from them! It seems the KC thinks, logically, that by acknowledging their existence (and they're already accepted on the Activity reghister and the Companion club) their breeding standard might be raised, which is most definitely to the benefit of the dogs.

I might applaud that JG if it were all down to the foundation breeders (in any breed) alas we all know full well the main breeders of the Labradoodle now are the BYB's and puppy farmers how will the KC's move ever promote breeding standards when they cannot control what goes on?...... The pedigree dog is fast becoming unhealthy and badly bred due to BYB's and the KC's continued head shake to not make health testing a must not just a recommendation if you are in the ABS is failing all dogs whether pedigree or cross breed.

This move won't promote or help anything but the KC's pockets, dog breeding is out of control and will continue to be so unless someone clamps down on who breeds............ :-(

dog breeding is out of control and will continue to be so unless someone clamps down on who breeds............ :-(

Here here!  :)

Here here Carrington

> and they're already accepted on the Activity register and the Companion club

Are they? Aren't they simply called crossbreeds on there?

> Well guys... All breeds of dog were originally created from pre-existing breeds by being crossed together until something standard enough to be recognised as a distinct breed emerged

True but there is no uniformity or attempt at creating any in lab x poodles, and as there is no registry of them and people are still more commonly doing 1st crosses they're never likely to become a breed. Most KCs require a stud book to be closed (no more breeding from the parent breeds, just labradoodles) for 30 years to be a breed :-)

As the owner a 'new' breed labradoodle claims at registration infuriate me. Silken Windhounds have done everything correctly from the original crosses down, all stock dna tested, the first several generations had to be independently assessed as breeding quality before being bred from, every dog (even pet ones) fully health tested, dna where possible for things that have never been a problem in any of the dogs but to ensure they never are. A closed stud book, meticulous records etc etc. When ALL labradoodle breeders adopt the same policies I'll be right behind them :-)

> Aren't they simply called crossbreeds on there?

As that is what they are.

>> Aren't they simply called crossbreeds on there?
> As that is what they are.

Yes, so they're not accepted on the activity register.

> Yes, so they're not accepted on the activity register.

Any dog of any ancestry is allowed on the activity register.

>Yes, so they're not accepted on the activity register.

Activity register FAQs. The Activity register is for dogs of any ancestry, but who can't be on the breed register.

[i]My dog is not registered but both parents are on the Kennel Club Breed Register, can I register my dog on the Activity Register?
No, if both parents are registered on the Breed Register you would need to speak to the breeder as they would need to register your dog on the Breed Register.

I think this may cause confusion as the answer assumes that both parents are the same breed but with Lab/Poodle cross both parents may be registered but are obviously NOT the same breed and pups would not be eligible for breed registry

>> Yes, so they're not accepted on the activity register.
> Any dog of any ancestry is allowed on the activity register.

They can register on the activity register as crossbreeds, not labradoodles. Labradoodles are not accepted on the activity register as labradoodles :-)

> Activity register FAQs. The Activity register is for dogs of any ancestry, but who can't be on the breed register.

Yes, but you MUST call them crossbreeds, you can't call them by a 'breed' name if the breed isn't recognised by the KC.

You can register a labrador as labrador on the activity register, even if you don't have any details of the parents, if it looks like a lab you can call it one. But you can't register a labradoodle as a labradoodle, it would have to be called a crossbreed.

> They can register on the activity register as crossbreeds, not labradoodles

Quite so because they are simply a crossbreed witch a catchy nickname as a selling point.

Not replying to anyone in particular. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for the breed name to be registered - I can usually spot a Labradoodle or cockerpoo for example. And they are such popular crosses that it wouldn't be a bad thing to have some breeders breeding them responsibly ie health tests, parents appropriate age etc. But they shouldn't be registered as an actual breed unless you can breed 2 Labradoodles together for several generations and have them all looking the same. There's still quite a few different 'types' that the cross can come out looking like.

> They can register on the activity register as crossbreeds, not labradoodles

Quite so because they are simply a crossbreed with a catchy nickname as a selling point.

Also re the thread the Kennel club are not accepting the crosses on the 'purebred' register, but are willing to accept people who breed crosses as members of the Assured Breeder Scheme as long as they adhere to the same standards required of other ABS members, which includes appropriate health testing of the parents based on the requirements for the parent breeds.

I believe up to now members of the ABS who also bred crosses were not allowed to use their ABS membership to promote the crossbreeds.

Having them registered 'somewhere' means they are no longer under the radar as at present.

I can see the reasoning, there are breeders breeding outside the breed register who apart from 'breed' are breeding responsibly and it makes sense to allow them to be able to show they can be/are responsible too. 

I do feel that these and volume breeders (5 or more litters) that manage to meet ABS criteria should have to DNA verify their litters (not just ID parents) to avoid falsification of parentage to exploit breeding bitches, by using a bitch under more than one registered name, or alternating purebred and crossbred progeny.

Those breeding for money would find it fairly difficult to do so based on a minimum 12 months gap between litters and maximum of four litters in a lifetime.  Even if they start at a year to 18 months old, they would realistically need to keep the bitch for 5 years.

This change will also allow the people who breed purposely bred crosses and from dogs not on breed register using the Activity register for Obedience, Agility etc, to join the ABS scheme.  The Coltriever line of Collie/Golden retrievers comes to mind.

> I do feel that these and volume breeders (5 or more litters) that manage to meet ABS criteria should have to DNA verify their litters (not just ID parents) to avoid falsification of parentage to exploit breeding bitches, by using a bitch under more than one registered name, or alternating purebred and crossbred progeny.

Absolutely agree, in fact as far as I'm concerned every single dog should be dna tested when born to verify parentage, a 5 generation pedigree is great but it's all on trust that every single person involved in those 5 generations is absolutely honest, or never makes mistakes.

Off topic I know but I find it hard to believe that there has never been one single person who maybe had a champion that wouldn't mate and used another dog instead, or kept quiet when another dog managed to get into a bitch in season after she'd been mated. These things happen and dna testing is the only way to ensure a pedigree is 100% correct.

> Quite so because they are simply a crossbreed

Absolutely agree again :-)

There was a well publiscised case some nearly 20 years ago (I can let you have the name) relating to a Siberian Husky champion.

The dog was supposed to have been sired by using AI of an overseas dog.

Now I don't know what raised suspicons, after all teh dgo won well and was made up, but obviously some doubts were raised and when checked it transpired the bitch had also been mismated by one of the owners own dogs after the AI, and this dog was sired by her own male and not the overseas stud.

I'm sure that sort of thing happens more often than we'd like to think. Breeders not wanting to 'waste' the proper mating and not wanting the embarrassment of owning up and having to DNA test the pups.

I know for a fact who all the dogs are in the silkens pedigrees as every one is dna tested and parentage confirmed, I don't think any other breed can say the same - yet. I hope one day the KC will insist on dna verification of pups parentage, it's very useful to have samples of dna from every single dog in a breed anyway for when dna tests are developed for diseases and defects.

Do the KC test each litter to be registered are correct on the DNA? Swabbing is one things but I thought that unless someone queried it and they 'had' to have it tested would it ever be confirmed the thruth.
So anyone who has lied or does lie can continue in the hope no one challenges them!!