The option for breeders to add registration endorsements to puppies that they breed has been in place for a long time now. It would appear that the KC plan to add a new endorsement option to those already in place. Breeders will now be able to endorse their litters with the view that all health tests required under the KCAB Scheme (for said breed), be carried out before any endorsement will be lifted.

You may know that something similar is already in place in as much as the 'progeny not eligible for registration' is often used by breeders with this purpose in mind. Breeders state at the time of sale the conditions on which the endorsement will be lifted and assuming the conditions are fulfilled by the new owner (and to the breeders satisfaction), then the breeder contacts the KC to have the endorsement removed.

The big difference with the new endorsement would appear to be that once the conditions are fulfilled - e.g. the health tests required are carried out, then the owner contacts the KC directly and the KC then remove the endorsement. The breeder has no say in the matter. It is not clear if the KC will lift the endorsement regardless of the health test results or if there will be some further system in place to make sure that endorsements are not lifted if an animal receives unsatisfactory results.

this would be a nightmare, I want additional health tests to those required, the results to be 'acceptable to me' and for me critically a temperament assessment.... this new approach just wouldn't suit :-(

I guess it's a good thing if a simple tick will encourage more breeders to endorse in this way -as long as the normal way still remains for those of us that will want a lot more than just basic tests carried out. (I.e. we will want good results and also want the dog to look and act right according to its breed -no good having an excellent pair of hips on a dog that doesn't look like its breed and bites everyone who comes near it!)

>Breeders will now be able to endorse their litters with the view that all health tests required under the KCAB Scheme (for said breed), be carried out before any endorsement will be lifted.

ABS REQUIREMENTS for my breed (where heart and neurological conditions abound) ...Eye test. My contract specifies ALL vital, pertinent screening.

Lots of breeds don't seem to have required tests; mine certainly doesn't. Hip-scoring and BAER testing are merely recommended.

I think this option could be a valuable addition to a breeder's armoury. I have never bred a litter (or intend to do so), so apologies if I accidentally offend anyone.

I understand that many people have far more stringent criteria of their own. However, this could be a useful option for people who don't want too much hassle, but are not cometely unconcerned about their pups. I doubt this latter group would included many on here, but could the new option help those breeders in the wilderness area between being responsible breeders and puppy farmers????

I wonder if this is a step on the way to making some form of health testing (where breeds require it) mandatory before KC registration is granted?

No, this is not an acceptable option if it is the only way forward.  The KC removed an eye test prior to mating as a requirement for my breed, but the breed club continues to recommend it.

No, this is not an acceptable option if it is the only way forward.

Admin did say it was in ADDITION to those already in existence, and surely if those people who don't care enough to endorse can now endorse easier that is a good thing -better they demand some health test in future than none at all. The rest of us will carry on as normal.

Endorsements are built into our club code of ethics already.  We pretty much all endorse our puppies - but then we are a small club with few breeders.

Upon reading the above my understanding is that the extra endorsement will be a fait acommpli...do the tests, the KC will lift it.
What if the breeder wants to breed too young for my interpretation of what is best for my breed?

> the KC plan to add a new endorsement option to those already in place

If it's only an option, then it sounds like people will be able to endorse their puppies as they do now. Apologies if that's wrong, I haven't read it properly yet.

In principle it is heading in the right direction, but there is a really enormous but!

Once again it is left to the breeder to endorse isn't it? Well......... will the puppy farmers endorse, the BYB's? Noooooooo! So what is the point?

If they are doing this, why not make it that ALL registered litters are automatically endorsed no matter what, with the breeders lift and the KC's lift once health tests are done we are really getting somewhere with the health of dogs.

This will not stop anything, as it stands at the moment.

We have a person wanting to have an endorsement lifted, so they can breed a litter. This bitch has had hips and eyes done, BUT was bought primarily as a pet, with a contract, saying if you have the health tests you may contact me. It has now been shown, and has won nothing at all, that is at open shows and breed and champ shows. It was run off its feet as a pup, so is very very leggy, not ideal in the breed. Nice nature though. I have been threatened that if we don't lift the endorsement, they have been told the KC will, but it will take 10 months, That we will be thrown out of the KC. That we are breaking the law. This is years of very careful breeding, many lovely show dogs in the ring in the past, winning.
When you lift an endorsement, it is better then money in the bank, four litters, could amount to £32,000. That is 10 pups x 4 litters x £800 each pup. No a bad investment. I know,I know, if everything goes to plan.
Yes there are the expenses stud fees food etc,show entries, travel, the list is endless. we all know how it can add up. But for the initial purchase of the puppy for £800, it is  better then money in the bank.
I can see why the tax man can be very interested. But my question is really, do I lift it or not.
I have also been told breeders do it for a consideration. What think you.
I spoke to the KC today, I was assured that the appeal process is only if some one has died, can not be traced, or moved abroad,  I was assured categorically that they would not just lift this.

If your contract said the bitch would have to be a good example and she is not then you have not broken your contract with them.

Well most breeds average around 6 pups and are less than £800, mine sure is, but that is not the point.

You are right they can't make you lift the endorsement.

Only thing that would worry me would be that if there is a market in your breed for unregistered pups, at more than a nominal price they may decide to breed anyway, and sell pups without registration.

I can understand them feeling aggrieved having done the health testing.  They should have shown her and asked your opinion of her quality before doing this and perhaps saved the expense.

They just told us that they had done the tests.
So what about this so called consideration, is that a puppy or the equalivent, when I spke to the KC a few weeks ago when all this started to brew, they told me that this was being asked for more often now. I do see it as a good point.

Charging for lifting the endorsement in my view is sharp practice and totally unethical.

A first litter in any breed is likely to leave the owner with a huge loss, with having to buy all equipement, most never breed again.

I should like you to do a proper list of all the expences you can have, It is a large breed, so for starters a disposable whelping box. Vet bedding. Heat lamp[we have sheep, so I know the cost of these]. £100+£60+£30=£190
Stud fee £800 registrations 10= £150
Three bags royal canin mother and baby£100 total so far £1240
Adverts£50. Hips and eye tests.£250 .Inoculations £100 for the course.
Cost of purchase of pet pup, even though bought as a pet.£800
I am sure there is a lot I have not got down so far, but a really good exercise, keep adding please.

I think it will be a problem if your contract said - do the health tests and then contact me, if you said it depended on showing results, being a good example of the breed, if you as a breeder wanted it to be bred, and then health test and if ok then you'd lift.  If you've only specified health tests then you're likely to find that the KC will lift even without your consent as that's what you've said.  If you sold the pup as a 'pet' and said 'no breeding, full stop' then they wouldn't - as long as it was clear and the owner was in no doubt...

as for their expenses and thinking they're using it as a money making exercise and that the 'taxman' would be interested - they can only make money if they're back yard breeders, I worked out that with my dogs, showing (agility), buying and keeping dogs that I'd have to 'earn' at least £10k per year from my dogs before the tax man would start to take an interest and I hadn't included all the relevant expenses, I just stopped looking at it was too frightening!  This is taking into account keeping the bitch for 14 years etc etc.  As I had a litter 2 years ago, I'm nowhere (nor ever likely to be) close to that figure!

With my latest litter - buying food - sacks of puppy/whelp kibble, fresh meat/fish/eggs/carrots/apples etc costs a lot more than you are saying.... don't forget wormer, additionally I had a £200+ vet bill, in the past I've spent £1k+ on a pup only to lose her at 4months... I've also bought pups new toys, ball pool, various textures etc... I'll provide sacks of food, toy etc

Yes people do make money, but as others have said, only by cutting corners and not doing the best for mum and pups :-(
I have heard of people selling pups and charging a fee to lift endorsements, even that they then expect a pup (or cash) from each litter... terrible practices... I've lifted endorsements from a few of the dogs I've bred, but why would I charge for this?  Not even crossed my mind...

> A first litter in any breed is likely to leave the owner with a huge loss, with having to buy all equipement, most never breed again.

How I wish that were true. You only have to scratch the surface of how BYBs operate to realise they cut every corner, and if they were suffering losses to that degree, there would be far fewer money making litters born and rescues would have a lesser burden.

I was shocked to hear that the KC had pulled someone up under the Assured Breeder scheme for not having an 'exit strategy' for their bitches.... that they felt it was a burden to the breeders for them to keep the bitches to the end of their days and that they expected that they would rehome them after their litters.... is this the sort of thing they want and if so they're alienating the reputable people :-(  The person involved had a valid 'exit' strategy, that their dogs would remain with them always... but apparently this isn't what the KC are expecting :-(

> How I wish that were true.

I am of course talking someone doing things properly, as this persons owners have already gone to the expense of health testing, and will no doubt pay a large stud fee, will want to KC reg, have been showing etc, I would hazard they will want to do their best.

If they wanted to go the BYB route they would not have bothered with the health testing and showing, bred from the bitch anyway, used a cheap local dog, and sold the pups unregistered.

They would have saved a packet on registrations, health tests and probably the stud fee, so selling pups a bit cheaper and cutting corners on rearing.

> I am of course talking someone doing things properly,

It is truly an eye opener on these byb groups. Do not buy KC reg, they all inbreed, and that is what has causd all the health issues. No need to health test, that is for KC reg only. All CKCS have syringomyelia, their brains are too big for their skulls, but only the KC reg ones.

On the rare occasion a byb litter needs a C section, they are 'special' puppies, saved from death, and that justifies the higher price tag, only available to 'special' owners... everyone loves a survivor and some will pay extra for one, it seems.

> I am of course talking someone doing things properly,

It is truly an eye opener on these byb groups. Do not buy KC reg, they all inbreed, and that is what has causd all the health issues. No need to health test, that is for KC reg only. All CKCS have syringomyelia, their brains are too big for their skulls, but only the KC reg ones.

On the rare occasion a byb litter needs a C section, they are 'special' puppies, saved from death, and that justifies the higher price tag, only available to 'special' owners... everyone loves a survivor and some will pay extra for one, it seems.

> I am of course talking someone doing things properly,

It is truly an eye opener on these byb groups. Do not buy KC reg, they all inbreed, and that is what has causd all the health issues. No need to health test, that is for KC reg only. All CKCS have syringomyelia, their brains are too big for their skulls, but only the KC reg ones.

On the rare occasion a byb litter needs a C section, they are 'special' puppies, saved from death, and that justifies the higher price tag, only available to 'special' owners... everyone loves a survivor and some will pay extra for one, it seems.