Just wondered if anyone else has received a letter from KC ABS and what your thoughts are on it?

The letter basically states that any member who hasn't had a visit will need to have an assessment before any litters will be registered after 01/01/2014.

The fees will also be increasing for Annual Full Membership (which includes an assessment every 3 years). 2014 will increase from £10 to £30, 2015 to £45 and 2016 to £60.

If you breed infrequently there will be an Annual Associate Membership where the annual fee will be £12 plus an inspection fee of £167 when you breed your next litter.

What do people think of this link http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-discredited-breeder-scheme-kennel.html I know a certain person isn't a lot of peoples favourite but I think it gives us something to think about.

I posted that on the other thread.

She is wrong though all new applicants (since the UKAS acceptance) are not accepted, only 'pending'  until they have had a visit.

http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/cgi-bin/board/topic_show.pl?pid=1383940;hl=#pid1383940

As someone, much wiser than I said:  there are lies, damned lies ....and Jemima Harrison! 

(well - it went something like that!)

I've not bred a litter as yet and have applied, I was told it would activate as soon as I registered my first litter, no pending a visit!

This is what it says in the application: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/8866/absappform.pdf

All applications will be fully considered. Further information to ensure that the
applicant is capable of meeting the Scheme requirements may be required and a
Breeder Assessor visit will be carried out to ensure that the Kennel Club is satisfied
the Breeder is fully capable of meeting the requirements of the Scheme. 

I see, my letter from them says something different.

I have been a member now for 6 years and have 3 accolades, however no one has been to inspect me yet !!! I always tell those who ring for advice on looking for a puppy that the ABS does not assure you of a good breeder as it is only worth the paper its printed on.
Aileen

I'm the same Aileen but I was inspected last year.

It struck me that many BYB couldn't/wouldn't have been able fulfil all the criteria, not least the exacting paperwork they wanted.

I know they get time to put themselves in order but it seems a tall order for some of the 'ner do wells' I've seen.

My immediate reaction - Jemima Harrison!! 

However, I know of any number of people I'd regard as okay breeders, who haven't subscribed to this and the cynic in me says you pay the KC a fee - kerching.

I guess something is better than nothing, but .......   ?   I'm retired now, no longer breeding, but regardless of the kudos hanging this on your name might suggest, to the 'uninformed', I'm not sure I'd have bothered.   I'm also not big on elitism.

>> have been a member now for 6 years and have 3 accolades, however no one has been to inspect me yet !!!

I'm the same (though only joined 3 or 4 years ago), but since the UKAS accreditation it seems all new applicants have to be visited first, and this is certainly what has happened to a friend in my breed, and her Mum in another breed, who have applied more recently.

I have to say in answer to Toolz comments that the requirements for paperwork are pretty exacting and to my mind a bit OTT.

Please feel free to check my figures. They are freely available on the KC website.

New members are *not* automatically inspected at the point of entry. The KC says that it intends "at some point" for this to happen, but they've been saying that for two years (in responses to me) and it has not yet been implemented.

To date this year, the KC website lists 1058 new breeders - of which only 39 are marked as inspected (3.6%). And in the Top 20 breeds, of the 78 new breeders advertising litters on the KC Puppy Finder, only 5 have been inspected.

As I say on the blog, there will be some inspections of new breeders not yet up on the KC website as, post-inspection, breeders are given 60 days to provide all the necessary paperwork/make improvements.  But even in the unlikely event that the rate doubled, it would still be a pitiful amount.

The ABS Scheme is a good idea. It just needs to improve. A lot.

Jemima

Whats good about it? I was a member but decided to not renew my membership. This was because I see all the abs of pugs and frenchies breeding blues and in high numbers. They are getting a thumbs up from the kc and people think its a kitemark. What is good about the scheme when it comes to a pug breeder?

I joined in the hope that it would become a standard set for the best breeders.

I've never advertised a puppy on the KC website but get many calls from those who used it in their search.
I use the opportunity to inform buyers that at the moment being a member of the scheme means little.

Ok, what would thr purpose of say a japanese spitz accredited breeder? As there is no mandatory health tests for the breed even though we've asked for patella luxation to be mandatory. What would be the benefit of being accredited over just a normal as we do allthe normal things chip etc and pl test.

Problem is Jemima for it to do that will cost loads, most decent breeders have nothing to prove, which is why many refuse to join, and I know I objected to paying the £10 a year to join, certainly won't stay on it if the cost increases hugely.

Those of us who breed a litter a year more or less have enough expenses, connected with doing our best health tests, best food and care, as it is.  We don't actually need the ABS in order to place our puppies or get the right kind of potential owners.

I and many others feel the best breeders should actually have reduced KC fees, (none of the health tests are cheap, well except maybe he clinical eye exam, but then you have to travel) and those who don't health test should face higher costs if they must be allowed to use the KC services, but of course they would just stop having their 'product' KC registered, and go with the puppy farm/byb registries.

I also object to some of the (I can understand to some extent) prescriptive aspects of breeding requirements and care when applied to domestic breeding.

What suits one breeder, their breed, or individual dogs, will not suit another.

Some of my girls have wanted to stay with their companions right through first stage labour, some like to re-join their mates ASAP with the new babes and others have been more protective and preferred not to share them with other canine pack members for up to three weeks.

Same with ages at homing. 

For example I like to allow puppies to start leaving the weekend after they are 7 weeks, allowing those traveling long distances to have a weekend pick up, and also staggering when pups leave without leaving it too long.

Many behaviourists actually advise pups are homed ideally at 49 days (7 weeks) but I get mine ear tattooed at this age, and want a few days to go by after worming.

I don't believe in vaccinating my dogs beyond the first booster, and various other aspects of personal choice, such as training. it should not be about box ticking.

After reading the latest application form (and I can't find the various best practice paragraphs they refer to) I am seriously re-considering re-joining next year.

I'm not a member. I keep a lot of records, do more testing than required and have given a lot more info to puppy owners than I received from an ABS member.

Can anyone tell me if ABS members are allowed to register puppies from a bitch bred from two seasons running?

No they don't WS, there has to be a 12 month gap between litters x

Brainless, I agree with you - some of the requirements are overly prescriptive/inflexible and make the scheme unattractive to some excellent breeders.

I also agree that many excellent breeders I know simply don't need the ABS. They often have a queue of good quality homes waiting for their pups - and/or don't breed until they do.

It would be nice, however, if they were happy to part with their tenner because they felt proud to be part of a Scheme that raises the bar. That's quite hard at the moment. The blog has prompted a lot of private emails from breeders who feel let down by it and, moreover, can identify others in their breed with assured status who in their opinion fall way short of their own standards.

I know it's a difficult gig for the KC. And I also know the Scheme is a money-loser for the KC. But if it's serious about offering a quality alternative, it needs to do more.

No they don't WS, there has to be a 12 month gap between litters x

No that is not true. There is no such rule other than for council licensed breeders.

We don't actually need the ABS in order to place our puppies or get the right kind of potential owners.

I have to disagree with this. I find that out of 10 enquiries that come to me in any way other than via the KC, 9 will be unsuitable and will be turned down. They want the breed for all the wrong reasons, have not done their research, and are simply not suitable for all sorts of reasons. With the enquiries that come to me via the KC however, where the people have looked for an AB, 9 out of 10 ARE suitable as they are people who have looked into getting a dog of a particular breed in MUCH more detail. I have found the same of the GCCF Breeder Scheme for kittens.

I and many others feel the best breeders should actually have reduced KC fees, (none of the health tests are cheap, well except maybe he clinical eye exam, but then you have to travel) and those who don't health test should face higher costs if they must be allowed to use the KC services, but of course they would just stop having their 'product' KC registered, and go with the puppy farm/byb registries.

I also like the Swedish way of charging a lot more for registrations if the parents haven't proved themselves either in the show ring or as working dogs. Plus of course if they weren't health tested with good results, the pups couldn't be registered at all. I'd like to see that here.

However, not much in life is perfect, and at least now Joe Public knows that an AB will have had more demands on them than other breeders. Sure there are improvements to be made, but just knowing that, as an example, an AB member cannot go ahead and breed a litter of Labradors unless both parents have been hip scored, has to mean SOMETHING.

I have had many enquires through the kc site who say they are willing to wait as its a rare breed only to notify them closer to the time and be told we got bored and bbought a different pup, I think the easy rid attitude of many people nowadays means very few truly think it through before buying a pup. It puts me off breeding because of this.

What are the demands put on a breeder of a breed that has no mandatory health tests? That our breed club do not already require?

I read something that said they would not register an ABS litter whether council listed or not if less than 12 months between litters.. I'm going to dig the paperwork out!

All I can find on the KC site about that is the statement that ABs must "Follow Kennel Club policy regarding maximum age and number/frequency of litters"

My mistake Marianne, it's breed dependant for length of time between litters.

>Please feel free to check my figures. They are freely available on the KC website

searched under KC assured breeder statistics and got nothing useful :(

Can you point me to a link, pretty please.

You must be better at navigating the site, as I haven't a clue where to find any but the most basic info on the ABS

What are the demands put on a breeder of a breed that has no mandatory health tests? That our breed club do not already require?

Good point. Maybe a good compromise could be that breeds with no required health tests get their home visits ahead of those that require testing. (As there is likely to be a backlog for some time still.)

Most of those breeds have recommendations, maybe move those into mandatory?!

Brainless, it takes a bit of trawling to get the figures.

The KC lists ABS breeders for every breed here:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/acbr/Default.aspx

(listed on the website or downloadable as a pdf).

Inspections since start of 2013 are listed/dated, as is the date the breeder was admitted on to the Scheme. So its easy enough to check if a new breeder has been inspected. Very few have.

We then crosschecked to see which of those new breeders are currently advertising pups on the KC Puppy Finder.  We found 78 - only five of which have been inspected.

NB: pre-2013 checks are not listed (and should be, even though the inspections pre UKAS were prob not as thorough).

Jemima

Well looks like they must be way out of date as the breeder I know that was visited in July doesn't have a tick.

To be honest I'd never looked at the list, so didn't realise that the info was there.

I know one other that has been visited, but before 2013 (don't know how many of the others) but based on what's on screen it looks erroneously like none have been visited.

At least 5 of the 15 listed breed pretty rarely, one only once in a decade.

No litters listed on find a puppy service, though I do know of a litter recently born but not yet registered, from a breeder who has not bred in over 5 years.

It honestly makes me sad when I think about it. The ABS has such potential IF it was done differently. The KC do a token amount of inspections to justify the money you pay. If you consider the amount of revenue generated each year from it then look at the number of inspections done then I really have to wonder what on earth they are doing with the money as it clearly isn't for covering the costs of inspections.
I have a litter due in just over a week with a waiting list on top of that. I was recently contacted by a potential puppy owner who wanted to know why my pups would b £X when they could get a pup from gumtree for £Y amount.  I  informed them of all the health tests done on my girl plus ABS membership but they were not interested which was more than fine as clearly not ideal people for one of my pups. All they cared about at the end of the day was the pup was KC registered. If the KC continue to register litters from breeds with known health issues from puppy farms and byb without any health tests it just makes a mockery of the whole thing.
I met a lady with a "Scottish terrier" the other day. I grew up with Scottie's and adore the breed so I asked her about her Scottie cross...... The dog was about the same size as the staffy I was walking at the time.
She was adamant it was not a cross and had a KC registration to prove it. Should the KC really be registering dogs that are so off base from the breed standard?

Well said diggydog. My thoughts exactly.

> Should the KC really be registering dogs that are so off base from the breed standard

But without going out to oversee every mating and inspecting every litter of pups how can they stop registering these pups? Unfortunately there are always people who will find the way round any system. :( At least the KC are trying.

I think we as a society should go back to looking out for ourselves and stop expecting this organisation or that government to look after usw and stop us making stupid mistakes. People dont have to buy a pup or anything else without research. There are plenty of good breeders out there. If the buyers got wiser and started to think about what they were buying the bad breeders would start to have problems selling their pups. I don't see why everyone is blaming the KC for all the badly bred pups out there when it is the poor breeders who are responsible.

>Should the KC really be registering dogs that are so off base from the breed standard?
>But without going out to oversee every mating and inspecting every litter of pups how can they stop registering these pups?

And of course they'll need a crystal ball to predict how each puppy in the litter will develop. I'm sure we all know dogs from very good lines which for whatever reason didn't develop as expected, whether they grew too big or stayed small, for example.

More awake now than earlier and agree with Newyork too. I've had some excellent enquiries via the KC over the last few months from people who've researched the breed and are prepared to wait for a puppy. Sadly there are those impulse buyers who want a puppy now, cheap and local and equally sadly there are breeders who can supply the demand with poorly bred puppies. We are increasingly 'nannied' (spelling?) by the state and it is unsurprising that when things go wrong people cast around to blame others and do not want to accept responsibility for their own mistakes. However. I still feel that the KC could do a lot more to enforce good practice. ABS scheme was well intentioned but falls way short of being an effective means of ensuring good breeding . I know of many ABS breeders who have been reported by puppy buyers because of the dreadful conditions in which they are rearing the puppies.This is an abuse of the scheme and lets us all down. Also, why can't the breed clubs be more active and informative ? I am astonished by the relatively poor uptake of important DNA tests. GR s now have a DNA test for two variants of PRA  so far identified. Yet, it is disturbing how few 'top' breeders are testing and indeed insisting of testing of bitches brought to them for mating, this even when the dog is a DNA carrier .

As far as I'm aware, and the rule may have changed, the KC will not accept litter registrations from the same bitch within a 12 month period.

I'll have to check.

Add -   I checked and typically for the KC, this is now what's said ....

"My bitch has had 2 litters within a 12 month period, can I register the litter?

The Kennel Club does not endorse this and would recommend at least a year is given between litters, however we do understand that in situations of accidents or if a bitch has irregular seasons, a second application will be accepted. Breeders who breed four or more litters per year must be licensed by their local authority. Breeders with fewer litters must also be licensed if they are carrying out a business of breeding dogs for sale."

Wishy-washy?

The 12 months rule is ONLY for council licensed breeders (as that is the rule anyone licensed have to abide by, whether pups are registered or not), not anyone else.

Marianne is also applies to BRS in some breeds which have it mandatory regarding number of litters in A period of time :-)

Add -   I checked and typically for the KC, this is now what's said ....

I believe it is a long time since it changed from being 12 months, and the reason is that responsible breeders could end up with problems otherwise. For instance I had a litter born 26th of April one year, and the same bitch had her last litter the 24th of April the following year -363 days later. She'd have been too old (for my liking) to wait another year, and I didn't want a litter in the winter so didn't want to wait another season, so I was very glad there was no problem registering a litter just less than 12 months later. That second litter will turn 8 this coming April so it is at least that long since there was no general 12 month rule.

Marianne is also applies to BRS in some breeds which have it mandatory regarding number of litters in A period of time :-)

Indeed, that is true!

It is true that the list of inspected breeders is incorrect because I was inspected November 2012 and I am not ticked as just mentioned in another post. I have informed the KC but not heard back yet.

Only those breeders who have been inspected after April of this year, when UKAS accreditation was given to the scheme (as recommended in the Bateson report) have a tick. You will be given one when you've passed your next inspection.

In that case I don't think there will be another inspection. I gave up my time on the occasion of my inspection then for nothing. I am well known in the breed, do everything I need to do and more so looks like I'll be saving myself a few quid.
A particular contention is that no notice has been given of this change and that I innocently thought my inspection was done for a while. Being well known and recommended by other breeders and previous puppy owners means more than being a member of the ABS. But I am perhaps fortunate to be in a breed which has relatively low number of breeders relative to the number of people wanting a puppy as my waiting list shows.

A quick phone call today and my visit arranged for end February.  I have no plans for any litters until this time next year.. but I whelp and rear for a friend who has an 87year old invalid father living with her. So, she needs a visit for a bitch due to whelp in 4 weeks, and since they pups will be here, they are combining the visit, for her, with mine :)   I STILL can't see what all the hoo ha is about.. I know it is a very contentious subject, but we do really need to support the KC, If we don't, I wonder how long it will be before government, RSPCA and DEFRA decide to take over... not a pleasant thought!

I am annoyed because I have had a visit which I co-operated with everything and now without any notice it seems they are suggesting another which is generally just a pain. I work from home as a dog groomer so I can be close to my dogs and it also means loss of income.
When the assessor visited me before it was quite late when she left as she was going onto someone she could only go to in the evening because she was out at work all the day.
I don't want the RSPCA involved - heaven forbid - but please at least acknowledge the extensive visit I did have.

> I STILL can't see what all the hoo ha is about.. I know it is a very contentious subject, but we do really need to support the KC, If we don't, I wonder how long it will be before government, RSPCA and DEFRA decide to take over... not a pleasant thought!

I agree; it all seems to be exactly what people have been asking for; that only breeders who have been inspected should be listed as ABS members. I personally think the inspections should be annual, but I suspect that would be logistically impossible, and every three years is the best we can hope for.

I do acknowledge your visit, I have had my visit too Hazenaide, we are all in the same boat...

No one seems to be objecting to the inspections, it's more the lack of notice for the changes and the increase in fees.

Plus it also seems that ABS members are having to pay more when those not in the scheme have no increase.....it's hardly fair.....