and the fact the inspections are concentrating on details, (paperwork, water bowls number of beds), rather than the important aspect of passionate caring breeders with happy dogs.

They have to concentrate on measurable things. Define 'passionate caring' and what level is adequate.

and the fact the inspections are concentrating on details, (paperwork, water bowls number of beds), rather than the important aspect of passionate caring breeders with happy dogs.

But as you haven't had a visit yourself, you can't know EXACTLY what happens and it is only hearsay. And paperwork IS important. I can't remember who and in what thread mentioned a breeder who did a grooming demonstration but didn't write it down -I think it is 100 % right that this was picked up on. It is FAR too easy to forget details, especially in the excitement of viewing or collecting a puppy, and having it all in writing means there is something to check through whenever necessary. Yes we will feel some rules are a bit silly, but the KC cannot possibly vary the rules according to who they inspect -and in fact everyone would be quick to moan then. If they visited a breeder who had dogs sleeping on concrete flooring without enough bed space and with one waterbowl between ten of them, we wouldn't want to see such a breeder pass, would we?

Kayc .....why do we need to support the Kennel Club when they quite clearly do not support those who have chosen to join their flagship scheme ? . Holding the threat of the RSPCA or DEFRA over our heads will not wash , unless their schemes are compulsory then breeders will do exactly what they are doing now i.e they will opt not to belong ! .....and that's what the KC have misunderstood , if breeders are being financially punished for choosing to belong to the ABS  then they will simply register their pups on the 'ordinary' KC. register.

Of course the KC could make ABS membership mandatory for ALL breeders who apply for KC registration which would end such financial discrimination against ABS breeders ( and is in fact what many of us have been calling for them to do ) ....but I' m not holding my breath !

So given that most of us do not need to belong to the scheme in order to sell our pups but joined to show support tell me one good reason why we should continue to do so, given that the KC are now financially penalising us in this way for being good breeders ?

Well I have been a member for 6 years and no inspection so if they want me to pay £167 they will loose me !! They have had plenty of time to get round to me !!
Aileen

I have just applied to join the scheme and paid the fee with a litter hopefully due in earl February. I think it's highly unlikely that they will fit in a visit to me in time since last time I checked no-one in my breed has ever been visited.  I don't intend to breed very often at all so the huge one off fee will mean I leave the scheme and I think I should see about getting a refund too since I wasn't told about this when I filled in the application form!

I haven't had the letter notifying us about the change either :(  What a fiasco!

As I read it the £167 inspection fee is only for the Associate member who will pay £12 a year. The full members will end up paying £60 a year by 2016, but not the £167.

I personally think they will lose a fair few members with these increases. I'd rather put the money towards food, vet bed, etc than hand over even more money to the KC.

See point 20 on the pdf: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/418828/faqs_final.pdf

Not had the letter (unless it is outside in the postbox right now) but I guess it is their way of stepping things up a bit, which after all is what people have been crying out for. Seems very short notice though!

Post just arrived and yes my letter was there.

Well I have been a member for 6 years and no inspection so if they want me to pay £167 they will loose me !!

That fee is if you opt to not be a full member because you breed less frequently than every 3 years.

It seems to me you are no better off, in fact probably worse off, being an "associate member" and may as well stay as a full member or not a member at all.

I wonder if everyone has read the letter correctly.... Whether you have had a visit in the last year or not, you are still needing to have a visit.  because none of us are UKAS certified, only ABS certified...basically everyone will require a visit unless they have been visited under the recent UKAS certification scheme.

just sent this e-mail off to the KC :

"As an ABS member, I received notification this morning that in order to remain
on the scheme I would need to have an inspection visit prior to registering any
pups I may breed. I have absolutely no problems with this although I would point
out that I have already been inspected by yourself on 23/2/2011 and issued with
an excellent report. What I do have an issue with is the proposal that the
annual membership fees are to increase by 200% this year with further increases
planned  annually until 2016. I do note that you give me the option of paying a
smaller annual increase but with the additional fee of £167 for the privilege of
being further assessed each time I have a litter , this on top of the costs of
the various health tests that are a requirement  of the scheme.

Could you confirm that you will also raise the fees payable by all those
currently NOT on the scheme by the same amount ? ( i.e all those back yard
breeder and puppy farmed pups that you currently happily register )   ......I
also note that you list one of the 'perks'  of being an ABS breeder is that any
litters I breed will be advertised by yourself ....can you confirm therefore
that anyone not on the scheme will not also have their litters advertised on the
KC website ? .

Otherwise it seems to me that I am being financially penalised by being a 'good'
breeder , you see the truth is that I do not need to be  ' Assured' by any
scheme to breed ethically or to sell any pups I have . It seems to me that the
KC needs me to be part of their ABS  more than I need to be on it and whilst I
was fairly happy to pay £10 to support the scheme I most certain am not happy to
pay £60  per year or £167 per visit ! "

Yvonne

I have a feeling the KC will be inundated with similar e-mails. Well said Yvonne.

What gets me is how will they have time to do it all? I have a pregnant bitch and I'd assume a lot of other people will do as well, so for us it's pretty urgent.

Judging by the outcry on Facebook I think the KC have shot themselves in the foot and really haven't thought this through. Again it appears the "good" breeders will have to pay more while the puppy farmers and BYBs carry on as normal......

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't, though. How many times have people here stated they will not join the scheme unless everyone is inspected before registering pups and unless BYB and puppy farmers cannot pass? I would have thought that this could be a big step towards putting the irresponsible off. Of course, I fully take the point about the costs and I still reckon that one thing to do would be go the Swedish way and not allow ANY registrations from parents not health tested with good results, and double the cost for parents without show or working qualifications. So what if the BYB go to the Mickey Mouse registry instead?  KC registration would actually mean something then, whereas the other one would not and even Joe Public should be able to understand that.

I agree, Goldmali, many of us have said that we would not object to higher fees if the ensuing scheme proved quality.  This seems to be going towards full inspection, which is good thing (although I have a suspicion this was promised about a year or so ago?) but still leaves they bybs/puppy farms etc. with the ability to register, although hopefully inspections will weed the worst ones out of the ABS.  I think allowing only ABS members to list on the KC site was a great suggestion, whoever posted it.

Just got it and I definitely can't afford the extra cost to essentially confirm I already do more than the scheme requires.

Surely the cost ought to be borne by the people who use the KC system without the (expensive) extra miles that good breeders go to.

Very good Yvonne, exactly my feelings.

The other problem I have is to be a breeder and member of my main breed's only kc recognised club I have to be an abs member. I have been a member of the abs since 2010 but no inspection. I may or may not have a litter next year so at the moment am very undecided as what to do! I've found Joe public couldn't care less, all they like is that all health testing has been done and I do more than the kc wants.

Just got it and I definitely can't afford the extra cost to essentially confirm I already do more than the scheme requires.

But £60 a year (from 2016) is just a FIVER a month.

I've found Joe public couldn't care less, all they like is that all health testing has been done and I do more than the kc wants.

I have to say it hasn't been my experience at all. I've said it before -the no good puppy enquiries I get are from people coming via my website or similar (not all of course, but it's the only way I've had enquiries from people I would never sell to), the quality ones now mainly come via the KC from the AB listing as well as from here on CD. (And the BEST ones come from people that already know the breed and the lines.)

Being an assured breeder is more about handing out paperwork than anything else. The buyer "thinks" it is a sign of quality and health tested breeding stock which is far from the truth. It is quite possible to breed many litters of several breeds just using someone's  stud dog down the road. Picking breeds for which there are no required health tests, never showing, not belonging to breed clubs and never having heard of a breed standard... they don't even have to have a affix. The quality of the puppies doesn't matter at all. When these people are asked why they want to be an AB the reply is normally "it makes it easier to sell my pups, I get a lot more enquiries by being one". these people will happily pay the extra cost as they have to be on the first page of the sales register. In breeds like mine where there are lots of buyers chasing very few puppies it makes no difference if the seller is an AB or not the buyer is happy to see any puppy for sale. In very popular breeds someone who isn't known at all will want the advantage of being on page 1 with a little flower next to their name to make them look better than Mrs Jones who doesn't have one.
The visits made will not be asking such people to leave...they are the ones bringing in the money with registrations aren't they!
I don't stand to gain anything at all  remaining in the scheme it will just cost me money. People like me, who goes the extra mile and health test when it's not even compulsory will leave and the commercial kennels will stay with the public being told that THEY are the breeders to go to....they are AB's!
I too have new puppies and wonder where I stand.
My renewal is April. As far as I'm concerned I have paid until then and my litter should be registered accordingly. You can't change the terms of our "contract" mid term. The increase for me is from April not January, when I paid last year it was on the assumption that all my litters would be registered as by an AB until the next renewal.
I have been visited and that should be enough or what was the point in coming out?

Picking breeds for which there are no required health tests, never showing, not belonging to breed clubs and never having heard of a breed standard... they don't even have to have a affix.

Then it is time that the accolades were explained in further detail to potential buyers. Personally I think it looks very bad indeed when an AB has no accolades at all. I don't think the experience one is much cop as all it shows is somebody potentially churns out pups (would be better if it showed say at least 10 years of owning the breed), so the breed club and stud book ones ought to be highlighted more to people.

I got my letter this morning too. My renewal is up in June 2014 but I most likely will be asking to be withdrawn from the scheme after the new year. I have no objections at all in a visit, in fact I would welcome one, I go above and beyond the schemes requirements and felt that the scheme could do with breeders like me aboard. I am not willing to pay the extra when they will happily register 2 litters from bitches in my breed  who have a hip score of over twice times the breed average. I will simply add a check list on my website of things the Assured Breeder scheme requires and what I actually do.............. The fact that the KC think I might be enticed by "discounts", access the KC advisors and entry to find a puppy register  just shows how far apart the KC and I am as far as what we think being a good breeder is.

I was just about to resign from the scheme, it hasn't lived up to my hopes
and as I don't need help selling puppies, it's a pain having a lot of calls.
We have no testing 'requirements' for my breed other than an eye scheme which is annual, something many breeders see as unnecessary and indeed, overseas dogs don't have renewed annually. I'm  at odds with the KC for not introducing a HEART scheme for breeders when it is THE number 1 killer in the breed.
It's not stringent enough otherwise  and an over emphasis of it as a 'puppy sales' list rather than a breeding standard/ethos.

Ironically I was inspected and despite having 300% more in terms of health screening, all the KC seemed concerned about was leaflets on grooming and exercise.

As they say on TV..... " I'm out."

I have been a member since the scheme started, never inspected but only breed very occasionally so guess never been a priority ? I exceed all ABS requirements and to my knowledge never had one puppy enquiry for the scheme so personally gain nothing from the scheme but have given support. All my pups have been sold before registration so free listing on website not helpful to me either.

Potentially I could have a maximum of one more litter, kept a male from my current litter, so don't know if to just pay the increased fee for 2014 or resign. It makes no financial sense to be an associate and then pay for an inspection !
K

My renewal is April. As far as I'm concerned I have paid until then and my litter should be registered accordingly. You can't change the terms of our "contract" mid term. The increase for me is from April not January, when I paid last year it was on the assumption that all my litters would be registered as by an AB until the next renewal.
I have been visited and that should be enough or what was the point in coming out?

My renewal is also due in April and have already been visited.  Why on earth would they want to come to me again when so many others have never had a visit at all - perhaps we make them too welcome, tea and biscuits etc...
I have also been in the scheme from the beginning and wonder more and more whether or not to not renew.

> My renewal is also due in April and have already been visited.  Why on earth would they want to come to me again when so many others have never had a visit at all

As kayc mentioned, I think the visits are to do with the UKAS certification. When was your visit Ann?

Well said Yvonne ! I received my letter this morning -was naive enough to think it might ( just might !) be a Seasonal Greeting . Have just got home from long dog walk mostly spent grumbling and chuntering -doggies bemused. What a cheek . I was inspected in September 2011 and had excellent report. Am pretty well deciding to withdraw from the scheme. I'm not planning a litter until end of 2014. I have a long waiting list and all my other girls have been spayed.  I don't need the ABS and I'm dammed if they'll get any more money out of me.

> But £60 a year (from 2016) is just a FIVER a month

Yes and £60 is also a months dog food or a vet visit. Or an eye test. Now I am on a lower income I am having to be very careful what I spend money on.

Also I personally don't particularly want an inspection. I know that I care for my dogs and pups well. I give out excellent information with my puppies. I am always at the end of the phone for my puppy buyers. However I don't like people I don't know poking around in my home. It upsets me and it upsets my dogs. I see no value in it and I really can't see any value in the scheme. It will just cost me money and will not benefit me or my dogs.

> But £60 a year (from 2016) is just a FIVER a month

>Yes and £60 is also a months dog food or a vet visit. Or an eye test. Now I am on a lower income I am having to be very careful what I spend money on.

The cost... 2 dogs entered at a champ show.. And.. if you can afford to breed you can afford £60...

I still don't see the problem

I do see the point that this is a sudden increase etc -but if anyone cannot afford £60 a year, can they afford to breed at all?

However I don't like people I don't know poking around in my home. It upsets me and it upsets my dogs.

But don't you invite potential puppy buyers to come over and meet all your dogs and see how they live etc BEFORE you have puppies available? I don't see a huge difference. I've had 3 lots of people visit in the past few months just to meet the dogs and us (both to ensure this is the breed for them AND make sure I am the breeder for them!) and I don't necessarily see a huge difference. Visitors get to meet the dogs inside and out and we always end up talking about things like what we feed them on -hence with a laugh point out all our extra freezers used for storing the raw meat, tell them this breed can be real escape artists so point out our tall secure fencing etc. In other words, just from reading about what will be checked, it seems to me that what will want to be looked at is pretty much what we show people anyway.

But what do we get for the £60? I can think of better things to spend £60 on than lining the KCs pockets...

For me, nothing has changed to remove my objections to the scheme.

The KC will still register pups from puppy farmers and volume breeders and from non health tested parents.   
The ABS scheme will still register puppies from places which are wholly and solely commercial, as long as they satisfy the ABS requirements and inspectors. 

The part of the accolades which relate to experience in breeding,  actually encourages volume breeding over being 'in the breed'   I could buy in a new breed, know nothing about it, but have lots of litters and be deemed to be experienced within a year, over someone who has been 'in the breed' for twenty years, but only had a couple of litters.

To me, this is all wrong.      

I am disgusted that the KC still registers so many pups from large scale commercial premises.    Reading the breed supplement for terriers was a huge, disappointing education.   

To be honest, after the way the KC behaved after 'that' programme, basically ignoring all the good work that had already been done by the many conscientious breeders in developing health testing over the years prior to 'that' programme,  I see nothing about the organisation that I wish to be connected with.

Perhaps I'm asking for too much.   But it seems to me that the KC are all about making money, and this scheme is about keeping the detractors happy.  Otherwise, they'd refuse to register the hundreds of thousands of volume bred pups and there would be no need for an Assured Breeder Scheme.

You get your membership. The letter said each inspection costs £200 for the KC to carry out. I don't think it is enough to quibble about really. I spend more than £60 each year to register my website domains, some people would pay more than that for a pair of shoes, and I know I pay many times that amount  every year on books to read just for fun.

The ABS scheme will still register puppies from places which are wholly and solely commercial, as long as they satisfy the ABS requirements and inspectors. 

I fully agree that is not something we want. I doubt though the majority of puppy farms would pass everything. Do we even know of any that are members of the ABS? The only ones I have heard of have been lying about it. And the big question is -is there a way that could prevent commercial breeders from registering pups? Eg. how could you determine what is deemed commercial or not, without penalising the wrong people?

I have just read on the Swedish KC's website that they are now refusing to register any more of the Swedish MOD's puppies! This is because apparently the MOD refuse to carry out the temperament testing required for their breeds! Again I think our KC could learn a lot from all the Scandinavian ones as they DO manage to do what we all want -stop the irresponsible from registering pups.

>However I don't like people I don't know poking around in my home. It upsets me and it upsets my dogs.

But what's the difference between that and puppy buyers coming to meet you and your dogs before you have a litter, to see if they want to go on your waiting list(and for you to find out if you want them on your list!)? If someone's dogs were upset by strangers I don't think I'd want a puppy from them.

>I have to say it hasn't been my experience at all. I've said it before -the no good puppy enquiries I get are from people coming via my website or similar (not all of course, but it's the only way I've had enquiries from people I would never sell to), the quality ones now mainly come via the KC from the AB listing as well as from here on CD

My experience is completely opposite.

£60 may not seem a lot, but there is no incentive for me to belong to the scheme in the first place, I begrudged the £10 to be honest, but bought into the we must help the poor buying public to know what a good breeder is, so didn't mind paying £10 to help the public out as it equated to the cost of an advert with the KC puppy register.

I started having real issues when they put out their puppy rearing ideas, which for me were far to prescriptive re the details of rearing. I feel there is no  ONE RIGHT WAY when it comes to puppy rearing, so much being dependent on breed, individual dogs, facilities and circumstances.

that is a lot of the problem, the KC want it to be one way only. One example of this is a lady I met with a coated breed did a wonderful practical demonstration of grooming to each and every buyer. It took her some time but each person left much the wiser. That wasn't good enough for the kc, she failed by not giving WRITTEN advice on grooming to the buyers. The fact that what she did, the hands on approach, was much better, didn't matter....no much how I argued her case.
Everything is black and white., their way only.
Most people have criticism of their paperwork and have a list of things to tweek.
A regional adviser is never allowed to comment at all on the actual dogs being bred with which surely is fundamental to breeding a happy healthy pup rather than copious amounts of paperwork.

> If someone's dogs were upset by strangers I don't think I'd want a puppy from them.

Its not the dogs I breed that are upset!! I have a couple of rescues who are very shy. And puppy buyers dont poke around in me bedroom and kitchen, inspecting and writing reports.

And the big question is -is there a way that could prevent commercial breeders from registering pups? Eg. how could you determine what is deemed commercial or not, without penalising the wrong people?

One edition of the breed record supplement was enough for me to spot the 'volume breeders'     no responsible breeder would be having 10 litters in just one quarter surely?   Especially when the litters are at least 6 pups each?     The dates of birth are published along with enough information to indicate which breeders are commercial.

The KC have enough information on the registration applications to be able to decide which breeders are commercial, especially since the technology also exists to collate all evidence.

But look at it another way,  responsible breeders, breeding occasionally, will not bring in the revenue that the volume breeders do, so the KC will never refuse them registration.

But that does beg the question, what are they there to achieve?

What Im wondering about is the people like me, who bred their first litter last year under the AB scheme and made sure that every box was ticked and every i dotted to fulfill the requirements of the scheme. I have a breed that there are many 1,000's registered each year, so as someone breeding their first litter, I wanted to be seen to go the extra mile and make sure that the pups I produced had the very best start I could give them. Like any breeder would really, although as a first timer Im sure having ABS standards helped people see how conscientious I was. People that rung me all said that it was because I had ABS standards, they decided to ring me rather than someone elses who wasnt.

However, Im planning my next litter in March, what happens if I'm not inspected by then? Does that mean that I cannot register my litter under the ABS scheme, even if Ive already received my new ABS certificate in November?   There was certainly no mention of any changes with my new certificate. Have they employed many more assessors to deal with the people that need assessing because they have a litter due?

Marianne here's how I see it , the KC were railroaded into being seen to ' do something' to raise their game after the flak they got from PDE etc. They came up with the ABS as a way of demonstrating their commitment to raising breeding standards, it's an idea that I personally thought had merit and although I stood to gain nothing by joining I did so to support the KC.

The KC then sought UKAS accreditation for it's scheme but this of course meant complying with a much more stringent inspection regime with hugely increased additional expense. You would think therefore some ( all ) the funding for this would have come from those that were NOT supporting their efforts to improve standards, (after all breeders who belong to the scheme already have all the additional expense of mandatory health testing to fund. ) and by penalising the less ethical and rewarding good breeders they would clearly show their commitment to those that have chosen to support them.

But no ......it seems that ONLY those breeders who are 'doing it right' are to bear the costs of the KC's attempts to improve their game , heck the KC will even act as puppy brokers for those that do no health testing, issue no contracts and who breed high volumes of puppies every year !!!

I will not be renewing my membership, will coming out of the scheme mean I will breed less ethically ?  ....nope and neither will it impact on any future puppy sales as I breed so rarely and always have a waiting list of puppy buyers

This is a spectacular slap in the face to the very breeders who supported the KC ....shame on them.

Yvonne

>I will not be renewing my membership, will coming out of the scheme mean I will breed less ethically ?  ....nope and neither will it impact on any future puppy sales as I breed so rarely and always have a waiting list of puppy buyers <br /><br />This is a spectacular slap in the face to the very breeders who supported the KC ....shame on them.<br /><br />Yvonne

Exactly Yvonne, but what's worse is the KC have spent the last few years telling everyone that ONLY KC ABS breeders are good breeders, so those of us who now choose not to belong, will be viewed in a less good light. 

So not only have they now supported us who go the extra mile but unless we tow the party line and pay for the privilege they will be continuing to undermine us.

Barbara, the bottom line is that the KC need us more than we need them .....if breeders leave at the rate they are threatening to do, the scheme will simply be unworkable ...lets hope they are reading our concerns and will think again !

Yvonne

Not directed to anyone but just wanted to say, we all wanted checks, how did we think they would be funded? the people doing checks have to be paid. £60 is a big difference but I will continue to support the ABS as long as I can see they are trying to sort things out.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">how did we think they would be funded? the people doing checks have to be paid.

By the people who use the KC services, especially those who do not go the extra mile with health testing etc, this includes volume/commercial breeders..

Remember the KC already charges us £15 per puppy to issue a piece of paper (that doesn't even include the pedigree details, just parents details) and add details to their database, usually the data is already done by the breeder on-line.

Serious breeders also not only pay to be granted a kennel name, but pay to maintain this annually

Dill, I agree with everything you say. I just wish I had your way with words. Well done !