Have recently registered a litter, and the Reg. Documents have arrived. Have to say I am very disappointed in them. The actual is registration is really small, like a tear off slip. Obviously been redesigned to encourage the new owners to transfer ownership. But I much preferred the ones I have for my dogs. In a word the new ones are Awful !!!

They remind me of the ones we got many years ago... Impressive they are not !

When they send the transfer form off they will just be left with a small slip.
Yes they do look similar to the very old type ones we had back in the late 70's klb seems we are going backwards not forwards, but obviously the KC's priority is to get more money from transfers. 
£15 pounds each for a slip is a rip off !!!

I had to look twice in my AB folder as I thought they had forgotten it! A great big folder with that tiny slip of paper in it. Did you also think the envelopes they come in is a bit excessive too......that must be costing a bit.

When my litter registration package came I saw these horrible red printed leaflets and dumped them in the bin, thought they were some sort of advertising flyer! Then had to go and fish them out again as couldn't find my registration certificates. Presenting a nice registration certificate to a new puppy owner with their puppy folder of information was important to me. Now I have to explain what these awful bits are paper actually are. Very poor show by the KC and no reduction in the price of registering a puppy. In my opinion it greatly belittles the standing of a KC registered pedigree dog

I can't see any instruction to breeders who might be retaining a puppy how to get a proper registration certificate, if they exist anymore. Are these little tear off bits of paper what we present with the dog for health testing in the future?

Perhaps they get a proper one when they pay to transfer the ownership ?
As for puppies retained by the breeder, good point dogsbody, not a lot of room on the slips to be stamped for eye testing etc.
Thankfully a friend of mine had done some really lovely pedigrees, otherwise I would be ashamed to give these out.
Do the KC never consult breeders, they seem to change things without seeking opinions first ? They could do with a focus group of breeders and ask their opinions first.
They just seem hell bent on alienating on breeders and doing things as cheaply as possible !!!

I've got a litter to register and I'm keeping a pup, not looking forward to seeing the documents now :(  does anybody have a copy of one I could see please?  My email address is on my profile, you can delete any personal details.

Years ago I decided to show in Ireland and registered with the IKC, their registration documents are lovely,
ditto their Breeders certificates for a champion.

In FCI countries the registration document includes a 4 generation pedigree.

For a start the font size and clarity is awful on ours.

>Do the KC never consult breeders,

I have been asking them for years to write to the OWNERS  of a dog when endorsements are lifted.

After all they have the details on file and could simply cc the owner.  As it is the new owner has to trust that the breeder has done it, and ask for a copy, even though they trust the breeder, they may want it to show the stud dog owner.

If any other company just changed things they would lose customers and end up going bankrupt. My sister in law works in market research and a lot of companies spend thousands getting customers views on new and existing products. They put a lot of effort into customer satisfaction.
The KC just seem to disregard their customers as they have the monopoly, they know conscientious breeders will not use the mickey mouse registers !!
The new form is just a piece of paper with a big red warning to the new owner that the dog is not registered in their name, and a tear of slip which is the registration document.
Like someone else said it doesn't even look like an official document, I had to look in the huge envelope as I thought they hadn't sent them, as they just looked like an advert on first inspection.

I threw them in the bin with the advertising junk as well until I realised there must be something relevant in there.
I recently purchased a dog and transferred ownership and all you get back is a tiny little slip of paper :(
They don't look very impressive in the puppy pack and certainly don't look like £15 worth - Big fail by the KC

>I recently purchased a dog and transferred ownership and all you get back is a tiny little slip of paper :-(

That's even worse!!!

they should be redesigned with a 4 generation pedigree like the overseas FCI ones, and include a section on the back for recording eye tests etc. Also with nice bold fonts

It has parents details on but is only A% size so the writing is tiny.
I always include a full pedigree with puppies anyway but I think this scrap of paper will be very easy to lose

I wonder if they are like the computer printed slips given out by the GCCF with cats?

Sound exactly like the reg certs (like a green edged wage slip) I had for the dogs born in 1988 and 1992. 

From 1995 they had A4 size certs.

As fir the pedigree, always done my own as I can include health details etc on them, but wouldn't hurt for the reg cert to have the basic info too.

they should be redesigned with a 4 generation pedigree like the overseas FCI ones, and include a section on the back for recording eye tests etc. Also with nice bold fonts

I agree 100 % BUT would we be willing to pay as much as they pay? In Sweden £37 per pup if parents have show or working qualifications, if not £53 per pup. HUGE difference to £15.

I wonder if they are like the computer printed slips given out by the GCCF with cats?

Kitten registrations come on a white printed A5 thick card. One per kitten with all details on, the back used for transfer, and then one card recording the entire litter for the breeder to keep. The horrible flimsy slips are long gone. :)

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">would we be willing to pay as much as they pay? In Sweden £37 per pup if parents have show or working qualifications, if not £53 per pup. HUGE difference to £15.

You can't make a direct comparison like that as your not comparing like to like prices and wages being different..  You need to make a direct comparison by comparing for example the minimum take home hourly wage compared to ours and then extrapolate the relative cost.

Actually rather than the increase in ABS membership I'd be much happier if they would increase the registration fee across the board to say £20 (£5 increase) that would actually mean the average litter would cost an extra £30 to register, interestingly just the amount they want to increase the ABS charges by, so for someone currently breeding a litter a year about similar cost, but more importantly those not in the scheme would be contributing, and of course those who breed more would pay more, much fairer.

Thinking about it I might just about live with the intrusion and fiddle about more with my paperwork (though  hate one size fits all and removal of wiggle room/individualism with what I do).

Yes have to agree with you fully here Brainless. Or, charge more for those not within the AB, or where parents are not health tested. Somehow the IRRESPONSIBLE should be hit in the pocket to encourage them to NOT breed, or to change tactics and do it RIGHT.

> Yes have to agree with you fully here Brainless. Or, charge more for those not within the AB, or where parents are not health tested. Somehow the IRRESPONSIBLE should be hit in the pocket to encourage them to NOT breed, or to change tactics and do it RIGHT.

I do know what your getting at but I am not an AB(& have no intention to join) & my breed has no required health tests for the breed. Does that make me irresponsible?

Wouldn't simply not registering puppies from unhealth tested parents be a way too ? You can't register puppies with the ISDS without their parents having health tests done(not enough health tests-but at least they demand some & have done so for over 40 years)

I do know what your getting at but I am not an AB(& have no intention to join) & my breed has no required health tests for the breed. Does that make me irresponsible?

This is perhaps where the Swedish way of charging more for registration if the parents have done nothing (shows or working), could come in. I.e. as a way to hit those only breeding to make money, not breeding because they have a genuine interest in the breed etc.

Wouldn't simply not registering puppies from unhealth tested parents be a way too ?

Indeed, and I have always wanted this -but Lexy has a point. Would the BYBs etc swap breeds to any that require no testing?

There are so very few breeds for which there is no clinical/genetic condition-there are no KC recognised breeds that do not have a case of HD recorded(outside of racing greyhounds which aren't a separate breed of course)so HD should be tested for in all breeds(& I do mean ALL breeds)

there are no KC recognised breeds that do not have a case of HD recorded(outside of racing greyhounds which aren't a separate breed of course)so HD should be tested for in all breeds(& I do mean ALL breeds)

Papillons aren't on the BCA/KC sheet so if any have been hip scored there would be less than 10 and it's a breed I certainly cannot see a problem with hips in. In any event, it's up to the breed clubs as to what is required, the way it works, so if they see no need then it won't be added. I also can't see Yorkshire Terriers or Chihuahuas on the list, so none of the very smallest (or rather lightweight) breeds. Where have you heard of HD in those breeds?
http://www.bva.co.uk/public/documents/Breed_Specific_Statistics_2012.pdf

Now eyes on the other hand, surely ALL breeds should be eye tested. And if too small to be likely to have a problem with HD, add patella check instead! But again, if the breed clubs see no problem, it doesn't get added to the official requirements. And with no official patella scheme, yet another problem.

I don't think Japanese Spitz have either in uk.?

I'm not writing about hip scoring results, but clinically diagnosed HD-I know of several breeds that have no BVA scores for HD, but which have clinically verified cases of HD including several toy breeds(information from a retired Ortheopeadic Specialist vet)

My breed has no required tests by the KC.

There are a fair amount who heart & eye test(& others too) but there is no where to have the tests recorded officially...believe me some have tried!!!

If you take US OFA statistics you will find:

Whippets:161 evaluated, 1.2% scored in the dysplastic range (over 25 BVA) with 37.9 Excellent (equating to roughly less than 6 BVA)

Cavaliers 6249 Evaluated 12.4% scored in the dysplastic range and only 4.1% excellent. 

Surprisingly Norfolk terriers of  287 evaluated  have a high percentage in the dysplastic range 33.4% and no excellents.

Papillons, Yorkies, Jap chins don't seem to be listed, so I assume none or very few scored.

On the other hand they do have official patella scheme and these sta5tistics may be of interest: http://www.offa.org/stats_pl.html

Breeds with over 10% affected

  Breed                             Rank   Number of Evaluations   Percent Normal   Percent Affected
POMERANIAN                   1                   607                              58.8                     41.2
YORKSHIRE TERRIER     2                   449                              75.1                     24.9
COCKER SPANIEL           3                    798                              84.6                     15.4
AUSTRALIAN TERRIER   4                    154                              85.1                     14.9
BOYKIN SPANIEL             5                   135                              85.2                     14.8
TIBETAN SPANIEL            6                   147                              87.1                     12.9
MI-KI                                   7                  207                               88.9                     11.1
JAPANESE CHIN               8                  177                               89.8                     10.2

Whippets:161 evaluated, 1.2% scored in the dysplastic range (over 25 BVA) with 37.9 Excellent (equating to roughly less than 6 BVA)

Cavaliers 6249 Evaluated 12.4% scored in the dysplastic range and only 4.1% excellent.

Surprisingly Norfolk terriers of  287 evaluated  have a high percentage in the dysplastic range 33.4% and no excellents.

Papillons, Yorkies, Jap chins don't seem to be listed, so I assume none or very few scored.

This is what I meant about lightweight breeds -all of those scored above are quite heavy, certainly compared to Papillons and Chihuahuas etc. Papillons can weigh between 1 and 5 kilos according to our breed standard and the majority are around 3 -I have two that just weigh around the 2 kg mark. My Cavalier on the other hand weighs just under 7 kg and he's the smallest male Cavalier I have had. (My first weighed 10 kilos and when owners of pet bred Cavaliers saw him they asked if he was a "miniature"!)

I do wish the UK would adopt one of the patella schemes from abroad.