I understand the reasons Endorsements are applied and in all honesty I think I am more For than I am Against. However, could the fact that breeding endorsements apply, make matters worse. If someone wishes to breed then they are going to do so whatever, the fact endorsements apply will not prevent this, but because they are unable to KC Register then does this suggest that they do not bother having relevant Health Tests done. Some breeders do appear to sound "Non approachable" when this issue comes around with comments such as "Endorsements may be lifted if I feel you are suitable". Would it not be better for The Kennel Club to say that this specific breed requires these specific tests to be carried out prior to registration. Would this then make it more likely for people to get these Health Tests done and therefore increase the overall health of the breed. I understand that there remains many different things to consider to maintain specific traits, but the true breeder will continue to take this in to account. I do not believe that this would "Open up the floodgates" to back street breeding as that is already out there, (even by some registered breeders) but would it not help in an overall healthier breed.

I definitely agree and this is the way it is done in many countries abroad. No health testing equals no registration (and results have got be good enough), and also no show or working results equals more expensive registration!

The only drawback by NOT having endorsements is that you could have a perfectly healthy sound dog that is of terrible quality all the same -be it mismarked, too big, too small, incorrect type or coat, poor temperament etc etc, and at times like that it is useful to be able to stop puppies from being registered.

I've felt this way too. On 2 seperate occassions I have had potential breeders show up with papers that clearly scream 'endorsed', 'progeny not eligible for'  and they still want to breed. When I pointed this out, one breeder went elsewhere and bred bitch anyway and the other barged out, telling me he knew what was best for his dog and I should have just taken the money! No idea what happened to his bitch but i imagine someone out there was more than happy to take his money.

I don't think a person choosing to health test or not would have to do with if they could register the litter or not realy. As the only reason I can think of why someone would decide not to health test because they can't register the litter would be because they wanted to save money thinking they couldn't charge as much for them not being registered. In which case there not good breeders and shouldn't be breeding anyway in my opyion.

I think the key is to find a breeder your happy with, not all breeders put the "if I think your suitable to breed" in, I know of someone who has that in as apperantly they don't want people breeding from there dogs so habe that in so they can say they don't think there suitable no. However I wouldn't class that person as a good breeder for a few reasons. All though I don't know if the Kc would uphold it if a puppy person argues it.

But If you go to a good breeder and stay in contact you will mostlikley become friends and they will be happy to offer you guidance on breeding if you tell them your interested in it. So they probably would see u breeding as a problem as they know you and have given u advice. My friend has the "think your suitable" in hers contract as she wants to make sure the owners know about breeding first, she is happy for them to breed if they do the health tests and have done there homework about breeding rather than just bitch+dog=puppies.

Not all pups are suitable to breed on from as adults. Therefore health testing, and good example of the breed would be part of my contract. Most breed clubs and the KC look for contracts to be in place that way everyone knows what is happening.

LOL endorsements mean squat the kennel club will not honour their own rules, or at least from my personal experience.

If someone wishes to breed then they are going to do so whatever, the fact endorsements apply will not prevent this, but because they are unable to KC Register then does this suggest that they do not bother having relevant Health Tests done.

I must admit I do sometimes find it uneasy when I have rarely and occasionally read that breeders will not lift endorsements no matter what, (but, remember, that is not what the majority of us do ;-) ) ......... but then I guess there may be reasons, and maybe very good reasons why an occasional breeder wishes not to lift at all...........

For me, I see no collaboration between endorsed/unendorsed and health tests, none at all.........

Those who do not health test, don't care about their breed, it's as simple as that for me, nothing to do with anything else, they would not be the types to go for endorsed pups IMO they are more likely to be bypassed by the type of breeder who is after making a quick buck, who are just after a KC reg pup so that they can register a litter and make more money, (remember this is the mass of breeders today) as long as we have this two tiered system of KC reg and KCABS reg it will continue.

Would it not be better for The Kennel Club to say that this specific breed requires these specific tests to be carried out prior to registration. Would this then make it more likely for people to get these Health Tests done and therefore increase the overall health of the breed.

Isn't this the idea behind the KCABS anyway? To show that KC reg (to have a lineage and pedigree) is different to KCABS which should regulate health testing and care of the adults and pups alike.

Endorsements are the only way a breeder can reinforce that, as we cannot force anyone to join the KCABS and abide by the relevant health screening, it is the only small power we have over our pups futures and just because a few might rightly or wrongly not lift shouldn't cause it to become a problem and IMO those buying an endorsed pup are much more likely if becoming a breeder to health test, not go the other way if not lifted,

Nope, don't think you can ever blame endorsements on people not health testing......... :-)

No idea what happened to his bitch but i imagine someone out there was more than happy to take his money.

Sickening, but at least you have the satisfaction of knowing your dog wasn't 50% responsible for any puppies!!!   That's the only way I could deal with that situation .... and I did turn away potential studs for my males, if I felt the bitch wasn't suitable (or good enough!)

Sorry about the double post above - I can't delete one because I'm being told the post 'doesn't exist'!!!.... and now BOTH my previous posts have been deleted .... grrr.

I was at a dog show recently and stopped to admire a CKCS and spoke to the owner. She said yes she did breed but did not have all the health tests done as she knew her dogs were healthy. I was so shocked, given that this breed has so many health problems. I had been advised to go to shows to decide on a breeder.

I was at a dog show recently and stopped to admire a CKCS and spoke to the owner. She said yes she did breed but did not have all the health tests done as she knew her dogs were healthy. I was so shocked, given that this breed has so many health problems. I had been advised to go to shows to decide on a breeder.

And this the reason why ;-)

Because at a show you will have the opportunity to chat and find out, without pressure of actively knowing puppies are available, which breeders to stay away from.   At least whilst at a show, you have the opportunity to move on very quickly to another breeder :-)  

Was this an Open Show, or a Championship Show?    You'll find more breeders in your chosen breed at a Championship show,  and even more, at a Breed Club Championship Show ;-)

Another way of finding a breeder who health tests, is through the breed clubs.   The secretary should be able to point you towards breeders who health test.

Of course, in some breeds, DNA health testing of the parents will have confirmed that the offspring are clear of certain problems and cannot pass them on, but usually other health tests are done in addition to thoe DNA tests.

>Not all pups are suitable to breed on from as adults.

I totally agree.  And it is why I have restrictions in place on the entire litter.  Including the pup that I have chosen for myself.  This way I have to have restrictions lifted if the pup makes the grade.

Ditto.

Ditto.  I lift the endorsement on my own when I register their first litter.

>I was at a dog show recently and stopped to admire a CKCS and spoke to the owner. She said yes she did breed but did not have all the health tests done as she knew her dogs were healthy. I was so shocked, given that this breed has so many health problems. I had been advised to go to shows to decide on a breeder.

Drives you mad doesn't it! I was advising someone on fb recently, father of the litter was tested but mum hadn't been 'because they've never had any problems'. Advised her to walk away fast!

<father of the litter was tested but mum hadn't been 'because they've never had any problems'.>

This is what annoys me with the responsibility of stud dog owners. If that had been my dog I wouldn't have allowed him to be used on an untested bitch, full stop.

I was at a dog show recently and stopped to admire a CKCS and spoke to the owner. She said yes she did breed but did not have all the health tests done as she knew her dogs were healthy.

Given that this is a breed with a serious problem so testing would be more to the point, I'd not necessarily take this as meaning this breeder was irresponsible - necessarily.   In my own breed, with breeders who had been involved in the breed for ages, producing generation after generation of puppies without any problems, then I could understand this 'my dogs are healthy' comment.   She could be correct.   

Example.  A problem with eyes cropped up in my breed - a condition leading, possibly, to glaucoma.   One breeder panicked and had her stock tested.   Understandably as it turned out that many of those she put through the gonioscopy test actually failed.  This test doesn't mean the dog will go on to develop glaucoma, just that there is a predisposition there.  As I'd used the same dog, a recently imported American Champion too, I had one of the leading eye specialists on the phone (cold call) saying we'd better test your puppies.   I said hang on, I have no reason to suppose mine are at risk just because this other breeder had cause to (the line producing this was clearly via the bitch side, as it turned out later).  He backed right off.   To this day, I stand by my decision and we had no cases of glaucoma in my bloodline (now ended because the last outside stud we used developed epilepsy and although again this didn't run in my line, I didn't want to risk being responsible for passing this on).  The imported American dog, who was only here for a couple of years before going back to the States, was tested - clear.

So although I'd be testing with something like the serious condition affecting many CKCSs, I'd not be too down on this exhibitor, without knowing all the facts.   Was a time when responsible breeders knew when testing was needed, and when it wasn't.