I have a male puppy, not bred by me who came with  KC papers without any endorsements.

Can I actually place an endorsement on the papers 'progeny not eligible for registration', or can only the breeder of the dog do this?

Problem solved. I have just phoned the KC and they have told me that I can, and how to do it. It is done!!

I was going to reply that it's the current registered owner of a dog who can place endorsements. :-) Endorsements can be lifted and replaced.

Thanks Jeangenie,

I had got it into my head that only the breeder could place endorsements, but a call to the KC said as long as the dog is in the physical ownership, then the current owner could do so.

I have just phoned the KC and they have told me that I can, and how to do it.

This really bothers me because conversely, I've heard of people applying to the KC to have endorsments lifted, which they have done!!?   Surely this should be totally in the hands of the breeder?   I know the breeder has to make a buyer aware of any endorsements on that puppy at the point of sale, but for me, if I put an endorsement on a puppy I sold, which I always did except for two I sold to a fellow breeder who I trusted - BIG MISTAKE because she later sold them to Holland!! - I expect that endorsement to only be able to be removed by ME.   Otherwise what's the point?

As for putting one ON a puppy after he's been bought - can I ask why?

Why not, MamaBas? A health issue could become apparent after a pup sold at the traditional time and the owner may want an endorsement. Somebody may be selling a pup on that didn't work out, and don't want it bred from. Seems entirely sensible to me that whoever owns the dog can place the endorsement.

Am not naive enough to think that it always works 100% correctly, no system is perfect and am sure some do get round it - but the KC have made it quite clear that there are circumstances where they will lift endorsements when they haven't been placed and notified to new owner correctly. There is no doubt that in the past some breeders have used endorsements unfairly, so on balance I think I'm behind this. If breeders follow the clear guidelines on how to place them and get them 'signed off' by the new owner, they shouldn't be lifted on application to the KC.

>As for putting one ON a puppy after he's been bought - can I ask why?

Why not? It's not hard to imagine the scenario where a dog or bitch needs to be rehomed so itwould be sensible to place endorsements beforehand.

There is a very good reason Mammabas why I have done this, but I am not going to make it public knowledge, however if you are curious to know, I have no problem sharing this with you via a private message.

I agree.  I sold a bitch to a fellow breeder.  After her first litter her disagreements with an older  female housemate became serious, resulting in injury.  The bitch is only three years old, and the other 11 in a long lived breed.

After months of trying to manage things in a family home the situation was just too stressful for all the dogs and for the family involved, and the sad decision was made to re-home the three year old bitch.

She has been re-homed and my friend was able to place the endorsements on her.

Yes she could have had her spayed, but as our breed is numerically small, and the new owners are already involved with another Spitz breed, it may be that they may be persuaded to show or breed a nice litter from her (she was the result of one of my overseas matings).

Why not, MamaBas? A health issue could become apparent after a pup sold at the traditional time and the owner may want an endorsement.

I may have missed something here (quite possible, sometimes I feel the world is leaving me way behind) but if the puppy was bought by somebody without endorsements, and IS STAYING with that owner, why would that owner need to put endorsements on a puppy who was sold open.   Yes, if the breeder takes the puppy back and there is a fault now that wasn't there beforehand, when it was originally sold, then I can fully understand why an endorsement of some kind (presumably non-breeding?) would be a good thing to do before rehoming it.

Or is this person worried the dog could be stolen and used for breeding?

Basically I still think the control with endorsements belongs with the breeder.   Again I endorsed my puppies to protect my bloodline and my breed.

>but if the puppy was bought by somebody without endorsements, and IS STAYING with that owner, why would that owner need to put endorsements on a puppy who was sold open.

Because the owner feels better about having them, so a family member can't take the dog and breed from it, so that if something happened to that owner, again, family member couldn't breed from it.  I can imagine all kinds of scenarios where an owner might prefer it just as a bit of a safety measure for the same reasons the breeder might have.  Some breeders never put endorsements on their pups, but an owner may want to.  If the dog is possibly going to spend time between households, again, the main owner may want it for protection.

I don't understand anyone having a problem with the current owner being able to PUT endorsements ON the dog.  I DO understand having a problem with current owner being able to take them off, but that is only done in rare circumstances these days (or should be rare).

Because the owner feels better about having them, so a family member can't take the dog and breed from it, so that if something happened to that owner, again, family member couldn't breed from it

LOL   Being in the middle of a 'famly thing' following the unexpected death of my sister, I can kind-of appreciate this being one reason.    And I do know of a situation where an unmarried breeder died without making arrangements for is hounds (foolish at best) and another breeder swooped in and took all his hounds.   His relatives were only relieved!!

Hi Brainless I have PM'D you.

replied