Hi

My friend has a samoyed pup which is 6 months old. Shes registered with dog lovers club
not kc. has any one heard of this. and can she get her kc reg. as i dont no as never
heard of this befour.Thanks

Loulu.

Hi,
I'm afraid only the breeder can register dogs with the KC, so your friend would have to contact her samoyed's breeder. Unfortunately, Dog Lover's registration is generally used by puppy farmers and others when the pups are ineligible for KC registration. If you do a "Search" on this site you will find a lot of previous threads on the subject.

Hi Jeangenie
Thanks for your help, i thing my frieng going to be upset when ill tell her, she belived her to be kc it was only when she showed me
the papers , she allso paid alot of money for her.

loulu

Hi Loulu,
If your friend has anything with the words "KC registered" written on them, then she might be able to get some money back for 'misrepresentation of goods' through the Small Claims Court.

Unfortunately, DL registration isn't worth the paper it's written on. :(

This is happening so much recently.  Breeders seem to realise that pet people don't know what they are buying so are able to fob them off with this club, it isn't until people speak to people in the know that they realise that they've been done.  Many a time they pay as much if not more than they wd. for a KC registered dog!!

I am so angry at the way some breeders are taking buyers for a ride regarding DLRC .Some new owners just don't realise what they are getting for their hard earned.It makes me want to take out a great big 'f' off advert stating that it is not worth the paper it is written on!!!Pardon my french everybody but I've had so many people on the phone to me telling me they have a dog and it's DLRC'd and can they get it KC regd now,sandra.

The Kennel Club must realise that there is a potential problem as they advertise in Exchange and Mart now!

Jesse

I still wonder whether Trading Standards could do anything ?

Lucy

It is not a potential problem, it is a problem, loads of people are buying pups who are badly bred in poor conditions, from parents who have no health checks, and are them self badly bred, and sold to middle men and then to retail outlets and warehouses with someone at DLRC churning out bits of paper with any names written on it, they have no knowledge it such dogs even exist. A bitch will be called Straight Jane for her first litter, Lazy Daisy the next, Mummy's Pride for the third and so no.

And you think it is not a problem yet - think the KC if correct to try to let people no that it is nothing to do with them, they don't want their name connected to some of the poor pathetic scraps that are sold as 'registered' puppies. Lets face it the KC has problem breeders of their own but they do at least try to deal with the problems in their registration system.

Unfortunately there are probably as many :"dodgy'registrations within the KCs own system.  Lots of puppy farmers use the KC system, it gives them a veneer of respectability (and the use of the puppy egister)  Please rmeember that the KC register is only as accurate as the information given by the breeder.  The same sort of false details, registering to different bitches etc etc can go on within the KC system, it simply gives a pedigree as well- even if not an accurate one for the pup.  Its not that the KC dont want these poor pups registered with them - I am sure they would be delighted!  One of the many creticisms levelled at the KC again and again is that they will register from anyone - even known puppy farmers.  The only sanction is when they actually have it pointed out to them that details were incorrect, and they can then 'discipline" the perpetrator.  This usually means that the puppy farmer then registers in another family members name!  (or they may then turn to the DLRC)   Please, let us not keep giving in the uniinitiated the impression that KC reg. means they have a quality puppy with genuine pedigree - if they have found a doddgy breeder there are no guarantees.   Whislt DLRC is often a sign all is not right, KC reg. is only an indication that everything else may be OK.
bye
Gwen

But no one would get away with making up any old pedigree and submitting it to the KC because even if the KC did not notice people in the breed would plus of course the parents and for 5+ generations back have to have been registered with the KC. I do know that a breeder can say that a different bitch bore the litter but except in a few cases what would be the point. So however imperfect the KC's system is I think it is up to us who care about our breeds to support the KC and to be vigilant if we think an 'error' has occurred.

Hi Jackie, the problem is, with the KC system you dont need to make up a 5 generation pedigree, you just submit the names of a registered dog and bitch and the pedigree is already on record - regardless if the pups were actually the produce of that dog and bitch!  Look in the BRS, particularly for some of the more popular breeds such as Westies, Cavs and Goldies, and you will see a whole lot of slightly odd looking registrations - unusually large litters (2 bitches wehlp close together, register litter to only 1 so the other can "go again" on the next season), pups which could not genetically be the offspring of that mating due to colour )often seen in Cavs listings), then the old chestnut of registering 1 or 2 extra bitch pups, to extend the breeding life registrable for the dam or a sibling.  These are predominately from Kennels without affixes, or with an affix never seen in the ring, fromdogs called such things as Tom Thumb and Saucy Sally.

My point is that the KC system is far from perfect, which, I think, is why they dont do more to try and negate the use of the DLRC.  If the KC could advertise in publications such as Exchange & Mart, Free Ads and the monthly dog magazines that a KC reg. was a guarantee of pedigree, careful breeding and rearing, and that DLRC was simply a bit of paper with no inherent value, then people might acutally drealise the benefits of a KC reg puppy.  Because it cannot make these claims it has little amunition to fight the DLRC ,after all to someone wanting a pet, not to breed or show from, what are the benefits to them?

I dont usually advocate more control, but a system which allows any puppy to be registered on an equal footing, whether from the mating of high quality (in the Stud book at least) health tested, guaranteed genuine parents or from poor quality, without benefit of health tests, (or even failed relevant tests) and with no proof of actual parentage is not able to criticise another system for doing just the same thing!  With the easy availibility of DNA tests how many reputable breeder would be unwilling to pay the little extra for permenant ID of breeding dogs and bitches, adn there resulting litters?

As for us policing the KC records - these matters have been brought to their attention repeatedly for years, it is only when someone involved in a potential error in registration complains, with adequate evidence, that they will act.  We had someone on this site just a few months ago with a Min Schanuzer, KC reg and bred by the wife of a high profile breeder (of a different breed) who, it became obvious, was not a Schauzer at all!  Apparently a Terrier on the premises had intervened.  The Breeder was apparently extremely unhelpful!  Dont think anything ever became of a complaint, as nothing appeared in thepress, possibly the pet buyer accepted a refund and walked away with their pup?  But ther has to be an incentive for the Pet owner to put their case, rather than a couple of days away from work presenting their case at a KC tribunal in London.

bye
Gwen

Jackie

I know I am going back to an old post.  I do pedigree research for the Cavalier ( purely for myself) and have collected hundreds of pedigrees.  Amongst my collection I actually about six for various generations which were KC registered and which are actually Cavalier/Cocker spaniel crosses.  Doubt this could happen now with more modern computers but it certainly did in the past.

How far back do they go? Up until the 40's or 50's interbreeding between breeds was allowed!

Jesse

It is as Jesse said. During the war there were so few pedigree dogs were registered the KC allowed what was called a "pink Form" registration. If an unregistered dog which looked like a particular breed was mated to a registered dog and if the puppies looked true to type then they could be registered under the pink form agreement. If then the puppies were mated to a registered dog of that breed the resultant puppies could be registered as true pedigree. It was means such as this which allowed quite a number of breeds to survive.

Also, some breeds were only divided by size, Springer's and Field's are one pair which spring to mind. There could be registered according to the size they attained.

If you add to that, in the old days retriever breeds were not in fact breeds but were Varieties and as such, under certain circumstances could be inter bred! My own Labrador Anna has a Flatcoat way back in her pedigree (Around 1923!)

Best wishes, John

Well all I can say about DLRC is almost all puppy out lets and shops that sale pedigree puppys are reg with this club so it speaks for itself wot type of people use this reg!!!!

I agree completely, but my point was that a whole load of these sorts of peopole register with the KC - and for the KC to succesfully make the public aware of the downfall of aquiring a DLRC puppy it needs to be ab le to show what it can offer in the way of guarantees of quality pups that the DLRC cant.  Which is not the case at the moment.

bye Gwen

Isn't that the idea behind the new KC Premier Breeder scheme which was discussed a few months ago? I think I remember reading that it will be launched at Crufts next year, though it remains to be seen how successful it will be bearing in mind breeders will have to pay the KC for the privilege of being a "Premier Breeder"!

That is the rub.  why should I as a responsible breeder pay extra to prove it.  surtely it should be the other way aroung.  Premier breeders who have the litters parents health tested, abid by their breeds codes of ethics should have reduced fees, and the other sort should have their fees increased!!!!

Agree with you there Brainless, true that the KC registration can be got round, but it is the best thing we have. If responsible breeders use the system and register their litters then anyone who is looking for a well breed pup can follow the thread. Anyone making false entries have to first con the owner of the stud dog and then lie to the KC, OK they may get away with it but surely people in the breed who have an interest in the breed and not just their own plans will be well aware of what is going on. Guess it is more of a problem in breeds where there are a lot of breeders or breeders who do not register the whole litters but in most breeds it must be the best thing we have and should be supported by all those who care about the dogs they produce.

Hi Jackie,  Perhaps if you are in a small breed you dont see the size of the problem with KC reg too - look in a BRS under Golden retreivers or Cavaliers and you will see the very uneven registration pattern.  And remember that a whole lot of the puppy farms have their own stud dogs, so convincing a dogs owner does not even come into it.  I have seen Cavalier 5 generation pedigrees, for KC registered dogs, without a single affixed name, and none traceable back to any health tests either!There appears to be a fair percentage of them from the Aberdeen area (or was a few years ago)  In these pedigrees the same 2 or 3 dogs would appear over and over again.  However, the KC has been happy to accept the fees for each subsequent generation.  I totally agree that DLRC is most likely a sign that the buyer should beware in a big way, but KC reg.  is certainly not enough to dispel all worries.  I repeat - the info on a KC certificate is only as accurate as that given by the breeder.

The new Breeder scheme sounded interesting, but the bits I read seemed to rely largely on the applicant agreeing to abide by various codes of conduct - will be interesting to see how it will be policed, if at all.  Can anyone remember if one of the proposals was that all breeding stock should be health tested?  I dont remember seeing that bit, but would hope it would be a prime requirement.
bye
Gwen

Yes Gwen, the scheme does require that participating breeders do all the recommended health-screening tests for their respective breeds.

I think that all the time there are people out there who buy puppies without doing the necessary research there will be registrations such as dog lovers.Some People are gullible and some buy on impulse resulting in buying puppies from irresponsible breeders who don't health check and who register with whoever will have them and are cheapest.
You wouldn't buy a new car which you were hoping would last you 10 years without doing loads of research and checks on its reliability and suitability would you yet people get up one morning decide they want a dog and buy whatever takes their fancy!
Archer

A common cross for the puppy farmers is Welsh Springer bitch & cavalier dog Large litters the right colour, can be sold early as they look like older cavalier puppies , & the buyers don't notice until the puppy doesn't stop growing