hello, i have just tried to reply to a few of the posts from yesterday, but the thread seems to be closed. i was a little upset at some of the posts which i felt were critisizing both myself, and amyleigh, funnily enough, a lot of them were posted AFTER i left the forum, and therefore wasnt able to defend myself, but im not prepared to stoop to the level of some people on here, and i shall rise above it by ignoring the childish and rude comments. ;-(
with regard to the DLRC the reason i used them in the past (as ive allready stated , but people only seem to hear what they WANT to hear so ill repeat it!!) was because our dogs were pedigreed and came from pedigreed parents who were not registered. the reason we used them is because they had an advert in the paper, and we noticed whilst browsing the same paper's pets column, that almost as many puppies were DLRC reg as KC reg, the only difference seemed to be price charged for registration. I now understand that there seems to be some kind of link to puppy farmers, but i would really like to point out that the kennel club accept registrations from breeders also, and they do NO checks to see if the breeders are good or bad, nor do they alert anyone to check if a premises is licensed or not when they receive large numbers of registrations from a particular breeder. in fact, the KC do NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING to check out breeders credentials, they just take the breeders money! puppy farmed puppies have turned up in vets across the country with KC papers and registration, so ALL of the blame does not lie with the DLRC. in our experience, they provided a quick, cheap service and we used them for this reason, not to up the selling price, not because we are puppy farmers, and not for any other dodgy reason!!! I have received a couple of private mesages, some saying they agree with my post about people sometimes being rude, others asking how to go about getting DLRC registration!!!! (i am new to this forum though and have no idea how to reply, sorry to all of you who have messaged me!!! ;-)

I agree the KC is probably in the 'best' position to know who the puppy farmers are but probably wont do much about it as some puppy farmers do well at shows and are supposedly respected breeders.
However, one thing the KC has that DLRC will not have is over 100 years of pedigree records. If the dog is not KC reg it has to under go one lengthy process to do so if they accept it. The DLRC does not and will accept whatever you say.
Regardless as to what DLRC may say they were originally started from the Mayfield Kennels/Dogs r US huge puppy supermarket. If you want to support puppy farming then use them!

Jesse

you do have a point. i cant argue with that! ;-) (can i just say how refreshing it is to have someone who can put their point across WITHOUT being rude, or aggressive, and WITHOUT making nasty remarks once the poster has left the forum (some of us do have lives you know!!! hehe!!;-) ) thanks for that, you have given me food for thought, in future, when I get a new bitch, and possibly breed from her, i will probably not use either organisation, both seem to have their corrupt elements!

Hi...we can't tell if you have left the forum or not I'm afraid....people come and go all day but there is no way to tell if anyone is online or not :)

Hi Pauliedee,

I understand completely what you say about the KC not checking breeders etc, and certainly in an ideal world they would. However, neither do DLRC. The KC has rules about how often bitches can have litters, how young/old she should be etc, and will refuse registration to those who break the rules. The DLRC has no such rules. The KC will only register pups from already registered parents of the same breed. The DLRC has no such scruples. The owners of KC registered dogs are not allowed to sell puppies to commercial outlets - the DLRC was originated by a commercial outlet!

As for it being good value at half the cost of KC registration, if I charged a mere £3 for sending out 'Registration certificates' for the JG Dog Registry, would that make mine even better value? It would certainly have as much validity as DLRC.

Sadly a lot of people believe that one registry is as good as another - but unfortunately (or fortunately for the puppy farmers) they are mistaken. I hope you manage to find the pup/s you want, and will be very happy with them. But please don't waste your money on spurious bits of paper - it won't make your dog any happier!
:)

thanks, your replies have given me something to think about! were hopefully going to see a litter of irish staffords later this week, so i hope to have a new pup, it will be good to hear the patter of tiny paws again! ;-)

Hi Pauliedee, sorry if my post was one of the ones you thought was getting at you, but it was in fact a genuine interest in why people used this - I could never understand why anyone would pay £6 for something they could just print off themselves to have as much validity.  And I agree with yhou about anyhone being able to register with the KC - just check some of my previous posts when time and again I have reminded feellow posters that telling peopole to only look at KC reg pups is not the be all and end all in assuring a quality dog.  An unscrupulous breeder has numerous ways to get around the regs.  However, conversely, it is the only option a good, caring, serious breeder has - catch 22.
bye
Gwen

<The owners of KC registered dogs are not allowed to sell puppies to commercial outlets>

What it states is the following:

If a person registers a litter with the KC they agree to not sell the puppies to a wholesaler or dealer.

This ruling is certainly not abided by by many breeders (both Licensed and unlicensed) supplying puppies to retail outlets. I could give you a long list of breeders who register their puppies with the KC and sell to wholesalers and dealers (pet shop licence holders) you would be surprised who does.

If you have proof of this then send it to the KC and keep doing it until they take notice.

Jesse

Hi Pat,

The actual wording of the General Code of Ethics, applying to "owners of all Kennel Club Registered dogs", paragraph 9, is that "Owners will not sell any dog to commercial dog wholesalers, retail pet dealers or directly or indirectly allow dogs to be given as a prize or donation in a competeition of any kind."

They don't have to be the ones to have registered the litter - just be the owner. And I'm sure there are many who break this rule. But at least the rule is there, and action may be taken. It sure as eggs are eggs won't matter to any other registry.
:)

DLRC - anyone can send them any "pedigree" information and provided it is accompanied by money they will send you a piece of paper back with the information you have supplied on it.  Anyone could do this and call themselves a registration service.  There need be no truth (and frequently isn't from the ones I have seen) in the pedigree and the DLRCwon't release the information to anyone other than the person originally paying the fee.  I could fill in a pedigree for my puppies listing all the current top dogs and champions and they would send me back a piece of paper accepting this.

Kennel Club provide a registration service for purebred dogs going back generations.  Anyone can purchase accurate information from them and it will be the same each time - nor is the information hidden.  They are not perfect by any means but they do provide accurate breeding information which people can trust (as much as humans are trustworthy)

Therefore IMO the DLRC registrations as worthless as the paper they are printed on except to people wishing to con puppy buyers that they are getting more than they actually are.  The KC registrations, even if provided by puppy farmers at least provide an accurate ancestor list and to many of us are more than just a list of names but is a list of actual dogs who we have seen or researched

well, youve hit the nail on the head!! there arent many trustworthy humans about these days!! thanks for all your feedback, youve made me think twice about using them again! ;-)

glad that you have thought about it and realised that maybe the DLRC isn't all they say they are!  Anyone can be misled by them if you don't know the ins and outs.

Hopefully know you understand why there are so many people on this board who don't like the DLRC.  But please don't have ago at everyone who disagrees with you.

Rox

Hi Kerioak,  Whislt I agree about the intentions of the KC registry, the point I keep making is that the KC only provides an accurate ancestory in line with information given.  IE They can verify the parentage and ancestory for the Dog and Bitch names/numbers given to them.  also dates of birth, numbers of pups etc - all supplied by breeder.  therfore whilst it is the best we have, and essential if we want to show, breed etc., it is easily manipulated by the unscrupulous.  this is why I get scared when people replying to novice posters blithely tell them that the KC reg is a real validation.  If the breeder was dodgy then the reg may be as well!
bye
Gwen

Hi Gwen

The majority of people are honest when they submit their registrations - there is little, if anything, to be gained by doing otherwise especially as both dog and bitch owner have to sign the form.

If there are any discrepancies then there is always dna testing to prove parentage - perhaps this should be done to all breeding stock?

The majority of people who buy puppies are pet owners who will neither breed or show their dogs.  Most have bitches speyed and dogs neutered as guided by their vets so as I see it (and it is only my own opinion) the owners are more than happy to have a puppy that is registered with the DLRC.  They dont know any different so long as they get papers with their puppy.  It also helps with getting around some of the KC rules on breeding.  I know many bitches who at 8 years old are in their prime with regards to breeding but within the KC rules can no longer be bred from.  I am NOT saying that bitches should be bred from at this age but accidents can and do happen but the KC will not register these puppies (only in special circumstances).

IMO The DLRC is a commercial enterprise that does nothing but make money for itself and provide unsuspecting and naive new puppy owners with "papers" that are worthless. The people who run it are clearly very smart, because they have found a niche to make a lot of money out of pieces of paper. So, a puppy is registered with the DLRC - so what?

I quite agree with you.  Wish I had had the foresight to think of it.....lol.  But as I said before the majority of new puppy owners are pet owners who will do nothing more with their dog than have it as a family pet and are quite happy with the papers that they get. Worthless or not.

I agree - I wish I had thought of it aswell! :D

But what about the breeders who make out that a pup is worth more because its "registered" and with "papers"...only the papers they have are worthless...isn't that unethical? If there are breeders who charge the same for a DLRC pup as an unregistered pup, then I can see the argument with registering with the DLRC...but if the pup costs more....then that, to me, is being very economical with the truth ;)

Your right there.  The prices shoulld not be the same as KC registered puppies.  But then people who are buying puppies purely as pets wouldnt know the difference and in all probabilty not care any way. 

I'm designing a template for the JG Dog Register certificates as we speak ... only £5 each, no questions asked ... ;)

One of the reasons for showing a dog is not to say "my dog is better than your dog" but to say "my dog is consistently placed, and is therefore near enough to the breed standard to be suitable for breeding and perpetuate the breed".  After being involved with showing your breed for a good many years, then perhaps you get your eye in and can be objective when assessing your own dogs.  People who work their dogs or do obedience or agility use a different criteria when assessing their potential breeding dogs.
Everyone thinks that their dog is the best - and so they should.  That doesn't, however, mean that it is a good enough specimen of the breed to produce typical offspring.  If well-meaning folk with untypical dogs, breed on with similar dogs belonging to the man down the road (they've usually got a pedigree as long as your arm - or have a Champion 4 generations back! ;) ) the progeny 3 generations down the line, will bear little resemblance to the breed.  Now you may say that doesn't matter "for a pet" although when I hear that said I find that comment quite offensive because I see no reason why someone wanting "just a pet" shouldn't own a typical looking dog, sound in body and mind.
That is why in the grooming parlour, I see cocker spaniels with course heads, slab sided bodies and no bend of stifle; Yorkies the size of cockers and ears nearly to match, with woolly coats like candy floss that have to be clipped - a well bred Yorkie with a correct coat doesn't need a £22 clip every 8 weeks!; Westies the size of donkeys with Queen Anne legs, red and sensitive skin under constant Veterinary treatment, who's only similarity to a Westie is that they are white and have 4 legs, a head and a tail.  Many are born with congenital and hereditary defects which cause the dog much suffering and the new owner a lot of worry and expense, because the well-meaning puppy producer, quite understandably, would have no knowledge that there are problems behind their beloved dog.
I agree that the Kennel Club could do more to stop puppy farming but at least you can check that your dog's ancestors have all been registered as the correct breed.  Not perfect but at least a start!  With DLRC you could send in the name of a Great Dane sire, a Yorkie dam, and register the puppies as Labradors (sorry John!) and nobody would be the wiser.
I hope the general public will now have a little more knowledge when looking for their next companion, and see that it's not a good idea to buy an unregistered pup. 

Hi Molly1
Sorry, but I disagree.  I am a pet owner who does not intend to breed or show, however I would not be happy with a DLRC registered pup.  Fortunately, I did know the difference before I bought my pup, but I would have felt conned had a bought a DLRC registered pup and found out the difference afterwards.  On what information do you base the comment that pet owners are more than happy to have a DLRC registered puppy.  Sorry, but talking to new owners whose dogs were registered with DLRC all, without exception, thought it was as valid as KC registration.   Many people are happy to have an unregistered puppy and there's nothing wrong with that, but DLRC registration is purporting to be something it isn't.
regards, Jenny

Didnt state that pet owners were more than happy to have a DLRC puppy.  Said that most were happy to have papers with their puppy.  I do register my puppies with the KC but on checking the KC breeds supplement book that is issued every 3 months with all kc registrations and transfers recorded in it.  You would be surprised to see how many puppies that have been sold have NEVER been transferred into the new owners name.  I must officially own many dogs of all ages.  So tell me what use is KC registrations for these owners.

I can see your point Molly but my girl is kc reg and we did transfer her over to our name but to be honest just to know she came from kc reg dogs was enough as she isn't going to be shown and is merely a pet but at least i have proof, so i can understand if some don't bother to change ownership.

Molly huge numbers of people come on this board questioning the DLRC papers they have. Whilst many people buy a puppy with no intention of breeding or showing this isn't always the case. I bet most people on here started off with a 'pet' popped along to a few exemption shows thought they'd go a bit further and so on before the showing bug bites. If they have a DLRC reg dog they can't take it further. Many people are disappointed with having a DLRC reg dog and some are disappointed with the 'quality' of the dog they have although wont love them any less!

Jesse

Jesse.  I am not in favour of the DLRC but hopefully trying to get some valid points across.  Yes I am sure that some people are unhappy with the quality of their DLRC puppy but not all KC registered puppies are of show quality either.

<< so as I see it (and it is only my own opinion) the owners are more than happy to have a puppy that is registered with the DLRC>>.  Sorry, Molly, I obviously read this wrong.  Whilst I appreciate what you are saying about KC registrations and transfers (and no, it would not surprise me - I confess, it took me three months to transfer my pup!) it does not make DLRC an acceptable alternative.  Whilst, not infallible, the KC registration (even if I never transferred pup into my name) reasurres me that my dog's pegree is genuine (I realise this can be open to abuse, but I think this is probably the exception rather than the rule), I can trace it back through the records, and details of any health tests carried out on my pups sire, dam etc.  Are any of these things available with DLRC?  Sadly, its people who don't know who are being conned into thinking DLRC registration is as valid as KC registration whilst DLRC is making money from issuing a piece of paper that anyone who has a PC could produce.
best wishes, Jenny

Hi kerioak,  Sorry, but must disagree.  Yes I think the majority are honest, but a substantial minority abuse the system terribly - look at any breed record supplement under the popular breeds, eg golden Rets, Cavs, etc.  This is why I get worried when people post and assure newbies that KC registration is sort of "impregnable".  And as some one else just said there are many and various ways of cheating the system, all with defiinite benefits to the unscrupulous breeder.  And again repeating, most pups do go to pet homes, who are just happy to get the lovely new bit of paper guaranteeing the wonderful ancestry fo the dog!  I dont think this is a reason for not using the Kc, and even less do I think it a reason to use DLRC.  I think people are often misguided as to the actual accuracy of any given KC registration.  Look at the form you fill in, and the bit you get back - it clearly state info only as accurate as that which was submitted!  Of course DNA testing could disprove a lot of it, but how many pet owners would be aware of it?  They have no reason to doubt there dogs ancestry.  So, to say it once again -it is only as accurate as the breeder submits.  A lot of puppy farms own both the dog and bitch,  so a second signatory is not a problem.  I have heard of paperwork being shared around, people siging forms when no bitch was mated etc, etc.  If these people are as uncaring about the welfar of the animals they look after, they surely dont pay a lot of attention to the veracity of a document!  And after all, the KCs punishment if they were found out would be a fine and a ban.  Simply carry on breeding with a bunch of equally inaccurate paperwork in another family members name!

We good breeders have to use the system, its database is excellent, its stated purpose is good, it just has this problem with the middle ground.  Dont know if it is due to being scared of restrictive trade practice type things, or they just like the cash which rolls in.
Not sure how happy we would be with the sort of checks and restriction they have in the Netherland, though, perhaps some sort of mid way would be possible
bye
Gwen 

I don't think it will be long before the KC will insist on DNA paternity testing of all puppies prior to registration.

Jesse

Perhaps we should go the same way as the AKC have done - sire to be dna tested if registering 5 or more litters - personally I would not object to dna testing my dogs - provided the cost was kept to a minimum of course

To follow this thought along a bit and totally off the original topic - just think, if all breeding stock was dna registered then strays and dogs in rescue could be traced back to their breeders!

<<<<!!! I have received a couple of private mesages....  (i am new to this forum though and have no idea how to reply, sorry to all of you who have messaged me!!! )>>>>

Hmmm you seemed to manage ok when you were PMing ME with your insults !!!

That doesn't suprise me lel.

Hi again, JepPs reply that her KC registration "reassures her that her dogs pedigree is accurate"  is just what I am talking about.  It only assures accuracy as far as the breeders go.  If you have an unreliable breeder (and I am not for a minute suggesting this is the case with Jen P as I havent got a clue about her dog) it does not guarantee this.  Give you a little illustration - and this is not a puppy farmer but a breeder who showed and judged.  People contacted us to give an opinion of their first show dog.  Had traveled the length of the country to get her, worked hard at getting her ring ready, loved her to bits, but wanted an expert opinion.  The breeder was an aquaintance of ours, almost a friend, no axe to grind.  The little bitch was very average - certainly not show quality by the time she had reached a year old.  We did a very kind, constructive critique of her for them,  pointing out her failings gently, and making them aware of her good points.  Then they showed us her pedigree, as there next step was going to be to consider breeding from her, when the time came, and using a dog to improve on her weaknesses.  It came as a bit of a shock, as one of the bitches grandfathers was a dog we knew well, and had certainly no longer been mating bitches at the time he was meant to have sired the mum!  What should we do?  We got them to check with the breeder if it was not just a slip of the pen (it happens, remember before you had a PC writing out 8 identical 5 gen peds?)  It wasnt.  She rang us, laughing, to say that she had had a green form from the dog, signed, and from a previous mating, to a different bitch who did not take.  She had used this when a close relative misalliance took place!  She then bred on from this bitch, resulting in the bitch we looked at.  We told the people that we would not be happy using any of our dogs on her, as there was a query like this, and they understood.  They were new in the breed and didnt want to make waves.  However they carried on showing her, and at a Ch show down south got into conversation with someone who said word to the effect "guess what, I bred your bitch".  Confused they asked for an explanation.  Simple, she had had a bitch on terms from the breeder, bred the litter, and they reg. it with the original breeders affix.  common practice, and not a problem.  However, she went on to say, having read the catalogue, she was surprised that the breeder had registered that particular dog as the pups sire!  Apparently she had been mated by 2 dog during the season, the agreement being to see what colours the pups where and pick who to register them to!  In view that this bitch was black this woman was fairly sure the other dog must be the sire!

This is 2 errors in the first 3 generations of this bitches registered pedigree history.  She wont be bred from, in fact is about to be speyed.  The owners were upset, but didnt take it any further - not into litigation.  But how about her litter mates?  have any of them had pups?

A KC reg. is a useful, valuable document if accurate, just lets not imbue it with more meaning than it can guarantee.
bye
Gwen

But at least they found out through showing, many people with DLRC reg dogs would never know. Can the breeder not be prosecuted for doing that Gwen?

I am sure they could be , if the bitches owners had wanted to take the matter up.  Instead they just felt cheated and let down, but were unwilling to make waves in the new world of dog showing.  This is going back a few years now, bitch has been a pet for the last couple of years, and will be speyed this year.  The only way they found out is becasue they did show - if the rest of the litter went as pets those people probably dont know now!  Am not in any way trying to promote the DLRC - as I said before, might as well just print your own certificate.  Just dont want people to put blind faith in the KC certificate.  To repeat, only as accurate as the breeders info supplied.  People keep posting that they are sure the majority of dogs registered with the KC have accurate details, and I certainly hope this is the case, but an awful lot are registered with them each year, leaving room for even a small percentage to be significant in numbers.  Need to make people aware that just the fact of KC registration is not a guarantee, although DLRC is almost certainly an indication to beware!
bye
Gwen

<<<DLRC is almost certainly an indication to beware!>>>
I'll agree with that

They must have felt awful when they found out. :(

Why not have all dogs identifiable including breeding bitches, stud dogs and exspecially puppies before being sold - it is time that all individuals that breed a litter of puppies were made legally responsible for identification.

Why? Because there are far too many puppies bred too many dogs unwanted, too many dogs in rescue and too may dogs get destroyed. This over breeding has got to stop. The only way I can see there is likely to be an improvement is if all puppies and dogs were identifiable and if puppies were NOT allowed to be sold from third parties ie pet shop licence holders premises. Can anyone else make any better suggestions?

Couldn't agree more. I think ALL puppies should be permenantly identified and registered in the name of the BREEDER first before being transfered to the new owners. That way all puppies could be traced back to their breeder. I think there are many of us on this board that either tattoo or microchip all their pups before they go anyway so this would be no hardship!!

Jesse