I bought my bitch puppy at the age of 4½ months the breeder had sold her to someone and she was not suitable for her to keep so i took her on.  The breeder had sent the paperwork back to the KC to be put back in her name and there was no mention to me of breeding restrictions and no sight of paperwork.  When the paperwork came to me i noticed the progeny not eligable for registration so i phoned the breeder and queried this as i  had told her when i purchased the puppy that i would like her to breed her.  She said not to worry that as long as i had her hip and eye tested and the results were ok she would lift them.  I had all this done and just after she was a year old i took her back to see the breeder with the documents she was happy with her health and said she would send me the letter asap.  after a couple of months i emailed her and asked where my letter to lift restrictions was as i had not received it, she emailed saying that she had not made herself clear that she only sends the letter when the bitch is ready for breeding, Now i was going to use one of her stud dogs but at 18 months old my bitch had still not had her first season the vet had suggested that maybe she was having silent seasons so i got a stud to stay with us for a while to cover her as he would be the only one able to tell.  The breeder had even suggested this.  well 8 weeks ago bingo she came into season and we are a week away from having puppies but still no letter from the breeder to lift restrictions despite several conversations in person and by email each time promising to send the letter.  the latest one stated that it only takes a week to lift them well i only have a week left.  Now as i cannot use the dogs for the purpose they are bred for (Husky racing) without KC registration (they have to be registered to be able to race) i'm now stuffed.  Does anyone have any ideas on what i can do next.  I am a member of the breed club (breeder is not to my knowledge and have heard many worrying stories about this breeder since chatting to many others in the club) I have kept all emails from her promising to lift them would this be a good enough case with the KC to lift them.  Is there anyway of warning others? Will the KC do anything to stop her selling her puppies in this manner?  Any input you may have would be appreciated Thanks..

I would contact the KCas soon as possible. The KC will not sustain the endorsement if the breeder does not have a signed letter from you agreeing to the endorsement.

Hi
This can be a very sticky situation.. the best thing to do is contact the KC - although they don't usually get involved, unless, as in your case the restriction wasn't made clear to you at the time of sale. Good luck.

hi guest i was just wondering what the breeders kennel name is and where she is from??

Hi Guest,

Can you join Champdogs so you can PM me? Would like to know more, have friends in a similar situation.

Could you PM me as well and I'll try and find out if the breeder has a habit of doing this. I know quite a few in racing/showing. What area was the bitch bred from?
On another note. When I bred my bitch I also put 'restrictions' on the pups.
I had owners sign a contract accepting the conditions.
One particular pup was re-sold, without my knowledge, even though she was meant to come back to me if the owner was unable to keep her. The 'new' owner then had her mated, without being hipped and eyed, then contacted me and expected me to lift restrictions because the bitch was in pup.
I went to see the bitch, she was in excellent condition and the pups were 5 weeks old.  I found out the owner had used a sire far too closely related. This had originally been a line breeding. I did agree, on principal, to lift restrictions if the bitch was eyed and hipped until the owner showed me the paperwork the original owner had given her. There was the 'contract' so this woman knew the bitch was restricted. I had added into the contract that the bitch, under no cicumstances, should be bred back into the line. This woman was trying it on. I contacted the Sires breeder and he also had restrictions as he was from a line with cataracts(the Sire's Sire so the cataracts weren't in 'my' bitch). There was no way his breeder would lift restrictions. Ultimately the pups were sold unregistered.
This was 4.5 years ago. I recently picked up an escapee husky bitch. It turned out to be a pup from this litter. The woman had kept her and then 'got rid' when the pup was 18 months. This pup was lucky she has a good loving family, even if she did escape accidents happen, I am worried what happened to the other pups though.

All this just to state there are good and bad on both sides of this issue.

I know someone who's bitch has just had a litter, it was an accidental mating between his dog and bitch - they didnt know she was pregnant until she had 5 pups on the kitchen floor whilst they were out

Anyway, the bitch has an endorsement against her pedigree which they didnt realise (not that they were planning to breed) the bitches breeder (who is a well known breeder in the breed I believe) has told them they will have to give the pups to breed rescue to be homed and she will not be lifting the endorsement.   How would he go about finding out if this can be lifted ?  as far as he knew there wasnt an endorsement.

Did they know the dogs had mated? If not, then the pups would all need DNA testing to make sure of their parentage anyway.

Thats a thought that didnt occur to me :)

Although they didnt see the mating their boy is definitely the dad because they only have two dogs, they arent excercised near other dogs and they are kept indoors.  But yes I suppose to sign the KC forms they would technically be lying because they didnt see the mating actually take place.

If he genuinely didn't know there were restrictions and didn't buy the bitch form the breeder then he 'may' be able to do something about it.
If I were the bitch/sires breeder and the litter weren't from related dogs and that both parents had relevant health checks then I would probably lift the restrictions for this litter but that's not always the case.
If he bought the bitch from the breeder then I assume they told him of the restrictions.

Other than that.

1. The bitches breeder cannot tell him to 'give' the pups to rescue.
2. He wasn't taking much notice of his bitch if she was pregnant and he couldn't tell. I know some bitches hide it well but that late in a pregnancy with 5 pups I'm sure there was some signs.
3. Why did he not notice she was in season?
4. I never fully beleive when an owner says it was an accident when they own an entire dog and an entire bitch in the same house.
5. If he wasn't intending to breed why did he have two entire dogs, of opposite sexes, of the same breed in the house together.

Again it's two sides to every story isn't it. He was either lax in his care of the bitch or he's telling porkies and expects the bitches breeder to lift restrictions because the pups are already there.
I would look at every aspect, as a breeder, then do what was best for the pups. Definitely not rescue as they have enough with genuine rescues without being dumped with irresponsibly bred pups.

If I didnt know the people involved then yes I would think the same as you, its a long story and i dont wish to put it on the www ;) 

I dont know why they had two dogs of a different sex but they were both from the same breeder (not related) and im thinking the breeder might have recommended one of each in the belief they might get on better than two of the same sex.  They got the dogs to show but due to personal circumstances had to stop.  Yes they knew the bitch was in season, they definitely didnt want to breed so they didnt intentionally let the dog near her but I dont think they were as responsible as they could have been.  They thought the bitch was pregnant and took her to the vet who confirmed that she wasnt and was probably having a phantom

I can personally understand the breeder not wishing to lift the restrictions but seeing as this is definitely a one off I was just wondering if there was some way of getting them lifted through the kennel club? :)

Have the dogs both had all the relevant health checks? If they have not, there is no way that I would consider lifting the endorsement.

If the endorsement was lifted without full health checks with valid pass certificates, in my mind you are not being fair to the potential puppy owners.

The public expect KC registered puppies to be of a certain standard, without health checks this clearly is not true. The average purchaser does not know much about health schemes and could be easily duped by the KC registration status.

If the puppy subsequently develops a genetic defect that is usually screened by the KC health schemes and the purchaser has the non-tested status brought to their attention, the potential for legal action to recover any expenses plus costs is very real.

The 'Breeders' can still sell the puppies without the endorsement being lifted, they will not receive such a good price for the puppies but that is just tough. The owners should also make the purchasers fully aware of the non-registered, non-tested status of their puppies and to sign a disclaimer to protect againt future litigation.

Perhaps this will make the owners a bit more responsible in the future.

snomaes

Finally got my password to join thanks for replying to my add I am currently writing to the KC in the hope that they will lift the restrictions I don't really want to put the breeders name up as she may come on here and get the right hump with me, and if the KC don't lift them then i will be really stuck.

Hi D4wn i would pm you if i new how!!

Its not so much that I wasn't told at the time I don't think the KC should lift restrictions automaticly unless the tests have been done on the dogs, it would be pointless putting restrictions on them, the fact that they don't contact the breeder to find out if the purchasers signed a contract which stated the restrictions and what they need to do to have them lifted.  After all in the cases the KC are just taking the purchasers word for it and not confirming it with the breeder which I agree is completely wrong.  I wish to sell some of my puppies and will also place restrictions on them and i will keep a copy of the signed contract which will state the restrictions but as you say if the KC just lift them will nilly then whats the point!
I don't wish to undermine the breeder but would like her to keep to her word as i have mine, its seems she is just stringingme along because I didn't use her stud dog.

I do wish we would stop telling people to 'fight' restrictions & go to the KC and argue etc.  Restrictions are there for a reason, they don't have to be added and lets face it it is more likely good rather than bad breeders that put them on.

We then only hear one side of an arguement, normally from someone with pups on the ground, or in this case, by the sound of it rather a young bitch in whelp who is suddenly realising they possibly shouldn't have bred :rolleyes:

I agree with you Sarah but if breeders don't apply restrictions correctly (ie get proof that they have made purchasers aware of restrictions) then they cannot expect the restriction to be upheld. Unfortunately, there are breeders who do abuse the system - for whatever strange reason they may have for doing so.

I agree with you too Anwen :-)    It is very difficult to keep up with all the legislation the KC chops and changes about with, some people still believe you 'have' to have the registrations papers as the pups leave for this to be effective.

It is the same with showing, how new people can 'understand' everything the KC throws at us is beyond me :-)

The breeder may lift them anyway so I tend to agree not to panick yet.  A lot of breeders wait till the puppies are actually born before sending the letter.  :-)

If you breed before getting the breeders agreement to lift the endorsment then you can hardly expect the breeder to do so! If it happened to me then I would be of the opinion that the owner of the bitch was attempting to blackmail me into lifting it.

Regards, John

John :-) I am hoping you never misunderstood me, sorry if my wording was not the best , I was mearly saying that in most case ( or ones that I know of which are done by reputaable breeders ) when the puppy was sold with the endorsements an agreement was in place   for them to be lifted at a later date , then the breeder will do so once the puppies are there .

I have had 2 bitches bought with their endorsements on them and I do the same with my puppies also.

With both bitches, the breeder sent the letter to the KC around the time of the puppies birth and CC'd it to me . Of course these were bitches that the breeder and I had a trustworthy agreement made. I never had to need for the endorsements to be lifted before the puppies were there and I didn't have to stalk the breeder neither. The matings were discussed and agreed well ahead of time.

Hope that makes sense.

Pam

Those circumstances are fine Pam, no problem at all. The ones I take issue with are the people who either allow their dog to get pregnant or actually mate their dog purposely then contact the breeder and plead ignorance of the endorsement.

A friend sold a puppy. At the time of the sale she informed the puppy buyer of the endorsement, the reason for it and the circumstances on which she would lift the endorsement. She then got the puppy buyer to sign a purchasing contract which detailed what she had said concerning the endorsement. A year or so later she was surprised to find that bitch listed in the BRS as the dam of a litter of puppies. She contacted the KC for an explanation and was told that because she never told the bitch owner about the endorsement the KC had no alternative but to lift it! She then sent a copy of the agreement to the KC who replied that as the puppies were now registered there was nothing they could do!!! Needless to say, she was not amused with either the KC or her puppy buyer. She had done everything by the book and the KC let her down. There is also another scam which I hear about from time to time to get the endorsements removed without the breeder knowing but obviously I am not going into details here.

Regards, John

I cannot believe that these endorsments are not more strongly enforced.  I would hope that you all put them on your pups and I also hope it would take an exceptional circumstance for them to be lifted.  I hear lots of negative publicity about the KC and this seems to back it up.

There is a well known saying Golden, "When you are up to your behind in alligators it is difficult to remember that the object of the exercise is to drain the swamp!"

The KC handles thousands of registrations each quarter. Sometimes they have to make decisions on the fly. Sometimes they make a wrong call. It is sad when something like this happens because it undermines the whole scheme. But think of it the other way. Supposing you brought a puppy without being told and did not have the experience or knowledge to check the paperwork. You would feel very aggrieved and cheated.

We must be open and above board about endorsements and by the same token, we must shout from the tree tops if the KC does not back us up over it.

Regards, John

Agree with you John, I think the Kennel club jump from one end of the spectrum to the other without consistancy at all.

I don't know how I would feel if it were my puppy bitch and that happened.  Lot to be said about forgetting breeding altogether.

BFn Pam

I had a similar thing happen to me with  two bitch pups I sold. I told the owner that they had restrictons and showed them on the 'papers'. I explained, all verbally, what the restrictions entailed and under what circumstances I would allow them to be lifted.
Less than 18 months later I found out both bitches had been bred. To their uncle. the litters were registered as the owners said I had not told them of the restrictions and the KC lifted them according to the owners story. I was never contacted by either the KC or the owners before the pups were registered. there was nothing I could do about it at the time, it was a few years ago, maybe things have changed.
I then started to have the owners sign a contract  explaining everything on the 'papers' and the fact that the pups would need to be hipped and eyed before any restrictions would be lifted. Also that any results had to be satisfactory.
I still had the owner of one of my pups try and 'con' me into lifting restrictions. As another poster said the pups were 'on the floor' so the owner thought, wrongly, that I would automatically lift the restrictions. There were other reasons for not lifting them also.
I have become despondent( don't know if thats the right word) with the KC that I would never consider breeding another litter of pups again and now have all my animals neutered.

D4WN, Hi i had the same thing happen to me, i did have a contract though signed by the people who bought the bitch to say they knew of her breeding restrictions as she was overshot...........the KC however did still lift the breeding restrictions & said the contract did not mean a thing because the bitch was now registered in the peoples sisters name!!!!!!!!!The contract only stands between the 2 original parties & does not stand if the dog is sold or given to another person. Also the KC told me 'i' was not the member of the KC the 'dog' was. Sometimes i wonder why the hell we bother with the KC as they really are a law unto themselves & will do anything if it means them making money. These people have went on to breed 3 litters from the bitch & all are KC registered puppies.

Not the case at all this breeder has promised since the beginning of the year to lift the restrictions I did as was asked had her hip scored and eye tested (none of which is cheap) with every intention of breeding which is why the restrictions are placed to protect the breed from defects which i perfectly understand.  had i not done the tests then i could accept your comments but i am not trying to fight my restrictions I'm trying to abide by the rules. and a 2 year old dog is not to young to breed, I also race my Huskies which is why I wished to breed to build my team, the breeder does not use her dogs for racing or showing just making money!!!!!

in this case i think the breeder is just worried about someone else taking her buisness away, you seem like you know what your doing and have dogs best intrests, good luck!

while i agree with you "generally 2 sarah,i think in this  case the breeder has mislead the oringinal poster & now the OP finds herself in an impoossible situation. im glad shes kept all the emails as prroof that the breeder did intend to lift them.

Thought i'd let you all know what the KC have said:  Because there was no mention of the restrictions on the contract of sale the breeder has not abided by the KC regulations for the applictions of restrictions, they cannot lift the restrictions without first contacting the breeder for her comments, she has been given 14 days to reply with her comments, if no reply is made with proof they then send a recorded delivery letter informing her that they are lifting the restrictions she then has 7 days to respond!!
I am pleased that they at least contact the breeder to see whether or not I have signed a contract that states these restrictions (which i know she cant produce).
The KC were not interested in any other details except how the restrictions were applied the dog has to be in the breeders ownership at the time the restrictions were placed and there needs to be written confirmation of it.  If the dog is sold on theres not much you can do unless you sell the puppies under contract that they are returned to you (the breeder) if they are unable to keep the dog for any reason.  Although some say the contract is not legally binding you do stand a better chance of getting responsible purchasers.
Thanks for all your responses it has been very enlightening and i will be much more careful in the future where i buy  puppies from.