My breed goes back to Viking times - it doesn't stop them having a range of scores from 2-76!

My terriers, too, are traced back for over 200 years, but that doesnt mean that they will remain healthy for another 200. By the time clinical signs are spotted, a great deal of damage can have already occured in a numerically small breed.

My breed goes back hundreds of centuries and their breeders in their country of origin didn't think that there was a problem, wasn't until the UK and America and a couple of other countries started scoring them about 3 years ago that we realised there is a problem.  OK quite a few have low scores but 4 have scores that we could do without.

Until all breeds are scored then I'm sorry but nobody and I mean nobody can say that their dogs don't have HD!

our breed also has glaucoma problems, I hope that you realise that the drops for the normal eye test should never be put in before having a gonioscopy as if they are they can show a false score and make it appear that dogs without a problem have a problem!

I'm just going over the same ground again and again.  I am not saying any breed is 100% free of any problem in particular, just that as long as the apparant risk is outweighed by the evaluated risk of testing itself it is, in my view, sensible to go with that balance and the best people to evaluate that balance is the breed club.   Most people have their Dandies eyes tested at the sessions organised by the club where I am sure everything is done to the best advise of the Opthamic veterinary surgeon present on the day.

What breed do you have Fillis?  I'm not aware of many terrier breeds that are routinely hip scored.

Soft Coated Wheatens

Does your breed club recommend hip scoring?   Are they routinely hip scored anyway?  They are a rather bigger dog aren't they and perhaps don't carry the same level of anaesthetic risk so the risk/benefit is not going to be the same as a Dandie anyway.

Yes, especially for breeding stock. Most of the wheatens in breeding programmes are now scored, although of course, some are not. I didnt think that size of dog mattered when it came to risk of anaesthetic? Some breeds have a pre-disposition (many sight hounds, I believe, including greyhounds), and some do not, is how I understood it.

I didn't mean size as related to anaesthetic risk I meant in terms of hip problem risk :) the smaller breeds being generally more likely to be free of serious problems.  As your breed club recommends it I think it quite right that you do test but as mine does not I will continue to follow their guidance.

Well if you asked a questionthat can have severl reasons for eighter answear you should be willing to get those answears.I will happly take back any pup I have sold to rehome it.If a pup I sold did come done with an illness that was lifetreatning I would replace that pup,or refund the people.I keep in contact with all the people that I sell a pup to,I like to know how all pups are doing.I vet every person who come's to view my pups,and I can tell you straight I have turned a lot of people away.I end up haveing to keep onto pups for a lot longer,but I so far have had nothing go wrong.So my answear is YES.  I have taken in other vpeople's dogs that were unwanted and rehomed them in the past.And they were nothing to do with my dogs.I have even taken in some stray cats at one time and got them good home's.And I ain't even a cat person.

This is a two edged sword, if you join you are joining people who you consider breed too many dogs, as well as lowering your personnel standards, if you don't and the KC decide to try to make the rules more exclusive the people they are going to ask what changes to implement, are those who are members not those stood outside the scheme wringing our collective hands and bemoaning the fact that it is not changing for the better and has puppy farmers in the scheme. We can exert more pressure from within than than from outside.

Another thing announced in the current edition of the Kennel Club gazette, is that DEFRA is looking at the Accredited Breeder Scheme. Why? It is worth thinking about.

I have told the gentleman at the KC why I am not joining :-)  I don't breed every year so would I just join when I have pups, renew membership every year regardless or what?

I haven't joined the Accredited Scheme because when I asked about one of the health requirements that I thought wasn't necessary, I received a reply that said I wasn't the only one (nor in only my breed!) who wasn't happy.  They planned to contact The Breed Clubs to discuss what they thought was necessary!!  I would have expected them to discuss with The Breed Clubs or Councils before initiating the scheme! :(

One of my reasons for not joining is that they will soon, if they don't already, require any stud dogs used in my breeding programme to be DNA tested.

This will restrict my options far too much in my opinion, as I do not always, like some people, jump on the bandwagon and use the latest champion.  In fact my Champion bitch is the result of using a dog that has never seen the inside of a show ring.

If and when they decide to rescind this ruling then I may but only may change my mind.  Although looking at the list of Accredited Border Terrier breeders there are even people in there who have never yet bred a litter.  If that is not strange then what is.

I have enquired and was told that as a stud dog owner who does not by the way own any bitches of breeding age, still join the scheme. My dog is already DNA registered with them and they are trying to get more dogs DNA identified.

If it helps stop puppy farmers in any way for example stealing registration details and registering litters fraudulently then DNA registering is a good thing.

I have no problem with my own dogs being DNA tested, but until this has become an acceptable thing to do and the majority of breeders do it, then what bothers me is how it will limit which dogs I can use in my breeding programme.

I totally agree that it will stop dogs names being used on any old bit of paper.  But I know for a fact that there are some good dogs out there that I may want to incorporate in my breeding programme, whose owners have no intention of DNA testing because they will only be used infrequently.

I suppose what really needs to be done is for it to be a compulsory part of breeding that all puppies are DNA tested before going to new homes.  That would solve the problem for me, but will take some years to implement fully.

Like a lot of things the KC do I think they have jumped into the Accredited Breeder idea without enough forethought.

When I mentioned people never having bred a litter, I was meaning novice owners, and it appears that you need no experience of anything to have Accredited Breeder status.  That IMO opinion makes a mockery of what they have called it.

>one of the health requirements that I thought wasn't necessary

They can't win can they? ;) :D

Yes they can Isabel.  They can ask for tests that are relevant to the breed and not ones that haven't been found for years!  Dr Jeff Sampson's reply says " Hopefully, this will identify some of the anomalies in the BVA schemes".  I've been eye testing for over 20 years but I'm not going to subject my dogs or my purse to unnecessary tests! :(

I do agree Val I hope they do sort it out with the breed club, as you say what a pity they were not guided by them in the first place :).  I just found it amusing because I have been debating the point elsewhere on this thread with others who believe unwarranted tests should be a requirement, well it seemed ironic to me :)

Thanks to everyone for their replies. Christine your views on it are about the same as mine.

I am watching with interest at the moment an accredited breeder's plans to have a litter from a dog with a MUCH too high hip score. Although I can understand the reason for the temptation in this case, I find it strange that accreditation only seems to require you to test but doesn't have a requirement for sensible results - or am I missing something?!?

M.

I'm not interested in it till a) they include BAER testing on their list and b) they make it cheaper to register pups if you're Accredited. At the moment there's no need to get the main test done for my breed, and there's absolutely no benefit in paying to be on this list.

Nope as the scheme stands now I object to it in principle. 

I would be expected to pay to join a scheme that doesn't even require me to do the things I have already always done, and the need to DNA test my dogs, adn for any stud I use to be so tested is a needlessly irksome imposition, all my dogs are ID'd by Tattoo and chip already.

Breeders who do things properly shouldn't be being made to pay to join some higher eschelon to prove that they do so, in fact these breeders should perhaps have reduced cost registration (after all they don't register the bulk of puppies).

I am not sure where this DNA profilling issue is coming from.  At the moment the scheme requires you to "Permanently identify breeding stock by DNA profile, microchip, or tattoo" and I can't find anything in the KC press releases to say there are any plans to change that.
Personally I would be worried if such a scheme was calling upon me to improve my practices and would be disappointed if that was the case with any Champdoggers :).  I'm sure the scheme is not perfect but I see supporting the scheme as being a means of raising the standard generally and a point in the right direction for buyers.

Hi Isabel

You are correct in what you say at the moment,but if you look at the KC Website underAccredited Breeders Scheme and Permanent Identification is does say in Paragraph 4 that there is a committment in the scheme to move to mandatory requirement for DNA testing for all breeding stock. 

Until they make up there minds whether this is what they are going to do I am not going to join the scheme.  I already do all that is required of me as detailed in the Accredited Breeders leaflet, as I have done for many years, so why should I pay to belong to a scheme which is going to possibly curtail my choice of genes in my breeding programme.

If I remember correctly, the DNA requirement was introduced at the start but removed (for the time being) when it was pointed out that breeding stock, at present, would be reduced to ridiculous levels. Personally, I feel that this scheme is just another way for the KC to make money, and can not and never will benefit people who breed the occasional litter. It is more for the big breeding kennels, and as such, will attract the wrong kind of breeder - after all who is going to police it?

I think the principle of positively identifying all breeding stock is a good one and it's not something other registries are ever likely to offer ;)  It not only ensures the veracity of a pedigree it helps prevent and jiggery pockery when it comes to health screening.  Profilling can cost as little as £15 when organised by clubs if push came to shove and I wanted to use a dog that had not been profilled and for some reason the owner did not want to spend any of their studs fee on it I would offer to pay it myself :) 

Isabel is correct they do not require a dog to be DNA registered. I have chosen that method of ID. I am sure it is the KC's idea to move more in this direction, but they will allow us time.

I agree with Isabel we do need to support the scheme, it may not be perfect but it is a new concept, and as I have so often said if you want to be consulted about changes to it, you should be a member, not an outsider, moaning about it. There was something in one of the magazines not so long ago saying something about the KC consulting breed clubs about the scheme.

I'd rather support and join the scheme than have the governemnt impose a licence scheme on me, which is what might happen, with the calls for clamp downs on dog cruelty, dog ownership and dog breeding, which some sectors of the media are exploring at the moment.

I have a paragraph in my puppy sales contact that states " If at anytime in the pups lifetime it needs to be rehomed due to change in owners circumstances the pup comes back to me ( the breeder) and I will either keep pup or re-home it .

I had one back two weeks ago, just for a weeks holiday, its good to see how they turn out. Getting her back at New year for a week as owners going away. Its a holiday for the pup as well. LOL!!!

Just out of interest,how many of those of you that WILL take pups back,give a full refund and at what age limit would this apply to,or would you always give full refunds even to say,10, 12 year olds.I,by the way would ALWAYS take a pup back although(touchwood) i have never yet had the need to, although this is clearly stipulated in my contract.Also when you ask new owners to sign contracts regarding bringing their pups back to breeder,do you clearly state when they sign this agreement,whether they actually get all or some of their money back?

Yes, I will always take a pup back at any age until I reckon I'm too infirm to cope, then I will help with rehousing as an intermediary.

I would only offer a proportion of the money paid if the dog were young, say under 18 months.    Think you need to assess the whole situation and the reason for the rehome - no cut and dried one-rule-fits-all scenario.

In addition I will rehome any pups my dogs have sired  wherever practical - luckily has only happened once, and that thanks to a sharp eyed Champdogger!

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

I've never given any money back, but I suppose I would if necessary. My breed has no resale value over 12 months!!!

If the only way to get the dog back would be to refund, I would, but I do put a "sliding scale" re age in my contract. I would hope that anyone bringing back a mature dog would realise that a refund would not be on the cards, but then, there's always a "chancer" :(

i think it would be a idea to offer SOME money back,as then the person may be less likely to try to sell it on.

Ditto!

Hi,

In answer to your question, I will always accept a puppy back whether 10 weeks or 10 years, after I have screened my pups new owners I then sit them down and go from start to finish regarding everything from feeding, toilet training etc. etc. Whether they already have a dog or not! They also get a big bumf of paperwork.  I always microchip my pups and to be honest 6 out of 10 owners never transfer the details to their own address!  I keep in regular touch with all my pups new owners some for years, they send photo's and little stories and I am to hand with any problems.

I have only ever had one pup back (for personal reasons) as I feel I have fully educated new owners and they do not expect too much from their pup, if you check out this site, you will see how many owners panic and think it is not normal for pups to do what they do.  I give mine the good with the bad. So they feel confident at all times with their pup.

If I found any of my pups to be in rescue, though being chipped the rescue would phone me. I would immediately ask for the dog back.  In fact I would be devastated to find them mistreated or ending up in rescue.

My pups are like my children and I never stop caring about them.

I don't think you will find many people on this site who would be any different as this is a dog lovers site. :-)

But if you asked this question of a puppy farmer or a financial reward only breeder, they would probably tell you they didn't care. (But I think we know this already!!!!!)

>If I found any of my pups to be in rescue, though being chipped the rescue would phone me.<

WRONG!!! :-(

We hope this will happen and if it happens to be a breed rescue you may well be contacted (if your details are still on the register which does not happen unless you tranfer the dog to the new owner and put a note in to request that you are left on as a second contact).

If, for instance your puppy is dumped with an all breed rescue you will probably never get to know about it, unless, as with happened with me early this year someone spots a dog that could be one of yours on a website somewhere and tells you and then you will have a fight to get the dog back.  Sending a copy of the microchip details and contract helps, but as I was told - the contract is between the breeder and purchaser, not between the purchaser and the rescue.  I did get my puppy back but it was not straightforward nor easy.

Hi,

Yes, I guess it is a minefield, though I do know for a fact that another breeder friend of mine was contacted by a dog rescue, after the dogs then owners could no longer cope and took the dog there, the rescue phoned the breeder after checking the microchip.  So it does happen!  She was very upset and I would have been, and had the dog returned to her.  Luckily (As I have found myself by checking the microchip database) they had not transfered ownership, so she could be traced. Once ownership has been transfered I guess we are all stuffed as breeders, and just hope that any problems owners are having would come our way first.

I'm pleased that you got your puppy back eventually!

It something none of us every want to happen.

I have my pups tattooed, and have been told that if the owner can't be contacted then the breeder will always be.

That's good to know, and someting I'm sure we would all be interested in. :-) I think I shall do the same with any future pups, tattoo and microchip, that way my pups should always be safe.

To answer the original pints, hopefully, and not digress into the accredited breeder discussion, yes we woudl always have out pups back, and have in out contracts that we are to be first point of contact if the buyer should need to rehome, at any point of there life.  this has only happend once or twice in over 10 years.

The rescue point I woudl like ot tackle from another side - that of a Rescuer!  I woudl certainly hope that none of my dogs would EVER end up in a rescue, but having taken on a rescue role 3 years ago, I am no longer so sure this woudl never happen.  It had never before occurred to me that people would be unwilling to contact the breeder if any trouble occurred or circumstances changed.  The rescuers opportunity to see how the other side works has made me less complacent that my buyers would always come back to me (some claim to have forgotten and lost all the paperwork) some are quite forthright and tell you they don't want the breeder informed, and some lie  - perhaps claiming to have been refused help by the breeder when no contact has been made.  The lot of the rescuer is not a happy one.  Whilst I would always attempt to contact a breeder if possible about one of their dogs in rescue it cannot be guaranteed.    Some people even insist the breeder is not contacted, we have had claims that breeders premises or practices were so bad the dog owner coudl not bear fro the dog to go back.  WE are not in a position to make judgements about this sort of thing, our chief priority has to be to take the dog into our care if it is not longer wanted or being cared for as it should be.  We can't jepardise rescuing a dog in need by insisting on keeping a breeder informed.  It is very hard to balance what you feel is right to fellow breeders, and what is right for a dog in need.  We have to go with the dog rather than the ideal.
bye
Gwen

I can totally see your point of view working on that side of things, but couldn't it be the done thing with all rescues that if a dog is tattooed or microchipped by a breeder, that is usually a good sign that it has come from a responsible, caring breeder and therefore contact should be made.  If then any such breeder is not able to take back the pup/dog for themselves or have a loving home available, then quite rightly it should then stay with you, as you are the people who are better equipt to properly screen people to find the right home.

Apart from all the other reasons you have given, I honestly think a lot of people are just too embarrassed to return a pup/dog as they do not want to look a failure infront of a breeder.