Just another rant. just seen a small breed puppy for sale in free adds--non KC reg- £850!!!!  would anyone pay this for a non kc reg pup or am i simply going mad?

  Fools and their money.  SOmeone will !!  I believe that Chi's are going for this in some areas.  DISGUSTING.

wile people pay these prices people are gonna carry on charging them :(

saw a litter of CKCS puppies in the local free ad for £600...more than most KC reg puppies...I rang just to be nosey and they had all been booked....:rolleyes:

Whats wrong with non KC reg puppies? i have a non KC reg dog?

Nothing wrong with non-registered mongrels, but breeders of non-registered pedigrees need to be treated with caution. There's usually a very good reason why the KC wouldn't allow their registration.

nothing wrong with them but should people pay £850??  sounds like these breeders are only in it for the ££££££

my non kc dogs friendly and playful and just like any kc reg dog and she was £300 but shes a pedigree still and what i wanted

Friendly and playful yes, but did the parents have all the relevant health tests for the breed? That's usually not the case with unregistered dogs. With a registered puppy if the parents for instance have been hip scored, or had certain eye tests, the results will be printed on the puppies registration certificates. If you don't know the health status of the parents you could if unlucky get nasty surprises later on -like somebody I know whose Rottweiler had such bad hips aged 1 the vet just gave her a few months to live.

Just curious, but what reason did the breeder give for her not being KC registered? Personally I wouldn't pay more than half that for a non-KC dog, but we all have different priorities. :)

she didnt give a reason at the time i didnt know about kc papers i didnt want to show or breed though. the vet said that all my dogs are really healthy and they never seem to be ill.

Many of the problems that are in a breed are not there until later in life, but are inherited. 

For this reason Reputable breeders health test for things that can be tested for (Hip and eye status) and should research the pedigrees for generatiosn checking for any problems produced by ancestors and not breed together a dog an bitch that have ancestors wth the same problems, be this helath, temperament or breed faults.

You say you didn't want to breed or show, but choosing a pedigree, you wanted it to look and act as certain way, yes?  Without KC registration you have no guarantee that the pup you buy is even full blooded let alone typical of it's breed.

Look at this link which compares god breeders, and those who sometimes just produce pups, or worse still puppy farm.

http://www.dog-play.com/breedercomparison.htm

Also I don't know what breed you have, but look it up on this site and see which breed specific inherited faults your breed is predisposed to and which your breeder shuld have researched, and where possible tested for,
http://www.upei.ca/~cidd/intro.htm

Excellent link, Brainless - I've added it to my favourites folder. :)

Fabulous Brainless, I found the second link very interesting :)

yes. we do all have different priorities and i find that you enjoy jumping to conclusions. my non KC reg boy was only £100 when the breed average is £500. The reason for him not being KC Reg was because one of his parents was over the age of breeding allowed by the KC. Now, i suppose you're going to say that the breeder was being irresponsible and obviously has no experience (like you probably have :rolleyes:) but she has been breeding for nearly 30 years.

In answer to the OP, the price is extensive and it can only be put down to fools and their money. But other than that, non KC reg pedigree dogs are none the less better than the KC registered ones. (Unless showing is a priority lol)

Jumping to conclusions? Where? Yes, I'd say your dog's breeder was certainly being irresponsible (or careless) allowing a litter to be born to an overage bitch - after all, it's not exactly rocket science to know your own bitch's age! :rolleyes: Unfortunately sometimes even long-established, very experienced breeders who are otherwise sensible can be careless. At least she didn't attempt to cheat you by charging over the odds for him. :)

Can you explain why you say that non-KC dogs are actually better than KC ones?

As there is only an upper age limit for the breeding of BITCHES then you have just supported a breeder who has exploited an elderly bitch. 

The kennel club will very rarely allow the breeding of an older bitch on prior application if there really is a good reason for it.

Your breeder cannot have gained anything from breeding that unregisterable litter other than the money from puppy sales, as none of these pups can go on to enhance the gene pool of the breed and be registered on the breed register.

There are plenty of bad and unethical breeders breeding for many years, length of involvement just shows that they really ought to know better as they can't even plead ignorance.

If it was an accident, then the bitch could have been spayed, which is often what good breeders do with their older bitches to avoid the risks of Pyometra in elderly bitches.

As the breeder sold that litter with no trouble they have the incentive to breed like that again in the future.

This is the reason i sit and read some of the posts you "excellant" breeders put on this forum. It makes me laigh so much how you jump at the chance to call someone else irresponsible or bad mouth someone. And this time you're doing it to someone you have no idea who they are! - And before the replies I get say 'why are you referring to me?' - well i'm not - i'm simply referring to "you" as a whole. "You" who love to bad mouth someone and complain.

And at no point did I say none KC reg are better than KC reg.

it's not as if I have gone out of my way to buy none KC registered puppies from breeders as my first dog I bought from her and he is KC registered.

All i was saying was people on here are so flaming quick to jump to conclusions and bad mouth someone - and there have been two replies as a prime example :rolleyes:

Please do enlighten us to how this act of breeding for an unregistered litter from an overage bitch is anything but irresponsible/careless, regardless of who did it, and even worse if it is soemone who should know better.

What good sound reason could anyone have for doing such a thing.  Does it improve the breed, the bitches health, or only the breeders bank balance???

well it didn't improve the breeders bank balance as she didn't actually charge for any of the puppies due to it being an accident of not expecting the bitch to come in season. I gave the breeder £100 due to personal reasons - of which i'm sure you can guess or presume (after all, that is your best subject)

I am sorry but bitches come in season at all sorts of times, and even if they missed noticing she was in season, they could have done something about preventing the litter being conceived and or born.

With the risks associated with pregnancy and birth why put an elderly bitch through it for no good reason?  Irt would hae bee very simple to have  the bitch spayed.

Oh Timberwolf :(

You say all that about people...... and yet moments before you put your post on the 'pulling on lead' thread, which to my mind was wholey unhelpful to the OP and sneering
      The people you are railing against..at least take the time and trouble to qualify what they say with either fact,experience,training ideas and tips etc........

Let he who is without sin and all that......surely.

>And at no point did I say none KC reg are better than KC reg.

Timberwolf, you said:

>non KC reg pedigree dogs are none the less better than the KC registered ones.

As you're aware, 'none the less' has the same meaning as 'nevertheless; however'. So to use a simile, you said: "Non KC reg pedigree dogs are however better than the KC registered ones."

But other than that, non KC reg pedigree dogs are none the less better than the KC registered ones. (Unless showing is a priority lol)

Or unless you actually want to do all you can to get as a healthy a pet as possible, and not lose it a year down the line to bad HD or similar because the breeder hadn't tested the parents...... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Both parents had been tested, KC registered and bred by the breeder herself. My boy is now three years old and extremely healthy.

Oh hang on a minute - you're the one which just rubbed your " talk from someone with 40 years experience of breeding" in someone's face. I do apologise immensely for not listening to you :rolleyes:

Considering you have such a deep rooted problem with what you perceive as other established members being judgemental, I'm at a loss to understand why you feel the need to make disparaging remarks or sweeping generalisations yourself   Harbouring old grudges per chance .....

Timberwolf only has 5 posts in total, are we talking to Dennis again perhaps??? In need of a bit of pre-christmas WUM-ming? :D (I invented a new word there!)

By all means offer your opinion on this subject, Timberwolf, but please stick to offering a rationale for your way of thinking.  There really is no need for personal comments, they do not give any more gravitas to your own points, quite the opposite as it pulls into question your own confidence in your judgement being able to stand in its own right :)
The health of the puppy is not so much in question as that of the overage dam put to the strain of producing a litter when her breeding days are judged over by the consensus of the KC and most of the Breed Clubs that I know off.

Bit rich coming from you isn't it?

I have no idea what you are talking about.  If you have a point to make you will need to give a little more detail.

Both parents had been tested, KC registered and bred by the breeder herself. My boy is now three years old and extremely healthy.

Oh hang on a minute - you're the one which just rubbed your " talk from someone with 40 years experience of breeding" in someone's face. I do apologise immensely for not listening to you rolleyes

Point number 1. I was talking about in general why it is a bad idea to get an unreg'd puppy, NOT about your dog. Surely you'ee not saying all unreg'd puppies are from health tested parents??????????

Point number 2. You tell me exactly where I am supposed to have said I had 40 years experience, I'm not even 40 yet (and I never will be becase next year I will start going backwards! :) ) I said somebody WITH 40 years experience had told me this. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well that's as maybe Hazeydogs, but it costs £12 to register a puppy. so why not just do it. The reasons might be, 1, the mother was too young or 2, too old. 3, maybe she's had her quota of regiserable puppies, or 4, maybe she isn't herself registered. Buyers of unregistered puppies, in my opinion, are simply being shortchanged.  I think it's a sign that the breeder doesn't care, or doesn't have the correct knowledge.

Dawn R.

PS my post is in reply to Hazydogs 16.56 post.

Her mom was 4 and they said she hadnt had a litter before i know they kept a puppy aswel and my friend had a girl puppy.

It could also be that the breeders of either sire or dam had discovered that they were not themselves good enough to breed from for one reason or another, and had their registrations endorsed to try to prevent them being bred from - perhaps the fault was a hereditary one? Who knows?

The breeder, and they aint sayin.

Dawn R.

I shall admit in public that one of my dogs is unregistered -because maybe my tale will be of use. I wanted a pet puppy of this breed, and I was told that in this particular breed it is the norm for puppies sold as pets only to go unregistered. Now this is the only time I have heard of this in a breed (and I don't think it makes any sense at all), but believe me, in this breed it IS common, I have checked it out via the breed club. So I fully expected my pup to be unregistered.  Which he was. (This breed does not have a lot of health problems they need testing for, otherwise I'd have been a lot more worried.) Therefore I wasn't too interested in the pedigree, and didn't look at it until after I came home with the puppy. And there it said that his MOTHER was unregistered too. Now this just isn't acceptable, you do not breed from a unregistered bitch......... My puppy is healthy and the breeder, in her own way, does care and there was nothing whatsoever to complain about the way he was reared.

HOWEVER his mum had a for the breed large litter, and she has now just had ANOTHER large litter. My pup is 8 months old............ No KC reg, no breed club membership, hence a breeder who can do what she wants and now has obviously discovered it was nice and easy to make money by churning out puppies regularly...... So MY pup is fine, but I am far from sure about his poor mother -she should have had a much longer rest than this  and how many more times will she have litters twice a year.....?

and how many more times will she have litters twice a year.....?

a perfect reason for only buying KC reg pups!
i have certainly opened up a can of worms with this thread!
merry christmas everyone from me and my schnauzers!

I would like to make two points if that's ok.

1.  Why should an unregistered dog be cheaper than a registered dog?

2.  What about looking at it the other way around?  When I have sold moggies, I have put the price higher than others to make sure that the people are prepared to pay for them, and not just looking for the cheapest (and them being more likely to be buying on a whim).  If someone is prepared to pay more for an animal, doesn't that mean they want one, and want the right one???  Surely it is just as bad, if not worse, than someone to just buy the cheapest going.

Unfortunately if people pay a lot of money for a puppy - especially a bitch puppy - many of them decide to recoup a few bob by churning out a few litters from her without doing any research into the techniques of breeding quality animals. It's been shown that, in very many cases, the higher the price the more puppy farmers create a bandwagon to jump on to. :(

1.  Why should an unregistered dog be cheaper than a registered dog?

2.  What about looking at it the other way around?  When I have sold moggies, I have put the price higher than others to make sure that the people are prepared to pay for them, and not just looking for the cheapest (and them being more likely to be buying on a whim).  If someone is prepared to pay more for an animal, doesn't that mean they want one, and want the right one???  Surely it is just as bad, if not worse, than someone to just buy the cheapest going.

1. Because you ( in general at least ) don't have the health testing of the parents and in particular you don't have the option of showing. Why pay the same for something you can't do it all with? When I bought one of my dogs I had no intention of showing her, then I got interested and now she is shown and she does well -and I'm thankful I had the option even though that wasn't what I had in mind originally.

2. This is just one reason for why you don't breed moggies. Doing it properly you'd be seriously out of pocket. Both parents blood tested for FeLV and FIV prior to mating (ideally within 24 hrs, ESPECIALLY if either parent is allowed to go out), scanned for PKD as mogs have it as well, fully vaccinated when sold aged 13 weeks. It will put the cost of each kitten up to a couple of hundred at least including all rearing costs, and nobody is going to pay that for a mog.

There's animals in rescue that have cost thousands to buy so although  I agree price to a certain extent does matter and I do agree with your way of thinking here, it won't matter to everyone.

Hmm, all sorts of problems can happen both ways though, can't they?  With all due respect to those on this board, there is plenty of interbreeding, and many many health problems in pedigree dogs (and cats).

I personally strongly disagree with breeding a dog to show.  In fact, I think it is horrible.  Surely dogs (and cats) should always be primarily pets.

"Why pay the same for something you can't do it all with?" - Sorry, but have you forgotten you are talking about a pet here?  What exactly do you think a dog is for?  I am beginning to wonder.

>there is plenty of interbreeding,

Yes, and it's interbreeding (ie crossbreeding) that masks hereditary problems in the short-term only for them to suddenly appear 'out of the blue' further down the line. :(

What's so horrible about showing? All it means is that an independent assessor has approved your (primarily pet) dog as being close enough to how its breed was designed (and all breeds have been designed by man) to be worth keeping its genes in the pool.

I certainly wouldn't pay top dollar for a pet that I couldn't go for long walks with, sit comfortably by the fire with, and only bore a vague resemblence to its breed. :)

I personally strongly disagree with breeding a dog to show.  In fact, I think it is horrible.  Surely dogs (and cats) should always be primarily pets.

Then they will all eventully end up being mongrels. Without shows, without attention to how they look, the breeds WILL disappear/change beyond recognition. You only need to look at how breeds change when they split into a show type and a working type. In my own breed the working type, where the breeders have no interest in the looks, sometimes cannot even be recognised as the breed, and  many actually do crossbreed to get the working qualities they want. That's fair enough if all you're interested in is a dog that can do a job -but the breed type will be lost.

I would also strongly suggest that MOST show dogs ARE pets first and foremost. Why wouldn't they be????

Surely dogs................ should always be primarily pets

Not with my primary breed Border Collies should be bred to work otherwise they are not real Border Collies & they are not ideal only pet material like many other working breeds. My puppy is my pet but he is & will be a working dog. All his siblings have gone to homes where they will work in some form or other as is correct for a working breed

& the ISDS Breeders miles ahead of any pet breeder with health tests on Border Collies. I doubt any pet breeder would even be aware of DNA testing for them

i will probs get my head bitten off hear but we are talking about dogs here. they are not objects that you can do stuff with. there are plenty of people who love their dogs whatever problems they have and i am one of them. i don't agree with over breeding, and not giving pups  enough care or anything like that but alot of people just want to have a pet. it is not as if 60 years ago when they were breeding dogs that they had all these checks done and it is the breeding of pedigrees themselves that have introduced these problems. i don't have anything against pedigrees as i have a vizsla myself i just think that having a pedigree is not everything and that a lot of puppies that are mongrels get looked after extremely well (not all but a majoraty).

any way i respect everyones points of view and i do not expect anyone to change anythign i just believe that all dogs are equal whether pedigree, kc reg or mongrels. they were after all bred to work or as companion animals and showing only came after wards.

Surely everyone wants a dog they can 'do stuff with'? Who wants a dog that can't be taken for long walks, that has to be shut away if visitors arrive because its temperament is dodgy? And yes, people love their dogs whatever problems they may have - but they would rather they didn't have the problems in the first place! The dogs are loved despite their problems, not because of them. A good breeder will do all possible to eradicate problems, not perpetuate them.

u have read what i have said all wrong. i was just saying that i agree with everyone who doesn't want non kc reg dogs but i also see the points of veiws of people who don't need a kc reg dog.

i don't want a dog i cant do anything with it was simply the way it was put that made me want to reply.

sorry if i offended anyone

Jeangenie - "What's so horrible about showing" - I did not say that 'showing is horrible'.  What I meant is that the idea of breeding a dog purely to show with, is horrible.  Showing is fine as a sideline and a bit of fun, but breeding to extremes in the name of showing alone, I think, is wrong.

"Who wants a dog that can't be taken for long walks, that has to be shut away if visitors arrive because its temperament is dodgy?" - Are you saying, then, that registered dogs have less temperament and health problems than non-registered dogs?  I find that very hard to believe.  In fact, I would say they have more.  Speaking from personal experience, I have had many mongrels and only one registered pedigree dog - she is the one with the problems!!!!

Anna - "it is not as if 60 years ago when they were breeding dogs that they had all these checks done and it is the breeding of pedigrees themselves that have introduced these problems." - Exactly!  Breeding as it is done these days has caused many problems, with both health and temperament.  Dogs have become machines that are being used to produce the perfect looking dog, or the perfect show dog.  All wrong in my opinion.  As I said before, a dog should be primarily a pet.  "Professional" breeders seem to have lost sight of certain things somewhere along the line if you ask me.

Anna - "it is not as if 60 years ago when they were breeding dogs that they had all these checks done and it is the breeding of pedigrees themselves that have introduced these problems." - Exactly!  Breeding as it is done these days has caused many problems, with both health and temperament.

I think you'll find if you ask many older vets that dogs live a lot longer these days........ mainly because there is so much that can be done.. 60 years or whatever ago a dog with bad HD would just have to be put to sleep. Today we know how to prevent it AND how to treat it -at least a lot more than was known. (Then again some people who don't see registration as important don't even bother to make sure the stud they use is haemophilia clear.... :rolleyes: ) One of my dogs is from a breeder who started breeding in 1938. When they didn't hip score. She continued to think that it wasn't imprpotant because it wasn't done in her days. Hence my dog born in 1996 has severe HD and has had to suffer -all because of his old time breeder. "Breeding as it is done these days" -just HOW do you think it used to be done???? Breeding for showing has been done for a very, very long time! What exactly do you think has changed? APART from the fact that THESE days dogs ARE primarily pets, back 100 years ago they were all primarily workers and NOT kept as pets............

Goldmali, I could stay and argue with you all night, and quite frankly I would enjoy it  ;-)  but I have to get to bed, so this is my last post tonight.

I completely disagree with what you say about dogs living longer because of us knowing how to prevent it AND treat it.  Medicine has come a long way over the years as we all know.  Dog breeding hasn't.  That is my opinion - feel free to jump down my throat.  I'm sure you will  ;-)

I will say my main point again.  Extreme breeding (as is done nowadays more than ever) has brought about many problems, both healthwise and temperament.  Interbreeding cannot be good full stop.  Using the same dogs time after time throughout pedigrees cannot be good.  Concentrating purely on looks cannot be good.  This type of planned breeding has caused nearly all these health defects in the first place!!

Good night, and Happy Christmas, Goldmali.  May all your dogs be up to scratch in the show ring.