How does a breeder get accredited by the kennel club, is it based on breeding expierience, knowledge of the breed,how many champions you've bred.I would assume that a person applying for this accreditation would have to meet certain criteria, such as those listed above , facilities etc.
I'm just curious realy, as i know somebody who got accredited and has never bred a litter to the best of my knowledge.

http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/registration/page2.htm

All the details are here.

Hi Jimbob, as far as I can see, it has nothing to do with breeding experience, knowledge of the breed or how many champions you've bred.  In my breed, I don't think many of the "top" breeders will bother with the scheme.  Any decent breeder will comply with the conditions anyway, apart from, possibly, the permanent identification of dogs they use for breeding, and certainly do not need to advertise the puppies they breed.  I will not bother with the scheme myself.

I object to being charged to join a shceme that requires less from the people on it than I and other reputable breeders ahve been doing for years.  If anything good breeders ought to get disco8unted services, after all they mostly already pay for the upkeep of an affix every year whether they breed or not.  those who simply produce pups should be charged extra for KC services.

I wouldn't go on it, I'm already shocked by some of the people that have been given permission to have "Accredited Breeder" put to them.  I wouldn't advise them to anyone!  Oh well, each to their own I suppose!

I thought as much, but i wanted to hear other peoples opinions on it.
Thanks for your replies.

Don't know if I didn't make it clear, but I won't be joining the scheme until it really means something.

A couple of cheek swaps for dna and anyone can  become one, regardless  of  the other  principles they have ,people not knowing any better will think it proves they are good and ethical breeders which  we must all know at least a few we wouldnt touch with a barge pole yet are  happily "accredited" :rolleyes: 

There a quite a few "accredited" breeders that i have been looking at - and from what i can see and from speaking to lots of people - it is a hugh waste of time and there are a number which shouldnt be breeding anyway - let alone 'accredited' it seems that good breeders dont bother with the scheme and those that have it - have a need to advertise the fact? - umm i wonder why?

I've noticed that a lot of the 'commercial' puppy producers are becoming KC accredited breeders - perhaps to try to give some credibility to what they do.

I just had a look on the KC website, the requirements to become accredited are the minimum that any responsible breeder would meet anyway.
Seems like a money making racket by the KC to me.

I have joined the accredited breeder scheme as have a few others in my breed as we feel you have to start somewhere and it is a good idea in theory.  We know that our puppy buyers will have their say on the quality of their pups and how things were with us the breeders not just because something has gone wrong but because they've got a questionaire and envelope in with their registration folder.

I like the idea of DNA profiling all the dogs used for breeding as I feel this will at some point help eliminate false pedigrees once it becomes a part of EVERY puppy registration, we have always gone over and above the requirements of the scheme even to the point of DNA testing our dogs for a disease that will be erradicated by the time the General committee decide it is a required test for our breed.

There are some top breeders who have joined who like us don't need to advertise their pups, my friend was top breeder in 04 and has only really not managed it since due to keeping tails plus not showing as much with builder her bungalow.  If we in the dog world don't start to show some progress then the powers that be will do it for us with totally unrealistic and ludicrous criteria that only the wealthy will be able to comply with.

Personally I think the accredited breeders scheme has a role to play if it encourages people to health test breeding stock, however I would like to see firmer rules in place as to the health test results as some breeders seem to be testing then breeding regardless of the outcome.
What would have been a far better idea in my view! is to make the reccomended breed specific health test mandatory to all breeder as it is in parts of Europe  and for breeders to be admitted to the KC scheme on experiance of the breed , not nessasrily show experiance but just years served and owner the breed.

I agree with most of you on this one. I looked at registering on the scheme but then decided against it. Trouble is the Kennel Club don't police what they have already. In my mind this is another element to boost their coffers again, just as they did with not allowing back to back breeding then changing their minds because of registration income loss.  I personally don't at all like the idea of microchipping my puppies at such an early age to gain accredited compliance.
Paula

I agree with the scheme in theory, and I actually comply with everything that is in it.  However, why should I pay the cost of it when it is not policed.  At present the RSPCA, (can't tell you where) is investigating an Accredited Breeder because of the absolutely filthy conditions that they keep there dogs in.  This breeder will be telling all their puppy owners how good they are and the puppies are coming from filthy conditions.  This could store up all sorts of infections that may only come out in the puppy when it is setled in its new home and the breeder will be telling them that they have OBVIOUSLY overfed or let them eat someting that they shouldn't.
No, until the KC ensure that Accredited Breeders are just that, then I won't enlarge their coffers for them!