Just wondered what the opinions of breeders on this site are with regards to this? Does it make for better bred dogs, healthier puppies, more back-up for purchasers? Who polices it, is it really free of the loop-holes the basic registration scheme is flawed with. Can 'puppy farmers' join this, simply by having the health checks? Does anyone from the KC and a breed expert actually visit the premises the puppies come from and check all is as stated, or is that left to the honesty of the breeder. Would it not be an idea to DNA all the puppies from the litter to prove the sire and dam before sale? Would it not be better to make this scheme compulsory?

There are many breeders who will not support this scheme because people they consider to be producing too many puppies are members. However if these good breeders do not support the scheme it will never really take off, which is a shame as the KC are at least trying to do something good here, and are not sitting on their hands moaning about the state of dog breeding and bad breeders.

In order to be an accredited breeder your dogs have to be identifiable, they have to have health certificates for any known health condition prior to being bred. The breeder has to follow up all the puppies they produce and are supposed to help new owners.There are a lot more conditions to be fulfilled as well, details of which can be obtained from the KC web site.

The thing is, if you aren't a member of this scheme and the KC asks what would breeders like to see added to tighten up the scheme, they are not going to be asking those who are not members, they will ask those who are members! I think good breeders should join and they should lead the way by telling the KC how they would like to work with the KC to tighten up this scheme and who is allowed to come into the scheme.

Saying that paying an extra £10 a year for membership does not give you anything extra is not positive, would they join if say puppy registrations were cheaper or the six weeks insurance free or extended to 8 weeks? Every one criticises, but nobody suggests improvements to the sheme which would sort out the good breeders from the bad or ideas which if introduced would encourage them to join. Accreditation was hoped to be a "Kite Mark" for breeders.

I would be very interested to hear any suggestions put forward on how the scheme could be improved and would encourage good breeders, rather than the usual moans about the cost and how it is full of puppy farmers. Lets for once think seriously about this, then perhaps the KC might listen and review their initial requirements.

For example,

How many litters a year from one bitch is acceptable?
In my breed we usually leave two years minimum between litters, should all breeds do this?

How many litters from more than one bitch in a year is acceptable?
My friend for example has ended up in a situation this year that it is her last chance to have a litter from her older bitch, and the ideal age for her young bitch to have a first litter, should she breed from both? And if so is she the type good breeders would not want in the scheme as she has produced too many puppies in one year?

How many times a year should a stud dog be allowed to produce litters?
One bitch will have one litter a year but a popular stud dog could sire ten times more litters than that, is this acceptable?

You see what I am getting at, we do need to debate this, we do need to realise there are grey areas, but if breeders lead the way by becoming members and working with the KC then we might all be proud members of a truly "kite mark" scheme. It is the easiest thing in the world to sit on your hands and do nothing but moan about the bad things that go on, but it is much harder to resolve effectively the type of problems we see daily.

I thankfully have never lost a dog but it worries me, so I support DogLost.co.uk and Dog Theft Action Group, this year I even gave up a day to work on the DTA stand on Thursday at Crufts as did my friend Heather, Nikki Powditch and Margaret were thrilled that a few people offered and have been helping out.

Another and very much more common example of the attitude I am talking about. Breed clubs often cannot even get members to vote at an AGM or even attend one, yet all these members moan when things are introduced by the committees they do not like.

So lets be very positive and make suggestions here if nowhere else as this site does have a lot of good breeders and owners who really care for their dogs. How would we like to see the Accredited breeder scheme improved, rather than just moaning about what we do not like about it.

>they have to have health certificates for any known health condition prior to being bred.

Unfortunately, this isn't true. The main testable condition which affects the well-being of my breed isn't even on the list of tests that might need to be done. A KC spokesman told me that this won't change until the KC maintains records of these tests - so the ball's in their court.

>Does anyone from the KC and a breed expert actually visit the premises the puppies come from and check all is as stated

No. People can even become 'Accredited breeders' without having bred a litter.

As I said in my post to Polly, won't the breed club already be dictating all appropriate testing?  If not I think they should.

This is a KC-led enterprise, which the spokesman admitted is far from perfect. But in the years it's been running they still haven't put dalmatians on the list for requiring any tests whatsoever.

Are they a requirement by the breed club?  I think it reasonable, even desirable, that they take guidance from the breed clubs on this matter but as I said if they made parent breed club membership a requirement of the scheme that would be it sorted.

There's a current debate about BAER testing being required under the club Code of Ethics. Totally deaf puppies are mentioned, but not the method of determining this. It's a major problem that there are so few testing centres, with some litters being taken over 100 miles for testing.

I agree a requirement for parent breed club membership wuld be a major step forward.

>People can even become 'Accredited breeders' without having bred a litter

People can even become 'Accredited breeders' before they actually breed a litter.
If you put it that way does it sound better? ;)
Don't forget when applying you do have to precis all your experience within the breed.

I am generally in support of the scheme too.  Regarding your points about the scheme possibly encompassing things like how many litters should be bred and what age etc. this is going to vary by breed isn't it? So I believe it is best left to individual breed clubs to write that into their codes with the scheme just dictating that accredited breeders belong to an appropriate breed club thereby being obliged to follow their code anyway. 
As regards people moaning about the extra costs to them being on the scheme with no apparent return, well it's little to contribute to bringing the quality of responsible breeding to a higher level in general on an altuistic level. If people say they are already meeting all the requirements, and more, good for them but wouldn't you expect the average Champdog breeder to be at least doing that :) however wouldn't they want to be part of something that could encourage others up to the same level. 
Folks will always point the finger at others and call them puppy farmers, witness the old adage a "puppy farmer is someone who breed more litters than I do" :p but, personally, I have never felt that numbers was a good way of trying to apply a definition to the nebulous puppy farmer the real requirement, as I see it, is that they can meet all the requirements of responsible breeding and how people manage to achieve that with different numbers of dogs and limits will always show a variety.

I haven't joined because they want me to test for a problem that I don't think is relevant for my breed.  When I asked the KC about it, I received a reply that said
"we intend to contact all breed clubs in the very near future to get them to suggest what they consider appropriate health checks to be an Accredited Breeder in their bred."
They have instigated a scheme without even consulting the Breed Clubs or the Breed Councils!!  I won't be paying for an ill thought out scheme.

Was there ever a scheme in the whole world that was perfect on first instigation :)

I agree but that was June 2004 and nothing has changed!:rolleyes:

Less than two years :)  Think about it, scheme starts, after a couple of months the committee in charge of it at the KC meet and discuss the letters etc they have received.  They note the comments regarding this and on discussion decide to contact the breed clubs. A communication is drafted by the nominated member who shows it to the commitee at their next meeting 2 months later.  It is OK's and sent.  Breed club discuss it at their next meeting and decide to form a sub committee to formulate a reply and so on.  Well, you know how these things will always take an age but the alternative is to act in haste without gathering the useful heads together.

Another alternative would have been to get the heads together first to avoid going off at half-cock.

Yes it would :)  But as I say, few schemes are born in there perfect and final shape, so rather than bin it why not take the intended ethos, which I think we all agree with, of creating a class of responsible breeder that the public can easily recognise as such and help the KC towards achieving that.

Sorry but I think that they should have discussed it with the Breed Clubs before they made plans!  It's harder to correct things than to get it right in the first place....  And I'm not paying while they're practicing!!! :D 
I'll carry on doing what I think is ethical and reasonable as I've done for years.;)

I hope all Champdog breeders do that Val but wouldn't you like to see an easier way for the public to recognise that you are.  As regards paying, it's not much is it? :) And note Polly's comments about your opinion having more clout from within.  Don't forget if you think the scheme, at present, is not as high as our own standards they are not asking you to drop to anything :D

I feel really sorry for families who buy a new family pet every 15 years or so and have no idea what a mine field the dog world is!  I am happy to help any one who contacts me to find a well bred, happy, healthy puppy through contacts made over 20+ years, and do so each and every week.  I also have no problem growing a waiting list for my pups, when I have interviewed families sometimes 18 months before I can breed a puppy for them.  And so I don't feel the need to belong to a half cocked scheme...

If the public take time to enquire in the right places, and don't mind waiting rather than have a puppy next weekend, they'll have no problem finding someone to help them.

I don't mind what I spend if I think that I'm getting good value for money - nothing's cheap that's worth having BUT I'll not waste 1p!! :D ;) :D

>If the public take time to enquire in the right places

How much easier that would be if we could help the KC sort out a scheme that provides such an easy pointer for them to do that.

In the grooming parlour, most pet owners don't even think of contacting the Kennel Club!  The first place that they look (if I haven't got to them first! :)) is the local paper, or even worse, the yellow ones!

The public, in general, haven't any idea that there is such a thing as a good or bad breeder.  The point of this scheme is to promote such differences, the more support it gets, hopefully the more the KC will promote it and should certainly be encouraged to.  They are in a unique position to do so after all.  Look at the hordes that descend on Crufts and watch the TV coverage, plenty of oppotunities there to promote this.  There are, of course, plenty of people who do contact the KC for puppy information, as we see from the posters on here, so again, an opportunity to provide the information that there is a list of breeders with puppies and a list of accredited breeders with puppies clearly alerting them to the fact that there are differences in how people go about it.  The fact that people don't know at the moment doesn't seem like a good reason to leave it at that :)

The fact that people don't know at the moment doesn't seem like a good reason to leave it at that

Yep I agree completely.  Exactly the reason for getting it right in the first place and not allowing puppy farmers /commercial breeders to be registered just by having their dogs chipped in breeds where the KC don't think that there is any health screening to be done. :)  The other requirements are open to interpretation, and I don't want to be in the same catagory as those breeders, whatever they chose to call the scheme.

There would be a great loss of income if commercial breeders weren't allowed to registed their pups.  When they come up with a scheme that truly promotes responsible breeding, I'll be in line to pay my money! :D

The fact that in the 2(?) years it's been running the scheme's reputation hasn't improved shows that it would now need a radical overhaul to be considered by very many reputable breeders as being a worthwhile system. I don't think minor tinkering will be sufficient to restore it to importance. First impressions are important, and that's what's stuck - that it's ill thought-out and half-baked. Shame - what a missed opportunity.

Reading all the comments it doesn't sound like a radical overhaul is necessary at all merely a requirement to belong to a parent breed club would ensure all the correct health and welfare breeding conditions appropriate to the breed was met.

I feel a lot of changes would be needed to undo the reputation it's earned for itself, that's all. Not even the parent breed clubs require all the tests to be done - they just advise them. The KC needs to be seen to be proactive, not reactive.

Maybe :)  In which case I hope they repackage it and have another go because the actual concept is certainly worth pursuing.

For sure. :D

Absolutely. :D

If the public take time to enquire in the right places

How much easier that would be if we could help the KC sort out a scheme that provides such an easy pointer for them to do that.

I don't think the KC needs a scheme to do that. What they need is an advertising campaign telling people to go to the Breed Clubs.

With the KC behind it it need not be horrifically expenisve. I'm sure they could rope the BBC in the way the RSPCA did with Animal Hospital. There has to be a programme in following a well bred, well reared litter from conception to new homes.

If the KC would just set about being less exclusive and talk to the public in places where the public would hear them, I'd happily wear a doubling of all fees.

Yes when I think about it that would cover all I am looking for from the scheme although it may be necessary to insist all Breed clubs adopt a code of minimum standard ie one that stipulated obligatory health screening although I think the benefits of offering the kudos of a KC "specially approved" puppy could be an added draw for a lot of the public and would therefore be a useful tool in promoting in itself.
I think the Kennel club miss a lot of opportunity to promote the right kind of puppy buying on their Crufts programme I know we moan a bit about the amount of stuff outside whats going on in the judging rings but I don't think anyone would object to that one.  The say its up to the BBC what they schedule but I am sure the KC could persuade them to do some public information stuff after that should be right up their alley :)

Yes Isabel, some Breed Clubs would have to put their houses in order, and imo for going through the Breed Clubs to work properly I think that there would need to be some amalgamation in those breeds with a plethora of little clubs. My main breed only has one UK Club and while there are disadvantages, it does simplify life! :)

I agree with you on Crufts. A 10 minute slot would do wonders.

A programme such as you suggest would be excellent, jas. They could also seize the opportunity to tell people what not to look for - such as 'both parents can be seen' isn't necessarily a good point (although of course there are exceptions). It would also help to quash the 'I'm only breeding pets, not show dogs' argument that so many people fall for, in the mistaken thinking that show-bred puppies are just as good at being pets.

Given the interest people have in animals and dogs in particular I've always thought a programme like that would be a winner for the broadcaster as well as getting the message across. After all you have a certain amount of drama and sweet cuddly puppies. All you'd need would be breeders with a bit of flair and interest themselves and a sympathetic presenter. The programme could follow several litters of different breeds, and you could have a follow up to visit the pups in their new homes. It could be a good plug for the BVA too if the right vets were involved. And of course it would be very cheap to make. For my money it would be at least as attractive as Animal Hospital and a better bet than Victoria whassername in the leather. :D

I think it's a great idea! Perhaps one of us (or more!) should contact the BBC and suggest it?

I'm on if you are. What have we to lose by contacting the BBC? They can only tell us to push off. :)

Let's go for it! There's nothing to lose and a lot to be gained. :) The more people who suggest it, the more they're likely to consider it.

If you are serious, maybe we should think about getting half a dozen people together to work out just what we wanted to present to the beeb and work out the best way to do it?

Good plan.

Who's interested?

Once we've got a group together, do you think we should take it to PM or leave it open?

Take it to PM or set up a java chat room on MSN or somehwere I think. Otherwise it would just become an eteranl thread wandering off topic and producing niggles.

PM would suit me better - I've never got to grips with MSN! :o

>Sorry but I think that they should have discussed it with the Breed Clubs before they made plans!  It's harder to correct things than to get it right in the first place....  And I'm not paying while they're practicing!!!<  

Val interesting you should say this. Have you asked your breed club to get organised and make representations to the KC yet? It is a two way street, clubs can be asked by their members what part they are playing in tweaking the scheme, and they can contact the KC with a view to improving the scheme for your breed.

When judging standards were first brought in, many club members suddenly found they were caught between a rock and a hard place when it came to getting on club judging lists. They had to have judged x number of dogs before they could apply to go on the breed club judging lists, but they also had to be on the judging lists prior to judging a show. So in effect they could not get on the list so could not judge. The KC listened to individuals I had a long conversation with the judges committee about this ruling, they also listened to breed clubs who were concerned about this and changed the rules.

What is to stop individuals AND clubs contacting the KC making a suggestion and explaining why they think it would be an advantage to the scheme and overall care of and good breeding policies of dogs?

The KC realise this is not an ideal scheme I am sure, but lets face it if a particular breed club came up with the idea, say for arguments sake boxers would that club have written to every club or even just a few others to suggest that such a scheme came into being? I doubt that, so the only way this was ever to come into being was going to be if the KC were the people starting it.

We have 14 breed clubs Polly.  They have already got a number of important problems (am I supposed to say 'issues' in this day and age??:rolleyes:)with The Kennel Club.  I have contacted them as an individual and posted part of the reply.
With many years experience of the KC in a variety of areas, including being an Associate Member for some time, I know when to spend time and when to not! :)

I don't see the point of the scheme, I already belong to my breed club and abide by their code of ethics (which the Kennel club had breed clubs draw up), the acredited breeder scheme is just another money making scheme by the Kennel club when  breeders are already aplying to maintain their affix every year, get horrible registration documents, etc.

they should be requiring minimum standards from ALL those registering puppies, nto ahve two tier breeders.

I do not see the point in the DNA identification of the parents, as it is the pups parentage that can be at issue, and they are not required to be verified as being of x and y parentage, but the idea is in peopls heads that it proves their pups parentage.

My dogs are already have two forms of permanent ID, and I would then have to persuade a dosg owner to go through extra rigmarole to use him.

>How many litters a year from one bitch is acceptable?

The KC states that Accredited Breeders agree to: Follow Kennel Club policy regarding maximum age and number/frequency of litters.

>How many litters a year from one bitch is acceptable?

>The KC states that Accredited Breeders agree to: Follow Kennel Club policy regarding maximum age and number/frequency of litters. <

I am aware it is part of the scheme, what I meant was if my clubs code of ethics had been the model used then no bitch would ever have more than two litters in it's lifetime! Three in exceptional circumstances. How many clubs would support this idea? Probably none, so a one scheme fits all would have to be discussed and decided on, or another way forward would be to say the accredited scheme would use the criteria supplied by the breed club as the guide line.

Now suppose the scheme used the breed club as the criteria for number of litters bred. Also suppose your breed had four clubs all had slightly different criteria for the number of litters bred, which club should the KC select a code of ethics from?

You see what I mean about grey areas, and discussion between breders within their clubs and the KC, and the Clubs and the KC need to work together to tweak the scheme into shape.

I don't know how many of you will remember this but back in the early/mid eighties, was when this scheme was proposed, but there was no input from breeders or clubs, even though the suggested route for the scheme had been that a two tier registration scheme should be run, membership was to be paid, a small fee but all members got their puppies registered for at lower fees because they were to be from health tested parents, the idea being to encourage responsible breeding and breeding only from health tested stock.

>suppose your breed had four clubs all had slightly different criteria for the number of litters bred, which club should the KC select a code of ethics from?

I would say, quite clearly, the parent club.  I'm not sure, but I had it in my head that clubs have been obliged to all adopt the parent clubs code these days anyway.

As you say, the 'one scheme fits all' as regards litters would never be agreed - the KC currently allows 6 litters, whereas my breed club stipulates no more than 4, with the first litter being after the bitch is 2.

I know of a breeder who advertises on Champdogs and is a member of the KC Accredited Breeder Scheme, who knows that her stud dog (who she uses on her own bitches) has a 50% chance of being a carrier of GPRA(his sire is a carrier) and will not have the Optigen DNA test done on him, so potentially she could be producing puppies who will be affected by GPRA :rolleyes:

I don't think that's a requirement of the scheme, is it? As long as he has a current clear certificate, that's all that's needed. Of course it would be much better if he were to be tested, but that's another thing entirely ...

No it isn't a requirement, but it  does go to show that just having a current clear eye certificate doesn't mean a thing. I think it shows that the breeder in question is being very irresponsible, still wanting the income from her stud dog, these are the kind of people who will opt to be KC Accredited Breeders, not people who are geniunely concerned about the quality and health of the puppies.