A friend of mine has been looking and leaning about scottish terriers for the last two years , she has been to some of the shows , spoken to breeders , all the right stuff etc.
Anyway she contacted the KC and was given the number of a lady in Essex who has a litter and she is also on the accredited breeder scheme.
She rang and made an appointment to pop down and have a look, she was told that they were 7 weeks old.
When her and her husband got there, they walked up to the house and she told me that the smell was awful, when the door opened the smell was like someone smacking you in the face, they went in and was confronted by dogs in cages . and there bedding did not look to healthy ( wet ) they were taken in to the front room more dogs in cages , yorkies , scotties ,westies etc in the corner was a cardboard box with little black puppies in it ,when they has a closer look the puppies had white chests and feet, even though my friend has not had a great deal to do with scottie pups she could tell that they were not pure, anyway they got chatting and the woman assured my friend that they were pure bred, and that the white markings were very rare and sort after they were all KC registered and showed my friends the paperwork, my friend made her excuse that she wanted a pure black one and left.
She was mortified by what she saw and contacted the RSPCA and phoned the KC.
The KC told her that they could do nothing as they can only go on the information provided by breeders and they have to believe that the informaton is correct.
She phoned the RSPCA back and they told her that they will investigate but they could not keep her updated on the case as she was not personally involved.
Now my friend is having tears over the poor little mites , what else can she do!!

Peanuts

If she has informed the RSPCA of the poor conditions there really is nothing more she can do and she should not feel she had let them down in anyway.
The stated aim of the KC is to eventually make DNA of breeding stock mandatory for the scheme so hopefully in the future it will be impossible for someone on the scheme to pass crosses off as pure.  I am however surprised to hear that they are not interested in the comments your friend has made to them.  The KC do not have the powers to go and inspect for themselves so they are obviously dependent on feedback but maybe it will take more than one complaint to cause them to look closer at this breeders activities.  Certainly if people are going to her because she is an accredited breeder I would expect they are likely to be the sort of client who will report back if they regard the conditions as suspect, several complaints cannot be ignored surely.

Yes i agree isabel, i cant believe that the KC havent gone and investigated, exspecially when they are on the accredited breeders scheme. I think its a bit of a joke really as like you said isabel, certain people would go to her because she is an accredited breeder, and as you pay to become one and the KC havent investigated a claim of poor conditions, i think it make a joke of the scheme.

Then you are not agreeing :).  I can believe the KC haven't gone to investigate because I don't believe they have the powers to and what I was saying about people going because they are accredited breeder was, if there is cause for complaint, the KC will hear from more of them and may then have the necessary strength of case to perhaps remove them from the scheme.  I think we have to bear in mind that the show and breeding world is not without it's malicous complaints hence we have the £35 charge for show complaints ;)

As stated in another thread, there is a letter in Dog World this week which runs along the same vein.  It is an absolute disgrace that people who have basically puppy farming conditions, albeit that the dogs are in the home and not in sheds, should be able to call themselves accredited breeders, however, I really think that the KC should look again at this scheme and only impliment it when they are able to police it properly. It obvoiusly hasn't been thought out properly in the beginning.  I know of a case of the RSPCA investigating another accredited breeder due to the appalling conditions they were keeping their dogs in!

hopefully the rspca will do somethign about it. i had a 11 month old boxer from the rspca who basically was seized from the same situation. a breeder basically breeding loads of breeds all the pups kept in dirty cages with them mum. in this case the boxers where actually pure bred, the breeder was out to get money.
all the dogs at the premises had kennel cougth.

The normal course of events, even before the accredited breeder scheme, would be for a court case to be completed before the KC took any action and banned a breeder from KC activity and I think it is fairly obvious why this is preferable to responding to individual reports.
However the scheme does demand that a feedback form is included in the Puppy Sales Wallets so presumably if several complaints of the same type were made they would intend to take action of some sort.

Sorry i apologise isabel, i missread you post i though you had said that the KC DO have the power to investigate, yet they dont! :rolleyes: need some reading lessons i think! :D lol 

As the ABS paperwork states that 'visits to Accredited Breeder kennels may also be undertaken', and this is something that breeders have voluntarily signed up to, surely the KC do have the power to visit if they choose? - and are they not meant to be in the process of implementing a scheme of kennel checks, as one of the issues people have with the scheme is that there there are few checks?

M.

I am just surprised your Friend didn't go through the breed club for a breeder, as people in the breed are more likely to know about individual breeders in their breed than then Kennel Club whose net is much wider, so they won't have such detailed knowledge.

Also the ABS is supposed to function on feedback, but maybe it is only feedback from actual buyers, which seems a bit wrong way around if things are not as they should be.

Maybe endorsement of a particular breeder by a breed club or canine society should be part of the accreditation, so that -people of good standing in dogs can second a breeders application for this scheme.

Maybe their names should go forward like the chosen affixes do to see if there are any legitimate objections.

These sorts of people shouldn't be able to get onto the schemes in the first place if they are to have any meaning.

Personally, I feel the scheme could be improved by making breed club membership a requirement :) 
Just noticed your edit :)  I don't think endorsements would be necessary if they are acceptable for breed club membership they should be acceptable for the scheme.

There is always the odd time that a breeder exhibitor may have legitimate issues with their breed club, as somwe breeds don't ahve numerous breed clubs, which is why I added canine society too, in that case an endorsemetn may be appropriate as canien club membership is available to most anyone.

I think societies and clubs are synonomous aren't they?  I would have said parent club or society.  If they have issues with the club not sure that they would get their endorsement ;)

What I meant by endorsement was that they passed muster to belong to the breed club, so that would be the endorsement.  I think in the case of membership to a general canine society some personal endorsement/references might be needed.

Yes, I see :) 

I personally believe that if a person is registered as a KC accredited breeder then the KC should be checking the validity of that breeder otherwise the whole scheme can be viewed as suspect. Genuine caring breeders who are accredited  could end up being tarred with the same brush by the general public who do not understand the whole KC set up anyway.

In a different thread I posted the following as I saw it from a laymans point of view and this story only seems to reinforce how the general public - the people who need educating on the right way to go about buying a puppy - can be forgiven for not buying from the correct type of breeder.

"Most of Joe Public see the words Kennel Club Registered and believe it to mean that it is something along the lines of Corgi registered gas fitters or ABTA travel agents - i.e. if they are registered they have to adhere to certain standards and ethics so therefore they must be reliable and accountable.

Since joining this forum I have found out that KC registered does not,  necessarily, mean health tested parents and I actually think that the KC does itself a diservice by not insisting that all dogs who are endorsed with their registeration are health tested in all cases. For JP it could be construed that its not worth going to a reputable breeder as the KC registeration doesn't mean much ( from a lay persons point of view) .  How many people who need to find a service of some sort go to the phone book and look for an advert for somebody who is a member of an accepted register of tredesmen, professionals etc and take their membership as an indication of work to a certain standard. "

I know nothing about how the KC works, or breeding, but would assume that breeders are charged for accreditation in which case they are not getting a good deal if breeders like the one mentioned by the OP are listed along with genuine breeders who breed for the good of their breed and not to line their pockets.

"I am just surprised your Friend didn't go through the breed club for a breeder"

My friend like a lot of people looking for pups and not clued up on how dog people generally do things , thought , (again like most people) that the KC are a form of help and the place to do to get advice on a good pedigree dog.
She thought that she was doing the right thing.
How was she to know that they would send her there.
please don't blame my friend!!

She did the right thing in the end , buy not buying one and reporting it.

Peanuts

The reason I asked was that if she has been researching the breed I assumed she had contact with the breed club/s and been to shows, ans would,have then realised that you needed to go direct to the people closest to the coal face.

Certainly not blaming her, just don't understand why people don't go the the breed club 'specific' rather than the KC who can only have general info.

She has been to some shows and things , but no luck with puppy hunting, as the people that she spoke to all had either sold all there pups or not breeding in the next six months hense she went to the KC

Sorry if i sounded harsh , over protective i suppose, she really has had an ordeal this week and still is having the odd cry, she is a very sentisive soul!!

Peanuts

I would suggest she contact the breed club and find out if they have a puppy list or breeders list.  she can then contact the breeders direct, arrange to visit, and if there are no pups around then go on the list of a breeder she has confidence in.

Sometimes it is far better visiting when there are no puppies.

I feel very sorry for the OPs friend. This is just the sort of thing the widely advertised KC acredited scheme is supposed to stop, yet it seems in reality it has no teeth at all. What is the point of having a complaints proceedure if its not implimented, even by just one report? Do the breeders on the scheme not have to allow entry of a KC rep should there be a complaint....I would have thought something like that should have been part of the rules of entry. Makes a total mockery of it. IMO. The KC are supposed to stand out above everything in the dog world, many may not have even heard of a breed club but even so, the kennel club is suposed to be 'THE' place to go, with this scheme protecting the buyer, and being a reputable place to buy a puppy. How does the sceme work with multi breeds? As a breeder with more than one breed, do you have to be acredited in each breed, or just the one which covers all?

Op, your friend knows the name and address of this person, I would get her, or yourself, to ring every breed club for each breed of dog you saw there, and see if she is a member of one. The breed club may be a bit more interested, not that they can do much apart from ban her, I don't know how their proceedures work if someone is reported as being a less than suitable person.

The income tax man may be interested however. Have a look on the web, find details for your area re contacting them. Trading standards may also be interested, as she is claiming to be an acredited breeder, but keeping the dogs in less than acredited conditions. Is she definatly presently an acredited breeder?

A person can be an 'Accredited breeder' without ever having bred a litter ... :(

"A person can be an 'Accredited breeder' without ever having bred a litter ...  "

...sounds about as reliable as a chocolate fireguard!

This has been enlightening, as I always thought such accreditation required some sort of initial vetting process at least, plus ongoing reviewing of some sort.

Our puppy has not yet been registered with the KC by the owner of the dam, even though people were asked to choose registration names for their puppies - it's annoying, and other buyers of the puppies are apparently taking things further. It doesn't worry me too much from the point of view of our puppies future, but the principal certainly does.
We know the highly respected breeders of both parents, know there are not forseeable problems, and we don't intend to either show her or breed, but for others, this could matter a great deal. It's the first time anything like this has ever happened to us, and it feels as though this beautiful puppy isn't fully 'acknowledged'.

It's a pity the new owners cannot register the puppies themselves by being given a signed form of ownership by the breeder at the point of purchase.

I dont think KC reg is worth the paper it is written on. Some of my friends have had westies from people who are not KC registered and they have been reputable caring places and the opposite has been true of some of the KC registered places. The breed clubs arent always very helpful. I contacted 2. One did not have any geographical knowledge of the area I lived in (being in the area that club served) and could not therefore put me in touch with anyone within a reasonable distance, the other club did not reply to my emails although they only gave an email address for contact. When I did eventually make contact with them they gave me one contact which turned out to be someone who had decided to let their bitch have a litter before spaying them - no particular evidence that they knew what they were doing. It is just a lottery out there.

KC registration, although not perfect, is infinitely better than the alternatives, June. Did you contact the Breed Clubs listed on the relevant Breed Standard on the KC site? They all seem to be phone contact only - no email addresses; certainly not with Westies. Perhaps the club you tried wasn't one recognised by the KC, which is why you got such a poor response?

You do have to give details of your experience of the breed though, JG, and perhaps joining such a scheme before you breed that first litter is not such a bad idea :)
Like KC registration itself the scheme is not perfect but I believe it is a step in the right direction.

I'm not interested in paying to be a member of a scheme where no health testing is required (for my breed) for membership, only recommended, when it's well-known that there are testable problems.

The scheme will not stop you continuing to do any tests :)  It does, however, ensure testing is done for the recommended ones which are not a requirement for registration otherwise. Anything that encourages that is a good thing in my book.

Until the scheme differentiates between breeders who do test and those who don't IMO it's meaningless. For instance, it doesn't require hip-scoring or BAER testing for a dal breeder to be 'accredited'. Those who don't bother to test are indistinguishable from those who do. :(

There are tests recommended.  I can't really see that we can ever expect the KC to insist on a test that the consensus of the breed, through the breed club, does not regard as essential.  I'm not at all sure I would want it the other way round :)
I would like to see club membership mandatory though and that would ensure tests required by the breed clubs outwith the BVA/KC scheme would be included.

In some breeds there are tests required - in others they're only recommended. It's not a level playing-field.

And in other breeds they are asking for tests that Breed Clubs neither require or recommend.

To be honest, in my breed I think the KC should be insisting on Accredited Breeders using a form of testing that is (as far as I am aware) not a requirement of any breed club. I am not aware of any breed club in my breed recommending any health testing at all, which is probably why we have such wide-spread occurrence of a condition that other breeds seem far better able to control.

The parent club and the Breed Council are the last people likely to recommend it, as they appear to be of the 'we don't have problems with x condition' school, although whether this is true is debatable. Having had this conversation with you before Isabel (not being stroppy, in case it comes over that way!), I guess you will feel that if the clubs aren't recommending it, then it isn't necessary, but I certainly know this to be untrue as it can be very debilitating and can affect a dog's primary role as a companion.

And yes, I do test anyway, above and beyond what most people would consider normal.

M.

You're definitely not normal, Lily Mc! :D

It's been said before, Val! ;) :D

M.

Yes, I think we have had this conversation before :)  I could not say whether any particular test was essential or not, I would doubt any individual could as these things are subjective and it takes many heads to determine the best course in a world that is not all black or all white, which is why I think it is up to breed clubs to determine it.  They are, after all, democratic organisations and the committee, from which any health committee will be drawn, is determined by a regular voting system.

What does make a breed club determine what tests should be done, if these tests have not been recommended before?

New data, shift in weight of opinion.

Does that mean then that once there is a health problem within a breed testing is then recommended?  Surely  the problems would be quite established by then and being perpetuated within  the breed? I would have thought prevention was better than cure.

I've just been reading the KC Review of the Year and on Page 11 it says that 'An advisor who will visit Accredited Breeder establishments has been appointed.'

I hope that they're going to supply roller skates so that he/she can get round to visit all those registered! :rolleyes:

Maybe not, I think that there are only half a dozen in my breed!

Apparently there's over 1000 on the scheme so far - how many a day will s/he have to visit? A job for life, methinks!

*rushes to apply as reserve advisor*

LOL JG......bet you get trampled in the rush :D :D

One advisor, :P he/she will be on the road more than visiting premises :D watch the litter registration prices soar ;)

There was an article in the kennel club newsletter that arrived last week saying Bill Lambert has been apointed as an advisor to the scheme and will carry out checks on breeders premises in an advisory capacity

Hurrah!  Another step forward :)  Can't imagine he will be able to do the job without prioritising though and perhaps observing for a pattern of comments or complaints to sift out the subjective or even the malicious