I just wondered what would be the effect on Kennel Club registration figures if puppies were only registered from Health tested parents and as in some other countries had to pass a breed assessment or gain awards at shows?

Does anyone know what proportion of the puppies the KC register are from what most people would call quality backgrounds?

If t meant that the number of puppies eligible for KC registration was cut by 3/4 would you be willing to pay higher registration fees, as KC registration would really be a mark of quality.

Do you think the General public would be less inclined to buy poorly bred pups, given that in popular breeds there seems to be a ready market for pups without any registration..

I think the proportion of puppies produced by breeders that, say, do not belong to Breed Clubs or conform to their recommendations may be even higher than that.
We have the Kennel Club Accredited Breeder Scheme which in effect, despite peoples individual misgivings, appears to fulfill the role you are suggesting.
To be honest though, reading the posts of people that are even bothered enough to look for information about care etc on here, many of the public don't seem to regard registration of any kind to be of any great value to them "just buying a pet" as so many of them are.
There is also that seething mass who will seek out puppies but who would never in a month of Sundays pass the vetting of the most lenient of responsible breeders.   They would surely continue to provide bread and butter to any breeders happy to stay outside any improvement scheme because they never seem willing to accept the word of experience that they just cannot offer a suitable home or lifestyle.

Well I and many others don't see why we should pay even more just to be on an elite register when the puppy farmers just pay the usual.

Surely the good breeders who are already spending more on KC helath schemes ought to get a discount on fees when they join.

I may join the scheme eventually, but do object to the usual thing of the responsible people pay the others don't give a stuff

I suppose you are paying more as it has higher adminstrative and policing costs but really that just leads to the same effect as your question above about whether people would tolerate higher costs due to less registrations being accepted doesn't it? :)

Well if the KC are going to continue registering Puppy Farm puppies, how about an (A), (B), form of registration whereby Breeders who carry out the relevant Health tests puppies are put on the KC Puppy List as (A) quality whereas Breeders who don't are put on as a (B) quality. People being what they are they may well think that they would prefer an (A) quality puppy (something to brag about)! as opposed to a (B) quality. In which case there would be no need to charge any more for the registration as it wouldn't cost anything to implement.

Not a bad idea, Alison. :) People are bound to want first-rate rather than second-rate pups, and if puppy-farmers' or BYB's pups could only be classed as 'second-rate' there'd surely be less demand for them.

As yet the AB scheme doesn't require (only recommend) my breed to have any health tests, and makes no mention of BAER at all for any. Until it does it's not worth the paper it's written on IMO. Why should a breeder pay extra for a second-rate system? Now, if the KC refused registration to pups from non-health-tested, non-assessed parents it'd really mean something.

Yep that is how I feel.

And as a member of the general public who has no knowledge of breeding at all it would make it obvious to me that the pup I bought because it was KC registered would be guaranteed to have come from health tested parents :)

As we are still talking about the same Kennel Club the chances of them considering it a requirement for registration when they don't consider it a requirement for the AB scheme seems unlikely to me.

All KC registered means, is the puppies birth has been registered with the Kc, they can compete in Kc events, and if not endorsed, they can produce Kc reg puppies themselves when mated to a Kc dog of the same breed. And the parents health scores and DNA tests will be rcorded on the pups Kc document.

And nothing more than that. Except, of course, the price.

But that isn't what the public perception is, that it is a mark of quality.  After all the vast majority of people buying KC reg pups the names of the parents mean nothing to them, what they are looking for is a quality puppy.

Other Kennel clubs require the parents to be of a certain standard and to have been through breed health tests.  This does mean there are far fewer registered puppies but people know they are getting something of quality.

If all that our KC reg means is that the parents were registered and purported to be dog a and bitch b then it really is no better than being unregistered or some mickey mouse registration system.

The only advantage is that the KC runs shows for KC registered dogs, but only a minority of owners looking for a registered pup are interested in KC events.

I know very little about breeding but feel that 'breeders' would word things differently to sell dogs at the higher rate prices and joe public would be none the wiser. 

Currently there are many ads in the papers offering dogs with full pedigree but no papers as they got 'lost'.  bearing in mind that a pedigree can be made up and as far as i am aware is just a list of names, and a lack of papers (usually because they never existed) is enough to sway some people into buying a non-kc reg dog.

I believe what is needed is a total change in perception - a move away from the word pedigree representing any form of control or quality and a move towards the KC or whatever would be as the benchmark of quality.

A "pedigree" does not even have to be made up to be rubbish :)  Few of the public seem to be aware that a pedigree need not even apply to antecedents of the same breed! so I agree a little education on the benefits of something more than that would be a good thing.

in the country where my new pup is coming from, dogs over 12 months old have to be assessed as to whether they can be bred from before they can be used to produce pups (well ones that the kc will register anyway) i think its a fabulous idea & would love it to be done here.

As someone who used to be 'just a pet owner' I can see both sides now. When I got my first KC Registered dog it really didn't mean anything to me. I was buying a dog that was going to be a pet, but was also going to be a working gundog. The fact that it came from working parents meant much more to me than the fact that it was KC Reg. Now, however, I know a bit more (I hope ;) ) and wouldn't dream of buying a dog that wasn't KC Reg, from health tested parents. BUT it didn't really bother me until I changed breed and learnt more. Most of the general public that I have spoken to don't really care, so long as the dog looks like the breed it is supposed to be :( Somehow I think they need to be educated better, which is something that the kennel club should look into. That way the puppy farms might lose a lot of sales. The public would start asking serious questions :D

The Germans have mandatory health testing and dam and pups are visited by an official, dna tested and all relevant paperwork checked before a registration is issued (according to Christine Heinrich Bvet Opthal) who originally was from Germany. This scheme should be used here and next year all ac breeders will have to have their stock DNA profiled, at the moment they have to have perm identification such as microchip or tattoo. A very good idea about A or B reg for documents but the KC need to do a campaign to educate the general public, not only about rel health scheme tests but also that the KC reg does not nescesarily mean quality. They should offer the accreditation scheme to breeders that fulfill all relevant health checks and abide by the breed club code of ethics not charge £15 per year for it. They should then charge an extra to people wishing to register pups whose sire & dam do not fulfil the breed health scheme. The documents should be stamped to state this in big letters.

The KC needs to get off it's gilded horse and educate the public, they could start with their website to make it more user friendly.

I think we are fighting a loosing battle with the KC on this one

well what do you know - I learn something new everyday!

I was discussing this only the other day. It was about endorments on puppies, and not being able to breed of them, ect;with endorsments on  But! the type of people that would breed of the pup anyway are not intrested in KC registering the pups. Just making a quick buck.
Puppy farms, and pet shops, do not care. Some people that want a puppy, for a pet and not intrested in showing anyway. My not be intrested in a KC pup.
Especially if it is going to cost a lot more money. The only way to try and stop them is to name and shame.
If selling the ped. pups was through there Clubs or Ass. the owners and breeders would be known.
I don't think it could work, because then it might encorage some breeders to inbreed. Then other health problems may accure.
It is worrying, but! I am not sure what the answer is!!!

What policing costs? From what I have read, there is to be ONE person allocated the job of checking breeding homes.........he/shes gonna be busy:rolleyes:

Even one persons salary (in London) plus all the administration costs of employing that person adds up to a considerable amount.

Hi,
What you are saying could be right! But! the people it would be aimed at to stop breeding, would just continue anyway. They just have no ethics's any way. In the ideal world it would be great.
But! where would it start and end?
Health? Looks? Temprement? Hips, eyes, heart, depends on what breed.
As you know you can breed a 0/0 hip score dog to a 0/0 hip score bitch, but the pups hip scores
could be anythink, in logic if dogs and bitches were mated with no health problems which many are
that would aliminate all those health problems in the breed. But! it doesn't.
I think d.n.a. tests should be put on every reg. for the K.C. and all the people should be reg. with there
clubs, Associations of there breed. I think the people who do want good dogs of a reasonable standard,
will vet the breeders anyway. We all have diffrent views on good breeders.
There is a lot of people breeding out there that so called Peg. dogs have no papers.
It could be made that every dog with no papers could not be sold as a pedigree.
That is Not KC'd.
I do think that rep. breeders pay enough in health checks, vet bills, feeding, ect; ect;
If you put it all down on paper all the years cost I know we would all have a shock!!! 
Regards
Denese

Wish there was an easy answer to this but I am afraid we will never be able to eradicate the puppy farmers, back yard breeders, pet shops and dealers. I still maintain that the KC could do more to educate the general public.

Yes but at least if KC reg really was a mark of quality the pups produced by these peopel woudl be seen for what they are.  At the moment Joe Public trying to buy a quality puppy from a reputable breeder has little chance of knowing which is the plausible con artist and which the real thing.

The whole point would be to make the puppy famed poorly bred pups less attractive, and encourage those puppy producers to either stop breeding or up their game, to the benefit of the dogs and buyers.

The Kennel Clubs principle aim is to "In all ways improve pedigree dogs", well at present their fall woefully short of their aims.

With computerisation it would not be difficult to ensure the parents had the relevant health checks for their breed before registering a litter.

In the old days someone would have had to input by hand the whole pedigree for a litter in KC records, now it is just a matter of merging two existing records on their computer.

If you use a dog not on their records (like one abroad) they charge you an extra £25 for typing in his details.

As for improving breeds it seems that recognising Working qualificatiuons is not theri concern at all.

I used a dog that is a finnish hunting champion as well as a show champion and was informed that they only recongised foreign beauty titles.  This on a breed that cannot get a beauty title unless it gains awards in hunting titles!!!

The whole point would be to make the puppy famed poorly bred pups less attractive

I agree with your sentiments and feelings completely but unfortunately, as we so often see on here, people have no understanding what is involved in breeding quality, healthy, good temperament pups and think that all you need is a dog and bitch put together.  Neither the quality of the dogs - "Well they're both pedigree and you don't have to show to breed puppies!" not the health status of the ancestors "They both come from good breeders!" are important to those who just want to have a litter and sell the puppies. :(

Even if the Kennel Club did only register 'approved and health tested stock' for breeding, then the pups produced may well appeal to the discerning buyer, but the masses will still be saying "I only want a pet" and be happy to buy from the person who buys any old dog and bitch, with a pedigree of course :rolleyes:, and mates them together. :(

Speaking as someone who purchased my first golden from a 'not too reputatable breeder' although the litter was KC registered.

To me (an un-experienced dog owner) a KC registration was all the proof I needed to confirm the dog was healthy and came from good breeding stock.  As I'm sure it means to the majority of pet owners.

Only since I've been on this forum and listened to all the experienced breeders, do I now understand KC registered isn't worth the paper it's printed on!

This should not be the case - all dogs registered with the KC should have all the necessary health checks for that particular breed.  Not too much to ask in my opinion!

Is it too simplistic to ask the KC to register ONLY these litters who have at least 5 generations of health screening in their pedigree? 

Surely the price doesn't have to increase to register these pups, after all the  breeders have already paid out vast amounts to have the dam/sire and previous generations screened.

It wouldn't take much to ask every breeder for proof of health screening results before a litter was registered.  That way at least it would prevent the 'puppy farms' from offering KC registered pups 'with papers' as they always seem to say  

Normal everyday dog owners don't have much else to go on I'm afraid - it is the responsibility of the KC to make the changes without increasing costs to honest breeders - maybe it's going to take all the breeders out there to write to the KC with intentions of not registering litters if they continue to register puppy farm bred litters?  

There is even more to buying a healthy sound dog than seeking out health tested parents so it would still be down the purchaser to do their research. After all it does not cost the earth to carry out these tests, certainly compared to what some popular breeds command in purchase price, so there is little to stop the worst sorts of breeders conforming in that particular area but continuing to put any two animals together than happen to manage a pass.
I think it probably would be a good idea to make Breed Club recommended tests mandatory for registration at least it would bring them to the publics attention more but would also like to see more general information around about what else makes a well bred puppy superior and where to source one ie through a Breed Club.  At the end of the day though the low class breeder will always be in business due to the low class purchaser who will be turned away by responsible breeders :(

There is even more to buying a healthy sound dog than seeking out health tested parents

Absolutely.  I know of an Accreditted Breeder who keeps ungroomed dogs outside without bedding when it's -6 degrees, uses her own stud dog rather than travel to one more suitable and has had 5 litters from a bitch who costs £40 per month in drugs to keep alive!  But they fit the criteria that the Kennel Club ask for.  Not the sort of person that I would want to be associated with. :( :(

What did they say when your reported this to them?

Nothing that they can do anything about! :(  The dogs have shelter and clean water.:rolleyes:  There is nothing that says a bitch on medication can't be bred from. :(  Grooming, I was told, is all relative. :(

Dogs are hip scored and eye tested - not necessarily with good results, but they are tested and of course micro chipped - so they are Accreditted Breeders. :(

PS  The dogs are fed and there's no poo around.

I would suggest you get back to them and quote both item 1 (although I believe many outdoor housed dogs do not have bedding as such but if it is inadequate then I would also report it to the RSPCA) and item 6 of their General Code of Ethics which everyone breeding and registering puppies, not just on the Accredited Breeder scheme, are obliged to adhere to.

I find it insulting that you think I haven't done my best to help these dogs Isabel.  These terms are so general that they are open to interpretation.  Proper housing mean a roof - that's it! :(  I happen to think that a timber building with a bare concrete floor isn't adequate in -6 but that's only my opinion and the Kennel Club have said that there is nothing that they can do.  The RSPCA are also not interested because the dogs are fed, have clean water, shelter and their excrement is cleared up.  I can only tell it as it is.

As I say I don't think it that unusual for outdoor dogs not to have bedding and that in itself does not seem to do them any harm and from what you are saying it does appear that all the essentials are taken care of.  There is no doubt many dogs are kept not how we would choose to, but you have to draw a line somewhere.  We have posters on here who think it a crime not to allow dogs in the house for instance.
I don't think item 6 is open to much interpretation either the bitch is healthy enough to breed from or she isn't.

Do you really mean what you have said Isabel, that it's not unusual for outdoor dogs to go without bedding and it causes them no harm? I have never known of outdoor dogs to not have bedding of some sort, and it beggers belief to me that you appear to think its ok.......How do you actually know it causes tham no harm, unless of course you do it yourself? How about the joints, the presure points, rubbing against a concret floor? maybe sleeping in the wee the other dogs have done which has run down to where they sleep, no dog bed or ledge to keep them out of it? or no way to get out of the draft? Unless on a ledge of course, which may be softer because it may be wooden, but this will still cause sores. if you mean 6 as being 6 litters, wow, I thought that amount was only bred by puppy farmers, after all, the poor bitch has had at least 6 years of breeding for this, unless of course it was litter after litter, season after season.
You are very much for the breed clubs, do they support this? Both the poor keeping conditions, and 6 whole litters in a bitches lifetime? All I can say to anyone who thinks it is OK to have 6 litters, try having 6 pregnancies yourself. In 6-8 years.
Why have a dog if its not allowed in the house, to be with you? I realise if there are many it may be difficult, and if they are working dogs, it may not be the best option, but to never have them with you when you only have one or two, and they are kept as show or pet?  What are they kept for then.

I don't think many hounds have blankets :)  How do we know this breeder does not have a ledge or some other method of draught control.  We really don't know anything at all about it other than the RSPCA consider they have adequate shelter.
I think a bitch could have 6 litters in her life time if she is well cared for.  The KC always seem willing and able to take veterinary advise on these matters indeed they often instigate and fund health research so unlikely they would permit something they had any real evidence that it was detrimental.  I think people sometimes get carried away at how draining a litter can be unless a particularly large one.  Dogs only carry their young for 9 weeks and welping is considerable more straight forward that the human who also carries for 9 months.  Even so I am sure very many woman can have 6 babies and remain perfectly healthy.
I can't see why anyone should have to justify why they might want to keep dogs outside that is entirely up to them. 

I think people sometimes get carried away at how draining a litter can be unless a particularly large one.  Dogs only carry their young for 9 weeks and welping is considerable more straight forward that the human who also carries for 9 months

I think any woman who has just one child knows how draining this is - and as for dogs only carrying for 9 weeks and not 9 months, I thought that was something to do with their lifespan - what is it X7 ours?  Gosh it makes me so angry that anyone could think that having 6 litters is OK

A dog that has 6 litters is not going to be healthy enough to produce healthy pups - the bitch is not going to get back to normal before her next litter is on the way! That is just fact and common sense!

KC always seem willing and able to take veterinary advise on these matters

We also know the KC register pups from puppy farms - the reason for this debate!

>and as for dogs only carrying for 9 weeks and not 9 months, I thought that was something to do with their lifespan - what is it X7 ours?

It is nothing to do with live span but everything to do with the very different developement required for a puppy to survive in the world.  Very different to a human's gestation.
You may not believe a bitch can recover in time but then perhaps you have never reared a litter from a healthy, well cared for bitch.  It is clearly not going to be appropriate for every bitch nor every breed even but then there is further guidance from the Breed Clubs.

>KC always seem willing and able to take veterinary advise on these matters

>We also know the KC register pups from puppy farms

Different issues.  The problem there is no legal definition of a puppy farmer.  If people are acting within the laws of welfare etc. I think the KC could be in trouble if they don't accept their registrations when they are conforming to the same requirements issued to all responsible breeders.

It is nothing to do with live span but everything to do with the very different developement required for a puppy to survive in the world.  Very different to a human's gestation

OK  I don't have a biology degree here but I do know that gestation periods are also based on life span - this is why elephants carry their unborn around for longer than us humans.  It stands to reason 9 weeks for a dog is a pretty lengthy time for them.  I've only had 2 children and although I was very healthy and had a normal delivery with both - I was exhausted afterwards and know that I couldn't have kept popping babies out every 9 minths or so for 6 years   It is possible but take a look around you and see for yourself what it does to women who have lots of children in quick succession!  If you can name one that looks her age and not 20 years older and is fit and healthy then maybe you could convince me!

No I've never reared a litter and have no intentions of doing so - but to breed more than 3 or 4 times from one bitch is not in the best interest of the bitch IMO

I don't think it's a different issue about puppy farmers registering their litters with the KC it is what this thread is about.  If the KC would be in trouble not registering everyone that fits their criteria, then their criteria needs to be changed.

9 weeks for a dog is still 9 weeks :)  That is all the length of time that they are required to donate their resources to gestating and a period of about 6 weeks after.  You don't need a biology degree to know enough about reproductive science to know this is an animal that nature has designed to reproduce very easily except in the case of a few rather exagerated breeds.  They produce early offspring without even a fully developed nervous system of a shape and size to be easily welped while the poor woman has to pour months of her resources into producing a child that has developed a disproportionately large head to contain its advanced brain which she then has to push out through a pelvis that she no longer uses to walk on the all fours it was designed for.  It is so utterly different I don't see how anyone could compare it.  Whether the people I know with large families would have looked younger if they hadn't I could not say but that may be to do with an interest in children and activities surrounding them rather than getting of to the beauty parlour :) but none of them look too bad to me and they are certainly healthy.  I doubt they would have proceeded else, it is very much a matter of choice these days.

>If the KC would be in trouble not registering everyone that fits their criteria, then their criteria needs to be changed.

Pointless.  The puppy farmers would just register the litters that conform or go to other organisations.  The criteria has been altered in the past and changed back again as it was found to just impinge on the caring reputable breeder who cares and understands there dog and knows what is appropriate for them.

Pointless.  The puppy farmers would just register the litters that conform or go to other organisations.  The criteria has been altered in the past and changed back again as it was found to just impinge on the caring reputable breeder who cares and understands there dog and knows what is appropriate for them

Not if it was policed properly!

How do you suggest it should be policed?

A bitch will be fit and well by the time her litter is 6 months old with a brand new luxurious coat.  so that is 8 months from mating.

So in throry a bitch could have a litter each year or so from age two  until she is 8 years old, and be perfectly fit.

The kennel club allows this number as their rules have to cover all breeds.  A toy breed may only ahve one or two pups in  a litter, and they also tend to be very long lived.

Now I would never consider more than the four litters our own breed club code of ethics has decided upon based on the average litter size, also the small size of the gene pool may ahve influneced their decision.

The most pups any of my girls have had in their lifetimes has been 18.  That is in two or 3 litters and I think is enough of a contribution to the gene pool.

>I do know that gestation periods are also based on life span

Gestation periods are dependent on more than just the lifespan of the animal. A horse, for example, has a longer gestation period than a human, but a shorter life. A foal is born able to run with its mother within hours. A guinea-pig has the same gestation as a dog but a much shorter lifespan, but the young are much more developed, being born fully furred (unlike most rodents) with eyes and ears open and able to eat solid food within 24 hours. It is more dependent on the lifestyle and how well-developed at birth the young are. A puppy is very much undeveloped compared to a human newborn, who can both see and hear, for example, and within 6 months or so it's often impossible to tell that a bitch has even had a litter.

within 6 months or so it's often impossible to tell that a bitch has even had a litter.

Only for those looking at her, but what about how she is feeling inside?  I know animals are meant to produce more than us humans, but to have 6 litters is not in the best interest of the bitch or the pups.

And yes gestation is dependent on more than lifespan but generally that is how it works!

How she feels 'inside' varies. A healthy medium-sized bitch who had a small litter of four or so pups will be totally back to normal, physically and emotionally. I personally would always leave a clear season between litters, and personally wouldn't have more than two or three litters from a bitch (if she's not produced anything of quality in that time she's not going to) anyway, regardless of how healthy she was.

I'm the same JG not to mention the fact that I find it exhausting :)

My dog is no stoic! She famous for her tragedarian attitude :D  If something was troubling her inside she would not be bouncing around.  Similarly if hormones and nutritional state had not been restored you would not see a healthy coat.
Why don't you see if one of your breeder friends would allow you to witness a delivery?  I think you might then appreciate how very different it is to the human experience. 

My girls have usually forgotten about motherhood by the time pups are two months old.

If you saw my youngest pup now you would think she was her grandmother's offspring as her own mother has less to do with her than she would if she were a visiting canine.  On the other hand Grandma spends ages playing with her and is hero worshipped by the pup, though she was only prepared to spend five weeks playing Mum to her own pups, and much prefers pups when they are older.  the Mother of the pup was a very martyr like Mum for the 6 weeks she gave them full attention, but after that she very quickly lost interest.

Both bitches are fit as fleas and trim (though lacking in the coat department in the older ones case) now less than 16 Weeks after their litters, and you would think only the older one had had pups because of her enlarged nipples.

How do you know what hounds sleep on? has someone told you? is this not hearsay? I have personally known working gundogs, terriors, lurchers and foxhounds that are kenneled, and I know what bedding they have, but then I can't say any of this because its hearsay. Well, should anyone else wish to believe me at face value, they had bedding, were off the floor warm, dry and comfy. :)

What amazes me isabel is your attitude that, regardless of Vals post which you dismiss as hearsay, you state that it is OK for dogs to sleep on a hard floor without bedding in the severe cold weather. To say they are ok being treated like this, and for your opinion not to be hearsay, you must be talking from your own private knowledge. This could only mean either your dogs are kept this way, or others you personally know of are. of course, for you to tell us is again hearsay. But not for you, because you know it for a fact.

With regard to litters of puppies I see you state could. Personally, I think you are sitting on the fence with this one. On one hand you advise people that they should go to breed clubs for a responsible breeder. very sound advice. breed clubs recommend that bitches should not have more than 3-4 litters in the bitches lifetime. this is one of their rules. Unless anyone here can tell me of a breed club that says its ok for 6 litters. They also state (the ones I know of) that a bitch sould not be mated before 2 yrs, or have a last litter after 7 yrs. Ditto to anyone with this too. So, you strongly back your breed club, as ensuring the health and wellbeing of bitches, and ensuring they are not over bred from. Then, the other side of the fence you go against what the breed clubs advise, and fall on the side of the Kc who say its fine to breed from 1 yr old, and last litter at 8--or maybe even older! providing there are only 6 litters!

You so very often pull people up on what they say here regarding what they say, as the general public may read it and think it is ok to breed from their pet bitch, or whatever the subject happens to be.  I say to you, that by totally backing what the kc state, and by going totally against the breed clubs recommendations, this does not make a responsible breeder that has only the best interests of their breed and bitch at heart. They may well assume that it is fine to breed 6 litters, because and I quote you The KC always seem willing and able to take veterinary advise on these matters indeed they often instigate and fund health research so unlikely they would permit something they had any real evidence that it was detrimental. Of course, any owner could read this and think, from your post, all dogs that live in kennels don't require heating or bedding, so thats ok, don't need to buy any.

As to a woman having 6 babies.....I'll leave a midwife to clarify that one. As someone who had two, I know what thats like. One at a time, not 6-10.

I can't see why anyone should have to justify why they might want to keep dogs outside that is entirely up to them.
of course it is. your comment of 'some people think it a crime not to let a dog live indoors' or however you worded it, do not need to justify their point either.