I contacted the so called Dog Lovers Register recently to ask if I could get hold of details of Dobermanns registered with them - being a Dobe genealogist I like to keep track and after their refusal I got to thinking.

They were unable to help me, in fact they won't tell anyone anything about the pedigrees of the dogs registered with them unless they can prove beyond doubt that they own the dog concerned.

To my mind this proves it is solely a money making concern if they are "hiding" the information on the dogs they supposedly register and thus they are beyond being worthless.

I wonder if their refusal is because they cannot tie up the so called pedigrees they receive which could well be false and therefore possibly damage the good name of some reputable breeders

Christine

I don't fully unerstand. I have vaguely heard of this register but know nothing of it except it is a knew thing, an alternative to KC registration or as well as.
What is it they are claiming they do or are? As I understand it this some kind register where people can register their dogs for a fee, is that correct?
Are they claiming to have the geneology of all dogs or something like that?
Any idea how much it costs to register a dog? or litter?

Hi,

You already probably agree with these comments but just thought I would add that the DL is not an alternative or an "as well as". Anyone who I have spoken with that is in the know have told me it is a scam and it is 100% not recongnised by anyone. Run a mile when you hear it or see it. The K.C. is the proper and Only British registration body.

Pam

Unless things have changed, I dont think they acually HAVE any pedigrees on file - all they require to issue their "Registrations Certificates" is parents names (and breed, date of birth etc). It certainly was not their original intention to provide any sort of database, just a worthless certificate. Cant think why anyone bothers, - surely they could just print there own certificates without submitting the £5 or £6 to these people. It would be as vaild (that is, not at all:)0G
Gwen

I've always thought it was so they can advertise a dog as '''registered''' what ever that means. Ja:)kie

I went and had a look at the site out of curiousity and as far as I can see I could have chosen a breed made up names and registered a litter, if I wanted to waste my money!!!
I think I noticed a disclaimer to the effect that hey took no responsibility for the correctness of info supplied to them. Seems a strange kind of set up to me a true case of not being worth the paper they are written on
Anne

Its the same as that PETA thing on here, sign a petition and the site asks for a $1, theres money makeing things all over www ones as good as the next I guess.
But then again the KC was in problems in the 80's, I think some top people ended up in court over some kind of corruption, can't remember what.

Whilst certainly not being in favour of the Dog Lovers registry, the KC makes the same sort of disclaimer - info. on KC reg. certificates are only containg info. supplied by breeder, and KC take no responsibility for incorrect info - in fact, if I remember correctly, earlier this year they agreed to register a Mastiff with some glaring questions marks in its pedigree. Without positive ID (DNA testing/microchipping etc) then all pedigree and registration details are relying on on breeders honesty and accuracy.
Gwen

That’s news to me Gwen, I have been trying to remember exactly what the 1980's scandals were about, I know false pedigrees were involved but I think that was only one of many many things. I might be wrong but I think they had to 'replace' a director or something.
It was national news headlines at the time.
In any case the kennel club is running a business the same as this dog lovers registry thing and if there was a question of one pedigree which was questionable then how many more we do not know about?
I guess the reality of it is how all businesses market themselves. Because the KC is a very long standing organization and well established people think of it as 'It must be ok' and never question it at all.
That psychological attitude is the norm in the UK and gives an open door to these organisations to do what they want, regardless of a tatty service, whatever they say the vast majority of people accept it without question.
It is only when someone looks into these organizations that things start emerging which proves that what goes on under the surface is far removed from the acceptable image portrayed as influential fodder to the masses.
First this column started off the dog lovers registry coming under question, now, it has emerged that the KC as well has put a legaly non-liability discalaimer clause in their litrature, when one takes into account that almost all pedigree dogs in UK are registered with KC then how many dogs ancestory could be questionable.
Maybe when we see some kind of statement put out in the press or on www the first question in our minds should be 'Who stands to gain financialy if I believe this'

I think the disclaier is aimed at pointing out that the KC relies on the honesty of the breeder, and that slight errors are likely to creep into any databank.

It isn't possible with the KC to just make up a pedigree for a dog. The parents will have been registered, their parents beofre them, and so into the mists of time, so a false pedigree would come to light if it were just a work of fiction. The fact that dog (a) and bitch (b) may not be the parents of dog (c) is possible. The parents may also be a matter of fiction if their breeder had registered more pups than there were, in order to furnish papers to dogs without paperwork.

I think this is the way that stolen dogs get used, and their offspring registered as from some non existent, or deceased animal.

Don't think breeders in breeds of small numbers would get away with much, think it would soon be noticed if a dog did not have the parents it was supposed to have. Certainly in the breed Brainless & I have dogs carry a good deal of their predecessors points, good & bad, with them. It is unusual to see a dog in the ring and have to look in the catalouge to see what the breeding is. It must be a different story in a breed with large numbers of individuals, but would still think those in the show ring are probably good examples of their breeders stock and easily recognised as such. What do you think? Ja:)kie

Don't know Jackie. I was talking to someone that I have a lot of respect for the other evening, and they are convinced that there have been a few deliberate but unreported out-crosses from their (relatively small) breed to a another breed recently in order to "improve" one aspect of the first breed. These breeds are closely enough related that I can imagine people getting away with it all too easily, and unfortunately the breed suspected of being outcrossed to has far more health problems than the on being supposedly 'improved'.

I've posted before about Miss Noble putting the famous black greyhound into deerhounds in the early '50's to increase the gene pool after the war, and that decision I admire as a brave and wise one. But that out-cross was done (a) to one one of the healthiest breeds in dogdom, and (b) completely openly. To my mind those are very diffferent situations,

Thats what I meant, your friend is convinced something is wrong, she is probably right.
Ja:)kie

See what you mean now Jackie - didn't read your first post carefully enough :-).

New exhibitors seem so surprised when you know exactly how their new pup is breed, for several generations, lol

Hi Brainless & Doodog, the point of the KC disclaimer is that the information contained on its form is wholly supplied by the breeder, and if any innacuracies are present it is the breeders fault. Obviously, both parents must be KC reg, but is the breeder gives false info. on 1 or both this makes the pedigreee either 50% or 100% innacurate! Obviously, the KC does not condone it, and if it comes to light then they take disciplinary action, but wont be held liable themselves. The recent Mastiff case involved an incident when a dogs mother (I thinK) could have been one of two bitches - I cant remember the whole details, but it caused a bit of an oucry about the validity of the system allowing the registration in such an instance.

When you read the KC Breed Record Supplement you will see that some breeders seem to have consistenely much larger litters than others, particularly in the more popular breeders. The concensus of opinion on this is that some of the more disreputable breeders "lump together" litters to cut down on actual number of litters bred from each bitch, to get round some of the regulations. Of course, registering with "Dog Lovers" they dont have to do this, but some of them seem to like the faint veneer of respectability that KC reg. gives them!
Gwen

Hi all,

I personally think just like all disclaimers it is to relieve them of the possibility of them being sued for dodgy pedigrees.

Pam

Hi Kerioake
I`m sure you are right about it being a money making racket.I don`t think the general public are really aware of the difference between the K.C. and the so called Dog Lovers Registry. The name in itself is a good marketing ploy!
I came across a web site for a `puppy farm `in Wales and they used it .They had all the usual small breeds but also bred what they called `Pug-oodles` etc.crossing the various breeds they had,these were also `registered`and you had to pay for this on top of what they were already charging for the puppies! How do they get away with it.Do they point out to people using their register that they won`t be able to exhibit their puppies at K.C. shows?
I don`t think they should be able to call it an alternative to the K.C. as they can`t and don`t offer the same services.At the end of the day they are just a cheaper alternative for puppy farmers and we can`t do a thing about it,worst luck!!!!

The Dog Lovers UK is just a money making concern. It offers no benefit, other than a person can register a puppy with them for £5. They get in return a registration certificate and pedigree that looks very very similar to the one issued by the KC, except this one is blue and KC is green. This method of registering puppies is much favoured by the puppy farmers because it offers them amnominity. If they register a litter of puppies with the KC the details are in the public domain for everyone to see if they wish in the KC breed supplements. The Dog Lovers UK was started by Mr Potts who used to own Mayfields the large pet superstore in Manchester (this store is now owned by a Mr R McCaddin and is called Dogs 4 US Ltd.) They still purchase puppies from puppy farms the same as when it was called Mayfields, and sold with registration certificates issued by the Dog Lovers UK. Nothing changes!
Pat

I think your right pennyforem, the general public have probably never heard of KC or anything much else to do with dogs, in the same way we (most dog owners) know nothing of rabbit organisations, yet, there might well be more pet rabbits than dogs, they certainly have a reputation for not needing aphrodisiacs in their food and owbers probably think their shows are as well known as dog shows, but, how many people know what Crufts is if they have never had a dog.
So first time dog owners who know almost nothing just do or buy whatever services sound or look good, lets face a lot of people get a dog and don't even realise it needs house training. Some vets must have a field day.
Much the same when I bought a whole load of rubbish software and poor printers + accesories with my first PC.

You are right and that is why people should do a little homework to protect themselves.

We can not rely on honesty these days although I think we would all love to be able to.

Pam

I just wanted to add my experience. When I bought my first dog, a blenheim cavalier king charles spaniel (in March this year) I was informed he was kc registered (I bought him "second hand"). When I finally received his papers a few months later (previous owners had mislaid them) I was disappointed to see they were Dog Lovers Reg papers instead of KC. After posting on this board, I found out how worthless his pedigree was. Since then, I now have suspicions that he is not even a full cavalier, but perhaps has some cross breeding with a whippet or some sort of dog down the line. He is very cavalierish, but at 16 months, he looks very different to other cavaliers I know. He has very short wirey hair, his nose is rather long, he is extremely slim (vet assures me he is not underweight) and he loves to run and run very fast. My new pup is 5 months old and already has longer hair than the older one.

I love both my doggies, and I wouldn't swap either for anything, but it just goes to show how the Dog Lovers Assoc counts for absolutely nothing.

Don't know about just the Dog Lovers registrations, I've seen several KC registered puppies recently that are very dubious 'pedigrees' - usually from an 'outlet' not too far from me that is proud to breed the 'old style Cavaliers, which haven't got such short snubby noses' as the owners tell me.

Knowing the range of breeds they sell, and having a suspicious nature, I'd say they're Cocker/Cavalier crosses myself - without a doubt VERY nice looking dogs, but of course some people will then breed on from these as KC registered pedigrees.

Have also seen a couple of instances of pedigree Labs recently that don't stand up to their description in any way - including very long-coated ones!! In one instance, the owner had queried it with the KC as the dog was so different from a Lab, but were assured by the KC that as both parents stated on the form were registered with them, it was a pedigree.

What a good thing for these places that most owners love them anyway - they must laugh all the way to the bank.

Yes the parents as named on the registration may make them pedigre, but there is nothing to prove that those are the parents except the breeders honesty.

And, unless they own the stud too, the stud dog owner has to sign the form don't they. Perhaps that is a bit of a safeguard, as in that case two people would have to be in conspricy to defraud, a very serious crime. Jackie

That is another reason to stay clear of the large scale commercial outlets who have lots of their own dogs and bitches, as there is no-one else involved to know :P