Agree that the KC needs to make a stand and tighten up on the requirements for registration as a whole, rather than penalising reputable breeders by charging them more! There's no point in joining the scheme until breed-relevant health testing is mandatory, not a best 'recommended' with certain tests not even being mentioned.

again i will not be accredited breeder as i do the things that they lay down any way.so why should i pay an extra fee to get a bit of paper stated that i am accredited breeder they need to knack down on the ones that are ab and are not following the rules.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I have been following this thread with interest. Can I ask you all a question?

How many of you on this thread have laid out all your objections to how the scheme is run and sent in these objections to the KC?

It seems to me that everyone is happy to sit here and have a moan but nobody is really interested in doing anything to improve the scheme. It can only improve if responsible breeders get together and tell the KC what they think might improve the scheme. They will of course write a polite letter back thanking you for your comments and perhaps make you feel like you have wasted your time, but the truth is that they do listen and if you really want to change things and make a "better" scheme, then you have to do something about it!

I know if I were in charge at the KC I would not be asking every breeder who registers a litter, but I might consider asking those who are members of my scheme and I might even ask those people who had contacted me, I certainly would not be asking those people who do not want to join, who have never written to me about the scheme and definately not ask those who sit on the side lines moaning about things, doing nothing!

Another thing about the accredited breeder scheme which I have brought up with the KC is that people who only own male dogs like myself should be listed in the scheme, and all stud dog activities should be subject to a code of ethics too. It takes a dog and a bitch to make puppies, so both the dog owner and the bitch owner should be equally responsible for the puppies their dogs produce.

>How many of you on this thread have laid out all your objections to how the scheme is run and sent in these objections to the KC?

I have! I was told that the KC doesn't keep centralised records of BAER results so there's no point in having the test as a requirement. :rolleyes:

>all stud dog activities should be subject to a code of ethics too

I daresay the KC reckons that comes under
"Owners agree not to breed from a bitch in any way which is deleterious to the bitch or breed. " because the stud dog owner should do the research into the bitch's background just as the bitch owner should research that of the stud, and be prepared to turn bitches down.

Well in that case their own code of ethics gives them reason not to register litters from breeders who sell to commercial kennels. 

To be fair if you prove to them this has happened then they will remove registraion priveledges, that is why in our breed all the pups are now DLRC reg.

Funnily enough, Polly, I had a letter this very morn from them about the scheme saying just that.  That they had been talking to breeders and going through point by point just about all the queries and objections laid out in this thread and responding.  One point that particularly caught my eye was the one about money making.  The KC make a considerable loss on this scheme, apparently, which gives futher credence, I believe, to support their primary aim as stated in this letter which is an attempt to put puppy farmers out of business and they don't mince their words :)
They have responded to the concerns about testing by liaising with the breed clubs although obviously as JG points out difficulties are presented by certain schemes so perhaps it will never be totally to peoples satisfaction but I do think they are pushing things forward to the best of their abilities and I can't see how declining to support their efforts is productive in general aim of raising standards in breeding and providing the public with a clear pathway to find those standards.
They have also responded to the call from more home visits although they are clearly still going to rely heavily on customer feed back so go on folks. if you know of something amiss it can't be any more time consuming than posting on a message board about it :)

I didnt realise the Kc sent letters out to all breeders, even those that have not had a litter for a good many years. Thats a supprise, so you all have regular letters from the Kc telling you what they are up too. Thats interesting.

They write to Affix holders.

So everyone on here has this letter then........strange my friends, KC reg affix holders, have not. maybe its late ;) Anyone else got theirs yet?

Yep, I've got one, and my last litter was registered 8 years ago.

Yep I got one with the newsletter which shows the Spanish Water Dog comes off the import register January 2008 and there in the picture was Dilita my original SWD who died three years ago, it was lovely to see!

I had mine last week.

No it's not a letter, just a reminder that you affix collection money is due and there's a newsletter and item about the ABS in there.

It says "Dear Kennel Name Holder" and is signed "yours faithfully".  That's a letter isn't it?  Maybe I got mine because I had already paid my Affix by standing order ;)

I agree with you Yvonne, after having my first golden from an 'Accredited Breeder' (who would not return emails or phone calls when I informed them he had problems with his hips at around 3 months old, and then when it was diagnosed at 6 months) and then agian when he was 18 months old I wanted their thoughts on whether he should have an operation - still no contact from them

I don't think it is worth the paper it is written on! And I also think the KC should start getting their act together otherwise an organisation that is/was known for setting high standards is going to look a bit of a sham!

As you can see I don't feel terribly strongly about that either :D :D :D

Did you follow the complaints proceedure against the breeder with the Kc, and did they show any interest? Just wondered if it actually works :)

What response did you get from the KC when you reported this breeder's failure to behave in accordance with the scheme?

>I wanted their thoughts on whether he should have an operation

Were they vets?
I can see you would have a complaint if they did not carry out recommended screening as obliged by the scheme but not being willing to advise on veterinary treatment does not seem to be covered by it.
If they did not carry out the screening did you inform the KC?

They don't need to be vets to offer advice and support if they are, as they have made out, experienced with the breed. I would have thought any concerned, good breeder would want to know that their breeding may be causing problems, and go round and check all the litter to see if any other problems have arrisen. To simply ignore is not good enough anyway, and certainly not good enough for an AB.

We don't know they didn't check with the rest of the litter.  I think if you are going to judge an actual case you need to hear it all from both parties, which presumably the KC will if it is reported to them.

Erm, didnt say they hadnt checked the other puppies, they couldn't be bothered to find out about the one though ;) We have one half of the story, that is here to be seen, just don't know what action was taken yet.

So, they sound a bit whiffy to me, and cetainly not good enough to be caring breeders, never mind AB ones.

If someone told me one of my pups at months old might have HD I would certainly want a specialist opinion and the pup to be hip scored once old enough which isn't until over a year of age.  Many cases of lameness can be misdiagnosed, I think we had one member whose vet thought the dog had Mild HD, and taking our advice they had the dog scored with a respectable score.

An interesting discussion, and although not a breeder, have been looking for a puppy so have been frequenting the puppy sales register. 
While I totally agree with health testing, one thing that would concern me about only registering those dogs whose parents were health tested is that it would automatically leave an awful lot of dogs not registered.  In spite of not having had health tested parents, these may be healthy and of benefit to the gene pool, but they are automatically eliminated because of not having parents health tested.  In labradors (the largest single breed registered) I was told less than half puppies registered come from health tested parents.  That is a lot of dogs (including possibly healthy / good ones) that will be denied registration. 

I understand and sympathise with those who are unhappy about the accredited breeders scheme, but I do feel that it is a step in the right direction. Yes, it still has a long way to go and I'm sure it would be beneficial for breeders to voice their concerns/requests - very loudly if need be ;).  At the same time, I think the KC club should make it publicly VERY clear that KC registration is only that - a registration -  not a guarantee of quality - but that it is accredited breeders will have adhered to health tests etc and that there should be an obvious and publicised distinction between the two.

One thing I noticed they have added recently is more details about the accredited breeder - ie. a breed club member, has breed dogs that have gained stud book number and more than five litters registered.   These details could be added to in order to give a clearer picture of the type of 'accredited breeder'.

The accredited breeder scheme is a wonderful idea and definitely in the right direction. The KC are trying to help reputable breeders become just that. ;-) Cough, cough!

But synically................ who is it for??

People in the dog world.......... that is it really, for those of us who know better and can rub shoulders with each other showing our little KC AB logo's on our websites etc but, how does it help the first time puppy buyer?

As a guesstimate I would say that probably a good 60% of people when looking for a puppy and seeing the word pedigree don't know the difference between the 'other' pedigree :-(  and a KC pedigree what chance do they have of understanding the difference between a KC registered breeder and an accredited breeder?

It won't help the influx of pet to pet breeding or bad breeding or cross breeding, or people buying these pups still.

I've written to the KC many times about getting the word out, about advertising Big time (I know we've had posts on this many times too)The AB scheme is what we want, but the KC registration then needs to go to make way for something better and more reliable, as already said what is the point of a two tear system.

But what is the point in any of it, if the general public don't have a clue about it, if I stood at a bus stop and asked the queue do any of you know what the AB scheme is if you were to buy a pup, I'd get blank faces.

Those of us in the dog world, already know what to look for in a good dog/bitch and buy via reputation so I have to continually ask is it just to line the KC's pockets, as what is the real point of it???

Most dog owners I meet would never think of contacting the kennel club when looking for a dog. 

The answer if asked would be either the dogs home for a rescue (few have heard of breed rescue) or they would open the local Free Ads paper to source a puppy.

The only ones that would go deeper than that are those that have had a bad expereince so don't want to repeat it, or those who know someone in dogs and have taken advice.

The Kennel club have a very good article about where to get a puppy on their website, needs peopel to read it.

Even advertising their code of ethics would show people not to buy from commercial outlets.

I know lots of people that hit the net when they are thinking of buying anything :)  and I think that is surely set to become even more the norm as the years go on.  They will Google and many will end up browsing the KC site on puppy buying.  Hopefully more, even, than buy Dogs Today ;)

I object in my tight fisted way of having to pay yet again to show that I am better than a puppy farmer.  I already pay annually for my affix and for each puppy I register.  Why don't they make the scheme free, and charge the ones who can't comply extra for registrations.

The KC had over £180 from me last year and the reg docs hardly merit that.  Oh yeah had to pay £25 extra so that they could type in the sires pedigree into their system.  A normal reg only requires them to find two names on their database and combine them to create the registration document.  If you want an actual pedigree oh you have to pay yet again!

Other countries there isn't the confusion between reg doc and pedigree as the KC document had the 3 or four generation pedigree on it.  Lets face it the reg cert is mostly blank space.

> Why don't they make the scheme free, and charge the ones who can't comply extra for registrations.

an excellent idea! Actually, I think that would be a far better idea than charging extra to those joining the scheme.

you can get an AB logo for your website????? how?

Oh yeah that was one of the incentives early on.  I wonder if they have any idea what motivates a real breeder

>In spite of not having had health tested parents, these may be healthy and of benefit to the gene pool,

But they may be not.  I would be delighted to see any scheme or inhibition that would stop this sort of thing.  Labradors expecially are bred in grossly over required numbers so it really would be no loss if those that cannot or will not breed in a responsible way lost some ability to market their puppies.

I would be very wary of using anything in my breeding program that didn't have a health tested background.  Assuming I found a fantastic dog and he himself was hip scored and eye tested, it would still be a huge risk with not having any health data for his ancestors and antecedents.

As we all know with hips the heredity is complex, and with many eye problems they are recessive so knowing the results of generations makes it a lot more likely of producing unaffected pups.

> I would be delighted to see any scheme or inhibition that would stop this sort of thing.

I would too, and certainly in labradors it would probably be very beneficial, but what about breeds with a very small gene pool?

> I would be very wary of using anything in my breeding program that didn't have a health tested background.

True, and as a potential puppy buyer I would not want to buy a puppy from a breeder who had used dogs with no health tested background either. 
But, by refusing to register any dogs that have not been health tested, many, many dogs will automatically be taken out of the gene pool. 

> But they may be not.

True, but with scientific advances, already some health problems can be detected genetically, how long before others are.  Say, for instance, ten years from now, it is possble to test genetically for HD - all those dogs refused registration because they had not had health tests may be clear, but once refused registration, they nor their progeny can ever be registered. 

I do think that refusing to register any dog bred without health tests is throwing the baby out with the bath water.  It could create an even greater divide between the show / reputable breeders and those looking for a pet, rather than trying to build a bridge between the two.

Why would someone who cared about the life and health of every puppy they breed not want to take advantage of any health test offered to try to ensure the puppies produced live a good, healthy and painfree life? health tests may not be everything, not all ailments are purely hereditory, but they do help. I'm sorry, but to me, no sound sire and dam, no kc reg.

Ignorance or a feeling they know better. 

I know reputable (and renowned) breeders who have dismissed using certain health tests because they had never had the problem in their line - and others who question the validity of scheme (in this case elbows)....

Personally - I think ALL dogs being bred should be health tested, but I think much can be done to 'persuade' breeders to health test before taking the irreversible step of refusing to register those without health tests.

I think stopping those that have no tests will sort the wheat out from the chaff. If someone has a good line of show/working dogs, that are able to be used to breed they will want the KC registration, as they do now. To show it is essential. It may force their hand, something I'm not that keen on, but if it saves other puppies from being bred then I'm actually all for it. How can anyone tell if a dog is Ok just by looking. There are many excellent dogs, working gundogs, that work fast and hard all day that have awful hip scores, for example. They look sound, but would you want to use it? Why should they be allowed to use it and maybe put problems into the next generation. same as eye problems, maybe some cannot be seen with the naked eye, dosent mean its not there. The puppy farmers wont stand a chance, and if it cuts them out, all to the good.

> The puppy farmers wont stand a chance, and if it cuts them out, all to the good.

I agree, if it cuts them out that would be great - I'd be all for it. 

> but if it saves other puppies from being bred then I'm actually all for it.

But that's the problem, I don't think it will stop puppies from non-health tested parents being bred, it will simply mean there are far more un-registered/ 'other' registration registered pups around and far fewer kc registered ones.

You are quite right, with all the crosses around too, it won't stop people from breeding, and selling them unregistered. Hwever, because they may not be able to sell them so eaisily, or for such high prices that the Kc reg allows, or promotes, it may just stop some. If they have 6 mth old pups they cant 'shift' it may make them think again for another litter. Or at least, thats my way of looking at it, there will always be those that want a 'good deal' and 'only a pet' so why pay more than you have too.......but then i can't see a responsible breeder selling to someone like that anyway. It would make the KC reg mean something though, a mark of quality, the chance of getting a healthy pup, if the rules for registering were tighter for everyone.

>but what about breeds with a very small gene pool?

I can understand the need for a more open approach to health screening results when gene pools are a difficulty but I can't see any reason not to ensure every information is available to be evaluated.

>Say, for instance, ten years from now, it is possble to test genetically for HD - all those dogs refused registration because they had not had health tests may be clear, but once refused registration, they nor their progeny can ever be registered.

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting a future genetic test may give different results to the present xray ones?  I can't see that it would be worth the risk of using damaging genes now on the off chance that a different kind of test in the future, might just might, show them not to be so damaging after all.

>It could create an even greater divide between the show / reputable breeders and those looking for a pet

What divide?  Surely someone looking for a pet has every bit as much interest in obtaining one as healthy as possible as someone wishing to show.

I've not complained about a person as such but have been in touch with the KC to say that I was surprised that there were a number of breeders who didn't follow the recommended health tests in certain breeds etc. and they just replied with an e-mail saying they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't and that I wasn't satisfied with them trying to improve their ways. 

> I don't understand.  Are you suggesting a future genetic test may give different results to the present xray ones?

Yes, it is possible that a dog is a carrier without suffering from the condition.  Take for instance PRA - it is possible for a dog to have a clear eye certificate but still be a carrier (which can now be DNA tested).  Equally, just because a dog has good hips, it does not always follow that a dog will throw good hips.

> What divide?  Surely someone looking for a pet has every bit as much interest in obtaining one as healthy as possible as someone wishing to show.

I agree wholeheartedly.  I am totally FOR health testing, but I think so many pet owners think they 'only want a pet' and so do not understand the importance of buying from a reputable breeder.  The KC could play a much bigger role in education both pet owners and breeders and I think it would be more effective to do this inclusively over time rather than rejecting half of those they register now which won't necessarily stop the actual breeding.

>I think so many pet owners think they 'only want a pet' and so do not understand the importance of buying from a reputable breeder.

Absolutely. How many times have we read "I'm only looking for a pet, so papers aren't necessary", which of course is music to a puppy-farmer's ears.

"I'm only looking for a pet, so papers aren't necessary",
Only today a friend at work was looking for a puppy on various websites and pointed out to me that a particular breeder 'didn't register her pups with the kennel club' which was 'good because it meant that her puppies were just for pets and not meant to be shown or anything which is just what I want' . This was from an intelligent woman who was perfectly prepared to spend £500 on an unregistered puppy with no indication of what health checks (if any) had been done. I explained to her the other reasons why this breeder might not register her pups and the importance of health checks but like many novice owners, although she had heard of HD she had no idea of other health problems that might affect the breed she was looking at, and 'HD only affects really big dogs anyway'. She had done no research and just wanted a puppy, I'm sure she is not the only prospective owner with these ideas. IMHO 'The Kennel Club' confers some degree of legitimacy to the dogs it registers and therefore it has a reponsibility to ensure that all the puppies it registers are from reputable breeders, not just the ones who advertise on the puppy register.

That's right. KC registration used to be a mark of quality; if it's to regain that reputation it must tighten up and clamp down on those who abuse its name.

Only very few types of PRA have DNA tests.

My own breed has two known forms of the disease different genes) and in the last 10 years we have had four cases of PRA unlike any seen before so possibly a third separate type.

It would seem that the earlier forms which were normally apparent by two years of age have possible been almost bred out due to annual testing that can only show up affecteds, but better than nothing.

With skeletal problems environment and rearing play an important part.

My pups leave here at around 10 pounds in weight sand by the next six weeks or so will double that, so any hiccough with feeding or exercise and contribute to problems.

I think I have read that the heritability of HD is around 35 - 40%

We had a crossbred terrier come in to work today because its eyes had 'gone funny' over the weekend. Referral to an eye specialist confirms that it has lens luxation and tomorrow has one eye removed, and is on medication to try to save the other. It's only 3½ years old, and the owner is in total shock.

And 'they' say that crossbreeds are healthier ...

Went to see a litter a few weeks ago, breeder was keen to tell me they were Accredited Breeders but we were less than impressed. They satisfied the minimum requirements & no more, despite one test being very beneficial to the breed they didn't do it as it wasn't a requirement, yet. Wrong answer if you ask me. They didn't ask us one question about our lifestyle either! Needless to say we didn't reserve a pup.

Quite right the AB requireements should be a starting point only.  Quite frankly if I do join it won't be something high on my list of things to mention to the prospective puppy buyer.

So why join if you don't think it has any value?

Because the suggestion is that those who aren't accredited are somehow second rate.  The only benefit I can see is to disassociate myself from puppy farmers and poor breeders, this wouldn't be necessary if the AB requirements were simply those needed to KC reg puppies, then the others wouldn't' be registering and there would be no need for such a scheme.