I see you didn't get in on the stock thread, perfectly good term, but some people felt it smacked of a commercial or unfeeling point of view.  Others myself included viewed it as a descriptive term for ones breeding (whether own dogs or those bred and homed). :D

I certainly didn't take offence, but this is the kind of thing that worries me when well meaning people say that all breeders should be licensed and inspected, what kind of facilities might be considered  essential or inappropriate by jobs worths who know nothing about the matter. 

It seems any time restrictions are made it is the people who don't need the red tape get caught in it and those it should be used against know how to ignore or evade it.

"....unless you have some legal control over the breeding of puppies as well you will just have people breeding without bothering with the Kennel Club..."

The breeding and sale of dogs welfare act is there to control the breeding of dogs and those subject to it have rules to follow like not being allowed to breed from a bitch within a 12 month of her last litter, not being allowed to sell pups under 8 weeks of age except to a Pet shop etc.

The law isn't being policed or enforced.

Right, quick update. Rang the RSPCA this morning, they were very interested and took all the details, then phoned me back to say that as he is KC registered then I should take this to the KC and then if they find a case against him then they will get involved Rang the KC and said that I would like a complaint making in that this chap is breeding with no 12 months between litters. I explained that in the 14 litters he has registered in the last 6 months, 2 of the bitches had litters with only a 7 month break, 3 bitches had litters with only a 6 month break and 2 bitches with only a 5 month break, he asked tersely where I was getting my information from and I told him (smugly) from the KC breed supplements (quite shocked really at his attitude). I said that I believed that they should not have been registered and he told me that I should put it in writing, I said that the breed club were going to write and he said that with more complaints they can take it forward and look at it. I have been in touch with the local council but the lady involved isn't in at present but a kind lady said she would get her to phone me back, I briefly gave her the above information and she said he was breaching his licence. She was lovely, very shocked at what I told her. So now I am waiting for the licence officer to come back to me and am mustering as many people as possible to write to the KC to voice a complaint at the freqency of litters. If anyone is interested it is to The Health & Information Dept at Clarges Street. Will come back with an update hopefully later. Thanks to everyone that has given me tips and contacts on how to approach this. Hopefully if something is done then may be a few less in rescue for the hardworking people to cope with.

Well done Alison! I'm shocked at the KC's attitude -what's the point of rules if they're not going to follow them when they have the evidence in front of them?! 5 months in between litters -AWFUL!!!!!

Thing is that a person on the phone at the KC is just an employee, and may not even know the law on breeding dogs.  they should certainly put you through to someone in the policy and decision making area.

Brilliant work Alison, Here is hoping people will now sit up and take notice about this malpractice

If you pm me details, I will write to KC too :)

Yes very well done Alison, I will write in too if you let me have the details.
Maria :)

Chorley Borough Council have telephoned me and I am sending copies of the breed supplements to her tomorrow and she will follow it up. By the way, might mention that the KC chap told me to contact Trevor Cooper and check the law!! shouldn't they know the legalities? Thanks to everyone that has said they will do letters, hopefully we can put a stop or at least lessen the hardwork that rescue has and maybe if other breeds are pinpointed the KC will have to sit up and take notice. The lady at Chorley Council was very surprised that the KC had registered the puppies. Will pm the details to everyone that has asked tonight. Must hoover the tumbleweed up off the carpets from my lot.

Someone at the KC needs to program their system to flag up the fifth or more litter for the same breeder or address in any 12 months, these people should be advised that they are required to get a license and then forward that to the KC before any further litters are registered and also that they can no longer register litters within 12 months for the same bitch.  I am sure there are some people that are unaware of the law. Would it have to go through ones breed liaison committee member or is there another way as it isn't breed specific.

How does one get a proposal such as the above up through the Kennel Club?

>How does one get a proposal such as the above up through the Kennel Club?

You could add that as a point to the letter regarding this particular case as it would provide a perfect example as to why a computer notification system would be an improvement on leaving these things to be regulated by complaint.

Brainless, yours is a good idea. You shuld raise it with your breed's KC liason rep and ask them to place it on the next breed liason council meeting agenda, I know its a slow process, but it is a process to deal with issues and get them raised.

As far as this specific case is concerned letters from breed clubs would be the most effective.

Will have to do some detective work as our breed council rep died.

Are there not general reps, as this isn't a breed matter?

Pm me the details and I will put a letter together too. The lady that you spoke to also (MD) will write for you also I am sure

. Rang the RSPCA this morning, they were very interested and took all the details, then phoned me back to say that as he is KC registered then I should take this to the KC and then if they find a case against him then they will get involved

You mean, with all their shouting about puppy farming, they are not going to assist in this? Why ever not, I sometimes wonder exactly what the RSPCA actually do when every time someone here mentions calling them, they cant assist :rolleyes:

>as he is KC registered then I should take this to the KC

Do they mean he's an Accredited Breeder? The KC registers dogs, not breeders.

Makes you sick doesn't it ?

Could you PM me the details of who it is so I can look in the BRS and complain to the KC please? :)

Left to Local Authorities it probably isn't policed well enough but I don't think its enough, either, Brainless to fulfill what I meant which was unless you have it totally outlawed for people to breed dogs that would not qualify for a very tight KC registration scheme people would just go it alone because the demand would remain.  So I think there has to be some balance, some compromise if you like, to maintain the influence and encouragement the KC can give to keeping standards at the best possible level.

I am only suggesting that the kennel club do not register illegally bred litters without the breeder having a license when it becomes apparent they require one (after breeding a fifth litter within a 12 month).

It is for the Authorities to administer the law of the land.

Of course people are breeding illegal puppies without registration all the time, but when someone registers enough puppies to prove they should have a license or are breaking license conditions by their own admission then surely at least something should be done then.

Oh yes, and I agree and I hope they will act now it has been brought to their attention and it is shown that they are, or ought to be, licenced breeders.  I just wanted to clarify what I was saying in my quote that you gave :)

We have two separate issues here or maybe even three, the law of the land and breeders of five or more litters  in any 12 months (registered or not) being required to hold a license, the fact these breeders have to have a year between litters from the same bitch and the kennel club allowing these people to register their pups against the law, and without having to provide proof of having a license once they reach the numbers that make it a requirement.

then we have the Accredited breeders scheme, and also the fact that anyone can register puppies in the general way as long as parents are registered and there are no endorsements and bitch over 12 months and under 8, not having had 6 registered litters.

Doesn't the licensing requirement vary by Authority?  I suppose the KC could have a flagging up system for the maximum numbers allowed by any authority, might take a bit of research to find it out though.

Having read a lot here about licenses for breeding and different councils, a few weeks ago I tried to find out what applied to MY local council. I couldn't find any info, so I contacted DEFRA. DEFRA told me that it's the same everywhere; if you breed more than 5 litters a year you need to be licensed, if you're a small hobby breeder you do not. (Well in a nutshell, it was a little bit more involved than that.)

A few years ago the breeding and sale of dogs welfare act changed the old law about more than two breeding bitches to five litters or more, though an individual authority can decide you are breeding commercially even if there are fewer than five litters, but five or more definitely needs a license.

yes, and it gives some stiff penalties to those that flout the law, including prison, even if you don't breed more than 4 litters if they can prove you are financiallly gaining from it. The law is there, and if reported to the enviroment dept of the council, they will follow it up.

The Kc can and should do more regarding this. They can quite eaisily check the frequency of litters, they can have a licence on file to show all that licence entails to that person, so making sure that dog breeding is kept within the law for Kc registered dogs should be very easy. If a person owns a car that has no tax, for example, and allows another to drive it, they are aiding and abetting this offence. Whilst legally not commitiing an offence, the Kc are certainly morally commiting one, and going against their rules and the law of the land, by constantly registering puppies that legally should not be. They shout out against puppy farming, yet their own registration system actually supports and encourages it :rolleyes: they have been a wonderful organisation for dogs in days gone by, now they need to get up to date with things in this century, and now they have more power from the legal system, and a far better computer system, they should be able to all but crush puppy farming when it applies to Kc reg dogs. yet they don't even try, except to give a two tier system that simply shows they are willing to register anything.

regarding the right to visit your premises, those that are AB, what did you sign to say when anyone can visit your premises?

I think the Kc have to be very careful what they say over the phone, and no doubt will be trained to do so, even though the calls are recorded, because what is said is different to what is clearly written in front of you. The attitude does sound as if they don't welcome complaints though. :rolleyes:

It will be interesting to see how this works out. it is heartwarming to know there are people who see something wrong and are willing to do something about it, even if it does mean standing up to a large organisation. Good luck and well done :)

>they can have a licence on file to show all that licence entails to that person,

A breeding licence is nothing to do with the KC - it's issued and administered by each local council.

but they can ensure that volume breeders have one and uphold the law.  The reg form asks you if you are a registered breeder so I assumed (wrongly it would seem) that they needed this info for this reason (registered breeders are not supposed to have bitches whelp within 12 months of a previous litter.

Another update. Have e-mailed copies of the breed supplements to the council office and I was impressed that within half an hour she mailed me back saying thank you for the information and that she would let me know how she gets on. Not officious in any way so I am hoping I have an ally there. Have also been onto Inland Revenue who took all the details off me and are passing it to the investigation team. Thank you to all who have written letters and thank you for the useful pieces of information, as although I get uptight I don't always know which is the best way to approach things. Will keep you informed as to any replies I get.

Good, after all the BRS will provide irrefutable evidence of his activities.  It might be worth pointing out to them that these are the records for just one quarter.  Have you got other BRS with his litters in?

I have actually sent them the details from the last two i.e. 6 months worth. He has registered 14 litters, 2 with a 7 month gap between litters, 3 with a 6 month gap between litters and 2 with a 5 month gap. Now I would have said that it was almost pyhsically impossible to actually have a litter in that short of a time, so if that was the case, one could almost presume that records have been falsified. In any case they should be able to get him for something. If he has falsified records and the litters are not from the bitch stated then the Kennel Club should be able to ban him for a period of time. I think I have now covered every avenue, so will just have to wait, hopefully for the downfall. By the way, don't know if I have already mentioned it but one bitch is 2 years and 9 months of age and has had 3 litters. The bitch is from a fairly reknowned litter so am awaiting the backlash. Bring it on! One would have thought that they would have put breeding restrictions on. I know a bit about this one but cannot say too much at this stage.

Hopefully the breeder of the bitch will be pleased that the bitch may stop being used as a puppy machine.  At that age one of mine might be having their first litter, and three litters is the most I have bred from any bitch, 18 pups in total.

Sorry to rain on your parade Barbara but unfortunately I think the breeder is well aware and doesn't have a problem with it. Surprising what you unearth when you do a bit of gardening.

Grrr! :rolleyes:

See that sounds reasonable. Whereas I was VERY unimpressed looking at the BRS this time - usually my breeds are reasonably OK, but  in this one there's a sixth litter out of an 8 yr old bitch, total 57 pups.... How can having that many litters from a bitch and registering that many pups be justified?

KC allows six litters and on application if supported by a Vet will allow a litter after the age of 8.  Whetehr it is justified may depend on the health of the bitch and her quality, but certainly twice as many litters as I feel is needed, especially with over 9 pups per litter.

The reg form asks you if you are a registered breeder so I assumed (wrongly it would seem) that they needed this info for this reason (registered breeders are not supposed to have bitches whelp within 12 months of a previous litter.

Agree very strongly.

It would seem to me that a club that holds itself to be a responsible organisation would wish to be seen to be working within the law of the land with regard to registering the puppies from breeders, licenced or not. It is possible to not be a licenced breeder, yet still have the KC register more than the 4 litters of puppies, with nothing said more than the breeder could not use their puppy sales service because they were registering more than 4 litters in that 12 mth period. A couple of years or so ago I had a 'mum' outside school tell me this, she was infuriated because they would not let her use the puppy list, and showed me the letter (and the group of 'other mums' who occasionally have a dog at school gates with them.) She didnt know where to advertise the litter, and was asking where we had bought our dogs from when they were puppies, so she could advertise there.

As the 'champion' of pedigree dogs, i do think they should tighten up, be more strict not just with their own rules and regs, but with the Law relating to breeding of dogs. There will always be those who cross breeds, or fail to register the litter, but puppy farmed dogs are usually Kc reg to bring in the high value, so by making it difficult/impossible to register puppies born from breeders that are breaking the law will surely make things better for the pedigree dog world, and give the KC the high status it so desires. Whilst it is encouraging the breeders to break the law it is hardly doing that. Its a shame that there are loads of puppies born that should not be, the law should be there to protect them, but i think that the KC should first and foremost be there to protect its registered puppies, and also for the clients that 'KC reg' label brings.

There are many things which I think the KC could do to improve the quality of 'KC-registered' dogs, not least the insistence upon sire and dam being themselves of a certain quality and not just registered themselves.

Agree completely JG.

Have you had a response /acknowledgement from anyone yet?

No, nothing yet. I will give it about 2 weeks to give them a chance to do any investigating that is necessary then will do a follow up.