The KC are trying to get breeders to join the scheme and are asking what would make you want to join the scheme? So here is our chance at last to tell it like it is!

The BIGGEST Mistake will be to rant and rave or simply say we don't want puppy farmers in it. Our replies need to be thought out and answered carefully.

I am going to enter the competition they are running, answering this "roundabout" question and where on the form it says :

I would consider joining the Accredited Breeder Scheme if:

(My reply is going to be)

"Members of the scheme must be a member of a breed club, association or society in order to be an Accredited Breeder, for every breed they are registering puppies from.

Members of the scheme should be made to stick to the club, association or society code of ethics for the breed/s they register puppies from, if found in breach of these codes they should be suspended.

Give the clubs, associations and societies codes of ethics some teeth to deal with those tempted to churn out puppies for financial gain, rather than for the betterment of the breed.

Further more there should be two levels of Accredited Breeder membership.

Hobby breeders joining the Accredited Breeders scheme should get cheaper registration of puppies than non members and large scale Accredited Breeder Scheme members. .

Large scale accredited breeders should be made to pay more than hobby breeders for registering puppies and membership and display in all advertisements a licensed trader symbol.

Breed clubs should be encouraged to review annually their codes of ethics, and include stud dogs as well as bitches in the rules for the amount of progeny produced on an annual basis.

All Accredited Breeder Scheme members should get cheaper registration for their puppies than non members, thus rewarding those breeders who do not break the code of ethics and undertake all necessary health testing prior to breeding".

I think my reply would be a good start, and I am printing it onto the back of the entry form as the three lines they are leaving for comments is far too small to make a useful suggestion, let alone make the mistake they are expecting us to make by screaming "we don't want puppy farmers in it" So what do you all reckon? Do you think my answer is a good start?

You might want to change be a member of a breed club to if not a member then adhere to the breed clubs agreed code of ethics.  there are good breeders who for whatever reason of politics fall out with their breed club.

Also the two tier definition be changed to Hobby breeder and those required under the breeding and sale of dogs Welfare Act to have a Breeding License.

I have to say I do object to paying to join a scheme to prove what I am doing already, yet I still have to paying the same Registration fees as volume breeders and those who never in a million years would be eligible.

My costs are already far higner than the puppy producers who shortcut on everything and don't do the expensive health tests.

I would like to hear more about how they are going to *police* the scheme and protect the reputation of responsible breeders against those who claim KC Accredited Breeder status on their websites but in reality have not fulfilled the criteria required.

It makes a mockery of good breeding practice and misleads potential puppy buyers

On a flatcoat message board to which I belong I have been told they do have a team who police the scheme, they investigate all complaints.

Anyway as I said now is our chance to think about how we would make the scheme better, and by entering the competition we get the chance to make a comment or two. I can see why you feel the distinction should be made about joining a breed club, and yet require that all breeders stick to a code of ethics drawn up by the breed clubs. Good point there.

I really think it is important that responsible breeders should ask for this entry form and should make sensible suggestions about how the scheme could be improved.

I did comment that Accredited Breeders should get cheaper registrations for their puppies. Non Accredited Breeders paying more for registration of puppies. However I do think cheaper registration needs to come with a tightening of the rules to include a requirement that breeders adhere to the codes of ethics drawn up by the breed clubs and that they also agree to submit all stock for BVA health checks and other tests as advised by breed clubs.

Non Accredited Breeders paying more for registration of puppies.
Why? There are many excellent breeders out there who do far more than the AB scheme asks for, and always have, yet do not see why they should have to pay the KC more to be on this scheme. If the KC want to stop irresponsible puppy producers, they can do that by refusing to register puppies from breeders who mass produce puppies for a start! remember, you can be an AB without ever having bred a litter, and have absolutly no experience of either breeding dogs, or the dogs in your dogs ancestory, or how to rear a puppy, how to advise clients on puppy behaviour and after care, especially whan in the stroppy stage......what makes an AB any 'better' than someone who has spent a lifetime with their breed, knows them inside out, yet does not want to 'conform' to something they do not believe in because it means nothing in terms of experience and they may not wish to be joined to it.

At the last look, it was just one person from the KC to investigate complaints. Countrywide.

The reasoning behind Accredited Breeders paying less is that people do things for reward. After all would you show your dogs if you didn't get a "reward" in the form of a prize card? A qualification to Crufts? Your name and your dogs name in the canine press and of course in being able to charge a fair amount of money for your puppies? Of course you wouldn't, very few would, infact I doubt there would be a dog show scene or breeders as we know them.

What I am suggesting is that the breeders who do far more might be more inclined to start becoming members if it was a "kite mark of excellence". If those breeders still would not join why not? If the scheme is improved then there should be no reason why such caring breeders would not want to join.

Also the comment about first time breeders joining, everyone has to start somewhere, so why not allow them to join, and learn more as they go along. If the code of ethics provided by the breed clubs requires that following up on puppies bred is a requirement and helping with after sales care is also a requirement i.e. the teenage stage, as a first itme breeder perhaps there should be a requirement that they alert the KC on registering and then the KC experts can help by suggesting places for novice breeders to go to get extra help.

My breed club has area representatives right across the UK, all willing to give help and advice to new owners and breeders. If a puppy owner or the breeder, say a first time breeder came to you and asked for help would you turn them away and deny them help because they were first time breeders? Surely this is where the ABS could play a bigger educational role? After all these first time breeders are definately going to breed from their dogs and bitches anyway so why not have them in the scheme where they can be actively encouraged to do things properly from the begining?

I personally prefer not to have large volume breeders in the scheme but I hope I am realistic enough to realise that it has to be a "one size fits all" type of scheme otherwise why bother having it at all? Why not just go back to where we were before with one registration system which allows for puppy farmers and dog dealers to merrily register any old mongrel .... ooops! pedigree they might think they would like to? Also how do you define a mass producer of puppies? It it somebody who owns six or more dogs? 10 or more? 100 or more? Or is it somebody who breeds some and buys in others for resale?

I know some people think that only people who show or field trial their dogs should be allowed to breed from their dogs but this could be very limiting for breeds with small numbers or a limited gene pool for some other reason. I keep my dogs to work on the shoots I go on, I have very particular standards, but I do not want to field trial my dogs, and I am not interested enough in showing to go to every show on the calendar. I have bred dogs who have won well in the show ring and who have done well working in the field. So I suspect for the people who think that first time or inexperienced breeders should not be allowed to join the ABS then they might not approve of me joining either. 

What makes an experienced breeder? A friend of mine has been in the breed since the 1960's and has over that time only produced 21 litters, is this an experienced breeder or is it somebody who has been in the breed since 1980 and produced over a 100 litters?

I think we all have our "ideal" breeder in mind, for me it is somebody who has researched their breed thoroughly and has undertaken all the necessary health tests on their bitch, chosen very carefully a stud dog who fulfils some aspect which will hopefully and nature permitting produce something better in the next generation. I often see here breeders and owners advising hopeful first time breeders to contact the breeder of their bitch and failing that help from the breed club to find the "right" stud dog. So if they do this why should they be excluded? After all once we were all first time breeders.

Defining who can and who cannot breed or be on the ABS scheme is harder than you might think. So the KC decided to do a "one size fits all scheme", so if it is to have "different sizes" tailored to individual breeds then it has to use more generalised guide lines to start with. Now they are asking for more defined guidelines so why not suggest some?

As to the policing of the scheme it might be one person now but it will only be a matter of time before there are more people out there doing this work. Perhaps some of us here might be employed in that role?

As I have said earlier, this is why it needs very careful thought about how it is to be run and how it should be policed. Hence our answers need to be well thought out, giving positive feedback making useful suggestions not simply saying who we don't want in it especially as those of us answering are probably not going to be members anyway until it is an improved scheme.

Well, I can't see the point of showing if the dogs presented were not placed in order on the day, and a record kept of that. I very much doubt the reason people spend so much money on their hobby expect much in return (such as prizes). if that were the case, showing wouldn't happen because there certainly is no real reward in a material sense of the word. Do people show so that they can ask a lot of money for their puppies ..........I really don't think that is the reason, they show for the pleasure of presenting their dogs and knowing that what they have is correct to the breed standard and good enough to carry the line on, not simply for profit from their puppies. (I can hear those that breed responsibly saying...profit..whats that :rolleyes:) Many may only ever breed when they want a puppy to bring on, so they are hardly likely to produce many litters but their time spent with the breed, learning about it and the bloodlines, thats what counts. Many know personally the dogs in the 5 generation pedigree, know what suits with what dog and what produces what.
Why do the KC or yourself feel the need for a kite mark? The Kc could quite eaisily stop the mass production of puppies from un health tested parents by simply making testing parents essential to register puppies. The Breeding of Dogs Act state the amount of litters produced before you need to be registered, but the KC will register puppies from unlicenced breeders even when the amount of litters tops 5. They could refuse to register them without a breeding licence, and insist a licence be produced each year to ensure the ones that do go over 5 litters are doing this correctly. I don't agree that there should be a duel standard where mass produced puppies can be registered, they are backing puppy farming by doing this.

Of course everyone has to start somewhere. Trouble is, Mr and Mrs Pet Bitch owner can become a AB, own both Mum and Dad, do the health tests (which could be dreadful results, but provided they are done thats fine) be DNa tested, do all the things asked, breed a litter of totally unsuitable puppies year in and year out, yet have the endorsment of being a KC AB.......standing above everyone else, and said to have 'better' bred and reared puppies than someone who over years has bred their dogs with in depth knowledge and have the skills to produce an excellent puppy. As can the mass produced puppies, the AB scheme is so easy to abuse. What makes a puppy farmer/mass producer of puppies? IMO its those that breed for money, only keep a puppy to breed from later, never show or work their dogs to prove their worth of carrying the line on. Sometimes the large show kennels produce a lot of puppies a year, personally I can't think why that is necessary but at least the dogs are bred from proven good quality animals.

Of course novices should have help from a mentor, and there is none better than the breeder of the bitch (or dog) but when that breeder has little idea, what then? breed clubs do not look favourably on people that breed just for the money, and are likely to tell the person so. Quite rightly. An experienced breeder to my mind is the whole scale. Knowledge of pedigrees, knowing what 'this to that' will give, health and nature in the lines chosen, what to use to improve what you have, having a good mentor to help with this in the early years, health testing the sire and dam so that only the best is used, having the knowledge to 'read' and 'understand' what these tests mean in your lines so as not to narrow the gene pool or give problems in future generations, showing the dog so that others can give their opinion of how the dog fits the breed standard and so if worthy of breeding, to whelping, raising, and socialising, finding the right homes, and having the knowledge to correctly advise clients for all the stages of puppyhood. experience is not just the amount of puppies you have whelped, or reared, its everything.

I agree that the KC needs to tighten things up, but I see no need for 'fancy names' the AB scheme should be obligitory, but no, they would lose all the puppy registration fees from the puppy farmers/mass producers etc if they did this.

I am interested in this thread, as I am a first time breeder (litter no. 1 2 weeks and 2 days old) and am applying to become an accredited breeder. My reasons for doing so are that it appears quite a few people KC register without doing the Relevant Health checks, and I wish to be set apart from them.

I do lack experience, but am very lucky in that I have the advice and support of both my bitches breeder and the stud dog owner. (she owns my bitch's sire and the puppie's sire (not the same dog, she owns both though)) Between them they have almost 60 years experience in the breed. Both have different ways of doing things, so I feel I can draw on that, as well as what I have read/found out myself, and then find my own way of doing things. I already do/plan to do what is required of the Accredited Breeder scheme, and more.

I do think there are ways of improving the scheme. Maybe an interview to prospective candidates prior to being accepted on the scheme, along with bi-annual at least inspections of premises/practices. I also think they should only allow a litter to be registered if the sire and dam's Hip scores are below the breed average. (This is a standard I have personally set myself) I also think they should raise the minimum age for  a bitch to whelp her litter and it be registered to 2.

I do think puppy buyers are becoming more aware of how things should be done. I have been questioned by several people, who apologised, to which I replied I was glad to be questioned as it meant they had done their reasearch. Hopefully, people will start to realise that KC registered is not a mark of quality, but that the accredited breeder scheme does at least offer some protection.

Pretty good, I would tweek some but think you are on the right track. I think members should be members of the breed club.  I know some people don't like their breed club but in the interest of the breed if it was me , I would lay any issues aside it I thought it would sort what I see at this moment a joke the accredited breeder scheme.

I do also think showing or working accolades should be included. If there are exception circumstances them so be it. I don't think the person churning out pet litters as calmstorm has described also help the breed.

My point about the Accredited Breeders having to stick to the code of ethics drawn up by their breed clubs would exclude "Mr and Mrs Pet Bitch who owns both dog and bitch and breed every year". Codes of ethics could be tightened up by the breed clubs. It would give the breed club code of ethics some "teeth" and be a useful identifier to the potential puppy buyer. No breeder would have to be a member of the breed club but would have to follow advised guidelines of the breed club.

The KC code of ethics has to be a "one size fits all", but breed club codes can be more specific, for example they could have a ideal age not to breed from a bitch before, a number of litters the bitch could have during her lifetime and so on. It could also list specific health tests it would prefer breeders undertook with their breeding stock.

As to the idea that only irresponsible breeders will breed from stock which has failed any of the health tests, I think that is not the case as I know of some breeders who really like to think of themselves as being responsible who will breed from stock which has failed an eye test or a scored highly on hips etc..

One breeder I know of will always try to get her dogs eye tested with out the paperwork, then if they fail it is not recorded, where as if they pass she then will ask for the paperwork to be completed. I know she tries it on at other eye testing sessions, I will not allow it at the eye testing sessions I run.

The only thing about being a member of a club is what if then certain people weren't happy with how stringent the breed club was on health tests etc, they could then go and set up their own club with their own rules I suppose????

I thought that the Kennel club expected teh bred clubs within a breed to agree a joint code of ethics, I amy be wrong, but ours was agreed by our breed council, though there are only two breed clubs.

i personally wont joing this scheme because there is no limit on the amount of puppies certain people can breed.....

How about make it compulsory for the health tests to be carried out before a mating takes place and not as it currently is, before the pups are registered.

Only allow the breeder to have a maximum of x number of litters in a year.

When the breed club requests that the breed is placed on schedule A for eye tests and it is approved automatically making it compulsory for AB's to do these tests and not make the club have to write again to ask for it.

Not giving such daft accolades as belonging to a breed club that doesnt even have to be the breed that they are breeding from, or having had 5 litters, how does that one make anyone a better breeder especially if they have 5 or more litters in a year !!!!
Stud book number accolade for breeds that can get these and not for breeds that cant ie import register breeds.

I was an accredited breeder but have left the scheme as I am disgusted with the rules and policing of the system, I along with at least 4 other AB's in my breed have written to the KC about it and their response was absolute rubbish and they dont give a monkeys, when spoken to at Crufts about it their response was dont care if you dont like it leave the scheme which is what all but 2 ABs in my breed have done the only ones left are well .....No comment !!!!

Not thought out well enough and not policied enough nor do they have any teeth when it comes to dodgy goings on !!!

Don't know of more than one breeder in my breed that has joined.

a few of mine have , even use it as a USP!!

USP????

Hi again,

First Perrodeagua as Brainless says the code of ethics applying to a breed for the puposes of the ABS should be drawn up by a breed council of all clubs for that breed, so if you have a majority of responsible breeders then you should have no worries with the code of ethics as laid down by the breed council. If the majority of breeders in your breed are not responsible then you have to take a hard look at where the breed is going. Either way there is no need nor would there be any use in setting up a new club, because if the majority of breeders are responsible they won't see the need. If the majority aren't well they still won't need to set up a new club as they will already have set the code of ethics anyway.

Liisa, you say you won't join the ABS, we all have heard why not, which is pretty much why the majority here would not join, what I don't see is the answer the KC are currently seeking, which is what would make you want to join the ABS? How would you run the scheme bearing in mind it is not just your breed you have to cater for but all breeds? Criticism of any scheme is pointless and useless if you don't or can't offer a better alternative. I am interested to hear how you would run an alternative scheme.

I think my suggestions for improvement would be along the following lines:

- Tolerance in health tests, but a limit to that tolerance. Yes, I can see that there is merit from breeding from an outstanding dog with a higher than average hip score ... but not 30 points higher on a dog that has never had any significant wins. Yes, it may be tough, but this scheme is meant to make people stand out from the rest, therefore they should have to attain higher standards.

- I can see the logic in encouraging new breeders to follow an ethical path, but I think it's a mistake to allow them to be classed as Accredited Breeders. To me, that should indicate someone with years of experience, able to offer above average support. I would support an 'apprentice breeders' scheme or something similar, which indicates someone who is fairly new to breeding but is following the principles of the Accredited Breeders Scheme.

- Unless I've missed an announcement, I believe they still only have one inspector, who is clearly not going to make any great impact. They need more and they need them quickly to add credibility. I also believe they should have the power to make 'spot checks' in case of complaint, rather than have to give notice.

I have been impressed with one of the newer breeders in our breed who joined the ABS - until talking to them in more depth and realising that although they are ticking the health test boxes, they have absolutely no understanding of the results they are getting.

Most of the ABs in my breed seem to use it as a reason to charge higher puppy prices, but I don't think there's one of them that I would buy a puppy from at any price.

M.

unique selling point

Being ABS member might encourage some less responsible breeders to charge more for puppies, however the only way to get this type breeder out of the scheme is to tighten the rules, while it is disappointing that it happens now, if the scheme could be changed then this type of breeder would not be a member and therefore not able to charge more for puppies.

How would that work though Polly, as we're all free to charge what we like for our puppies anyway, aren't we?

M.

In my own breed we all mutually agree a price and no-one differs by more than 350 say depending on what extra's they include with their pups.  I charged £50 more for the pups I bred when I travelled abroad to mate my bitch as the litter cost me an extra £1200.

I think as Brainless says in most breeds everyone charges pretty much the same price, and these prices are not "blown up" by a spurious accolade i.e. being an ABS member, so the people charging more for being an ABS member and churning out poor quality puppies would not under an improved scheme be able to register as ABS members, so they can still charge what they like but would not be able to have the "gold seal" so to speak on their puppies.

As a consequence the breeders who are members would be able to say, that their puppies were well bred with great care and thought. As these are the breeders who are not going to be over charging members of the public then it could be left to those honest and responsible breeders to set their own prices.

The point being the scheme needs to be more selective, and offer a carrot to any breeder who does work hard to give any dog they breed the best life possible, breeders who use the scheme to promote themselves and don't give a damn about the dogs they breed are usually the ones over charging for puppies and these are the ones we all say we want to see expelled from the scheme.

t would not be able to have the "gold seal" so to speak on their puppies.

Why are we looking for a 'gold seal' when the term KC registered should be a gold seal in itself? If the KC are admitting it has a two tier standard then why is it not doing something about the ones that fall below the standard? There should be no 'them and us' each and every dog bred should conform to what the AB is asking, otherwise the KC is actively supporting puppy farming, or put another way, puppies being produced that fall below the standards they have already got.

I'm not against stricter controls, in fact the controls I have suggested in the past on this subject are exceptionally tight ;)....but i feel it should be for all breeders and to this end protect all dogs, puppies and breeders of pure bred, kc applicable dogs. No double standards.

We only have one breed club, the KC deemed that we do not have enough dogs born annually to warrant a second club when we did try to set a second one up a few years ago.

However, I am no longer a member of the breed club as I cannot condone what some members of the committee have done and how they go about things. 

So far as health tests for the breed are concerned, the decision that our breed should be hip scored as made by the club's committee, never put to the membership, nor voted on at an AGM.  Now whilst i have no problem with this and do hip score, it doesn't mean they went about it the right way. 

i am a member of other breed clubs, for dogs I own and am interested in though.

The point is even if someone doesn't belong to their club because of personality or political issues they can still abide by the breed clubs breeding code of ethics.  So that should be one of the requirements, abiding by the code of ethics, as I am sure some people may belong to a club but not abide by the codes, and also abiding by the Kennel clubs geenral code shoudl be mandatory (that includes not seeling pups to dealersa dn pet shops).

code of ethics drawn up by their breed clubs would exclude "Mr and Mrs Pet Bitch who owns both dog and bitch and breed every year".

Sorry, but there are ways round that which I won't go into detail about about for fear of giving lurkers ideas. i also gather some breed clubs are happy to allow 4 or more litters to be registered, the other thing is, unregistered litters can be born from these people. So, it dosent stop the clever so and so. There are, sadly, ways round everything.

>code of ethics drawn up by their breed clubs would exclude "Mr and Mrs Pet Bitch who owns both dog and bitch and breed every year".

Sorry, but there are ways round i also gather some breed clubs are happy to allow 4 or more litters to be registered, the other thing is, unregistered litters can be born from these people. So, it dosent stop the clever so and so. There are, sadly, ways round everything.<

Surely this is where a policing system would come in? So lets assume for moment that you found out somebody on the ABS in your breed was breeding more than the code of ethics allows and selling the puppies unregistered, what can you do about this? Perhaps informing the KC and allowing it to be investigated by them might be a start.

How about trading standards? After all these breeders would be claiming to be something they clearly aren't, and even now you can always report this type of breeder to the taxman, (who when I went into their offices to hand in my self assessment for this year, recently asked me if I would be prepared to help them by identifying some of these breeders).

I know that in many breeds if you get breeders doing dodgy things news of this spreads like wildfire, so I can't see how it could remain hidden all that easily. Yes I agree there are ways around these things, but if everyone worked together then these loop holes would in time close completely.

As to the "gold seal" idea, yes the KC should be a "gold seal" on any pedigree puppy, but to be that they have to sort out the good and bad breeders, and the ABS was thought to be one way of doing this, but sadly it backfired in the original form, and even subsequent tweaking has not changed it a lot. Now the KC are obviously looking at why the majority of breeders aren't joining, would be a good time to reconsider how the scheme could work for all dogs?

The KC already say that KC reg is a gold seal, although not quite in that format....the 'Kc reg...of course' used in their adverts in canine mags and other places gives this impression. By promoting AB as being a standard to acheive, or the place to buy a puppy from, they are admitting they are allowing others who are not so responsible to breed dogs, to me having a double standard is shooting itself in the foot. They are also giving a slur to those that do not agree with the scheme yet breed dogs that are an excellent standard.

There have been people state cases here in the past where someone is an AB, yet the circumstances the dogs are kept in have been far from good, yet the Kc have not followed anything up. To police a scheme like this they need a good 'complaints' team which they don't have.

The KC have an excellent computer system. They have their own list of which health tests (AB scheme shows this) need to given to each breed. The law states how many litters are legally allowed, before a licence is required. They could, therefore, refuse to register any litter if the parents have not had their health tests and received the results that are acceptable for that breed, or that are above the quantity in number of litters for that breeder and if licenced thay can have a copy of the licence to ensure the numbers are not exceeded. They could also state that a KC reg pedigree dog should not have puppies registered from it unless both the sire and dam are 'approved' as being a dog worthy of being bred from. This could be show or working results, or even a dog judged by an independant breed judge without actually showing. Some dogs are good examples of their breed, yet may not like showing, or be excellent workers, or the owner may not have the time and money to attend many shows. Also, the sire and dam should be identified by chip or tattoo and DNA, and each puppy also identified in this way before sale. This would cut out, or certainly cut down, on mass produced puppies from puppy farmers, or the pet litter from unsuitable parents, or those bred simply for money. The puppies would come from only good specimens of the breed, and from people breeding for the correct reasons.

The Kc could, quite eaisily, put restrictions in force for all registered dogs, which will only effect the ones that are breeding just for money. That 'piece of paper' would then actually mean something, and the ones 'not kc reg' may have more suspicion placed on them. The Kc need to be more pro-active in their advertising of what KC reg actually means, involve the breed clubs more, and actually tell people what to expect. Another little thought, instead of breeders marking the Kc reg document to help prevent breeding, this should be part of the registration and no puppies produced capable of being registered until all the requirements are made.

Much as I would agree with you sadly in countries with Kennel clubs with high standards there are just as many mass produced pedigree puppies, except they are not registered.  the man in the street there just thinks registered dogs are for show people, much as many here think that a dog need not be registered, or if registered that top well bred lines are just for show snobs.

Education of the general public in what to look for and what to DEMAND from breeders would put bad breeders and puppy farmers out of business.

The kennel club so a fair bit of good work in various areas for dogs, and they would be seriously hampered if their income was seriously cut.

If the statistics I have seen from the US are true that only 12% of pedigree pups are produced to such high standards as health testing work and showing breeders, and the vast majority are produced by back yard breeders from those breeding for pin money to sentimentally, to those who are commercial but fall short of puppy farming. 

It is this group whose registrations would be lost, not good for breeds or the Kennel Club, but the stock from these could be upgraded and the breeders ides brought up to scratch.  Would stop a huge reduction in a breeds gene pool as these dogs are likely to not be far removed from well bred animals.  The gene pool of the puppy farmed stock is unlikely to be a great loss as often the veracity of their pedigrees and even breed status may be questionable.

If I had a £1 for every time somebody often a member of the public or a shooting person had said to me, that KC registration ruins breeds as the dogs become inbred or useless for work I'd be living in a palace right now!

Even my ex husband won't buy a KC registered springer spaniel, all he ever buys is an unregistered dog. He claims that his springers are "gamekeeper bred" and therefore far superior to any KC registered dog.

A woman I worked with until recently refused to buy a collie from a KC registered litter as she had heard how the KC wrecks breeds because the breeders are inbreeding their dogs so they can win prizes in the show ring. (Her collie it turns out is all but completely blind through inherited eye disease).

So yes education is needed still, and until it is the case that all breeders fulfil the ideal standard, then I think the KC is right to try to do something to guide the public when buying a dog. They are not buying a show dog nor a working dog they are going to buying a dog to become their much loved companion.

If having a scheme like the ABS means that other breeders are being pointed out to buyers as less responsible or caring then the answer is simple join the scheme! If you believe the scheme needs improving, before you join then come up with some suggestions about how it could be run better.

It seems to me that there are on the whole several points which are being raised here which are useful.
1) The scheme needs to be policed much more than it is currently.
2) Breed club codes of ethics should be tightened up and applied to any breeder member of the ABS.
3) Breeders do not have to members of the breed club to be ABS members but would have to adhere to breed club Codes of Ethics.
4) all breeders should undertake all relevant health tests for the breed they are registering.
5) Large scale producers should display a Traders symbol in adverts, if they are commercially registered.
6) Education should play a part in advising novice breeders how to provide the best possible start for the bitch and the puppies.
7) All breeders stud dog owners and bitch owners should be involved in the welfare of any puppies that are produced, for the lifetime of the dog.

>Education of the general public in what to look for and what to DEMAND from breeders would put bad breeders and puppy farmers out of business.

The kennel club so a fair bit of good work in various areas for dogs, and they would be seriously hampered if their income was seriously cut.<

Once again Brainless has hit the nail squarely on the head!
Education of the public on what to look for and what to ask breeders is a good start.
The KC does do a lot more than you might think for all dogs not just the pedigree few.

My daughter rescued a springer which was sick and starving, it's bones could be seen through it's coat. The KC helped her by advising her what to do to get the previous owner convicted of animal cruelty when the RSPCA would not!  My daughter has her dog registered with the companion dog club. She has encouraged her friend to join the Companion Dog Club with his cocker spaniel.

If dog registration is made compulsary, then I would prefer the Kennel Club ran it than the RSPCA!

The KC has been working hard building up the Companion Dog Club, it has introduced the KC Good Citizens scheme encouraging responsible dog ownership and to help defend the rights of dog owners through the KC dog scheme.

I think the KC should represent all dogs and continue to educate those willing to listen.

Anyway this is digressing somewhat, so maybe some of you might like to consider what rules for the ABS you might like to add or delete from the list above?

t seems to me that there are on the whole several points which are being raised here which are useful.
1) The scheme needs to be policed much more than it is currently.
2) Breed club codes of ethics should be tightened up and applied to any breeder member of the ABS.
3) Breeders do not have to members of the breed club to be ABS members but would have to adhere to breed club Codes of Ethics.
4) all breeders should undertake all relevant health tests for the breed they are registering.
5) Large scale producers should display a Traders symbol in adverts, if they are commercially registered.
6) Education should play a part in advising novice breeders how to provide the best possible start for the bitch and the puppies.
7) All breeders stud dog owners and bitch owners should be involved in the welfare of any puppies that are produced, for the lifetime of the dog.

Why cannot all of this be applied to people who breed and register puppies anyway, without the need for a AB scheme?

If having a scheme like the ABS means that other breeders are being pointed out to buyers as less responsible or caring then the answer is simple join the scheme!

The question could well be asked, if the Kc know they can't, or feel they cannot recommend people who are breeding and registering puppies with them why they are accepting to register puppies so suspect anyway? They are basically making money on the back of puppy producing, by allowing people to breed who do not follow the highest standards. Then this is the money used for their 'good causes'....:rolleyes: Bit of duel standard there then, if what you have said is correct. Of course, like the AB scheme, any other form of registration (companion for example) charges fees, they gain money from affixs every year, puppy sales register (which a lot of people wouldn't touch with a bargepole).The list goes on, I'm sure I'v missed something. :rolleyes:

There must be many a good reason why many excellent breeders refuse to go on this scheme, I guess if they spent time in here they would tell why. (EDITED to say...whoops not saying those in here are not responsible, I mean all the others too ;) )

People will breed unreg and cross breeds regardless of what the Kc does or does not do. I too have heard of many a terrier man and gundog man say they would not touch a kc reg bred dog, prefering to go to gundog and terrier men with dogs that have proved their worth. These people have an indepth knowledge, the sick and sorry will not be kept, but thats all another story.

, much as many here think that a dog need not be registered, or if registered that top well bred lines are just for show snobs.

Exactly, and a two tier system will not stop that train of thought.

However,  as usual brainless, your experience puts a lot of holes in my train of thought ;)....but I think you know what I'm getting at, what I think would be a start to cut out some of the puppy produced litters. Without the need for a 2 tier system. Simply being KC registered should be enough. :) I still think the KC should stick by the law of the land though, work with the rules it already has and refuse to register litters when the 'private' breeder has gone 'over quota' and check the breeders licence to see how many litters are allowed, and not register litters 'Over quota'.

I, personally, don't think any Kc system will stop people breeding dogs and selling them without Kc papers.

It is only from recent posts that I realised that the KC are breeding over quota litters without asking to see a License, as it has a box on the reg form asking if they have a license so thought that was what it was for.

I think people need to contact the KC through the relevant liaison councils and get this sorted for a start as it is the law of the land.

I know the KC do have to take care in some areas due to restraint of trade and definitions of types of breeders.  When does a breeder become a back yard breeder and a back yard breeder a commercial breeder and a commercial breeder a puppy farmer, bearing in mind that none of these activities are illegal, except when there is no license with volume producers.