Forgive me but I might be wrong but after having a chat with a friend about KC and puppy farms we chatted about how a puppy farm could still produce a KC reg litter.
I.E. the farm has 2 KC reg parents and breeds from them which then they can get the certificates for the pups from KC. Is this right?
I would have thought that the KC would insure only a registered KC breeder would be able to do this.
My thoughts are that a puppy farm could breed from the KC reg mother as often as possible and not work to the standards the KC lay down.

Does this make sense? I hope this is not right as it seems a loop hole and so open to abuse.

I might wrong but as far as I am aware you can only breed from a KC bitch 4 times. Anymore times than that and the pups can not be registered KC. I'm not sure though if pups can only be KC reg if the breeder is a registered KC breeder

There is no such thing as a 'registered KC breeder', I'm afraid. The only thing that approaches this is the KC's new-ish Accredited Breeder Scheme, but this is not a requirement at all.

If both parents are KC registered, with no endorsements on their pedigrees preventing registration of puppies, then any litter can be registered with the kennel club by most breeders.

A maximum of 6 litters can be registered from one bitch, before she is 8 years old. The bitch must not be mated before she is 1 year old.

Any breeder who registers more than 5 litters in a rolling 12 month period will have a restriction that means they cannot register two litters from a single bitch within a year.

Think I've got that all right, sure someone will correct anything I've missed or mis-construed!

M.

Thanks.

So KC really means nothing and you still have to be careful when looking for a pup and breeder as for example a puppy farm could do this and you would think the pup is or was breed under good management.

I am confused. I know Clubs are a good starting point but I always thought KC was fool proof.

Yes, absolutely. KC registration doesn't necessarily equal good breeder/good quality puppy - though it is evidence that they might be. Not even an KC accredited breeder is necessarily as perfect as we would hope. So you still need to use common sense and open eyes when purchasing a KC registered puppy.

Vera

Ah I went through the UK club to find my boy so clubs would be a better option.

Forgive me again but whats the point on having KC? It seems open to abuse from what I'm thinking and one for example a puppy farm could use. If your not well up on dogs you could think a KC breeder is the way to go yet end up supporting puppy farms and poor breeding.

If you want to show your dogs then they must be KC reg but it seems to stand for little else and does not guarantee quality puppies.

As LurcherGirl says, KC registration is no guarantee of a good breeder. However, no KC registration is certainly a very big alarm bell that this is very unlikely to be a good breeder, so at least the KC is a start.

The KC registration is the only meaningful one, in that there are at least some checks on the information provided, and health check results are recorded on the registration certificates.

M.

I am so so confused. Just goes to show what I know!!
Should the KC not close off loop holes to insure better standards?

You need to remember that the KC is a money making organisation first and foremost. There are many things that alot of us wish the KC would implement eg: raising the age that bitches can produce a first litter - at present the bitch has to be a year old when whelped. I have recently seen several litters from bitches whom DOB has been 1 day after their first birthday :( That they stop consecutive litters from ALL breeders and not just one section of the breeding fraternity. The list goes on and on :rolleyes:

Unless I've picked it up wrong, you shouldn't see litters from bitches who are 12 months - it used to be that they could whelp after their birthday, now I believe the ruling has been changed that they can not be mated until after their first birthday.

(Yep, just checked the KC form, the following is now listed as a reason for non-acceptance - "c) The dam was under 12 months at the date of mating".) So, this in itself is a small recent improvement for the dogs' welfare.

Mind you, I'm sure birth dates were fudged before, and I'm sure they are now, by those who seem to think it's important to get a litter as soon as biologically possible. :rolleyes:

Giving the KC the benefit of the doubt (although agree entirely that they are there for profit!), I think a lot of the issues can centre around the fact that many of the things that we do not believe are MORAL are not in any way ILLEGAL.

M.

Edited to correct a 'now' that should have been a 'not' and to space it to make it easier to read!

Very true I am afraid and people assume that the KC has the powers legally to do something about it and basically, they have not. Thank you for that update. They have obviously changed it since I enquired in November.

>That they stop consecutive litters from ALL breeders and not just one section of the breeding fraternity.

Just another small point that I'm afraid I was in favour of the about turn on the matter of not registering a second litter within a one year period. I think it was an ill-thought rule, badly implemented, and left some responsible breeders in a position of not being able to register litters that were born a short time under the deadline.

I am disappointed that they didn't move it to, say, 9 or 10 months between litters to allow for bitches who have a slightly shorter cycle, with an application process for exemptions like there is for bitches over 8 years.

Despite never having done it myself (two litters in 23 years, me!), I can see why there might occasionally be circumstances where I would consider mating a bitch at a consecutive season - a very small litter reared, age of bitch, desirable dog resident in this country for a short period etc.

Just seems a shame that it was such an 'all or nothing' rule change.

M.

I received this from an enquiry to the KC recently:

" if a breeder is a licensed breeder then under the Breeding and Sales of Dogs Welfare Act they should not breed more than one litter in a twelve month period from the same bitch. However, the Kennel Club has no such ruling so we will register such litters regardless of whether or not the breeder is licensed (provided of course that all other registration criteria is met e.g. bitch not under 1 year or had 6 previous litters etc)."

One rule for one and a different rule for everyone else :rolleyes:

Sorry JaneS, we have gone off topic a bit here :D

Interesting. They were certainly refusing to register them when the rule change was first implemented, many people were up in arms about it. However, it makes more sense of Alison's experience below.

M.

Well I'm not impressed with what I have read about the KC. Not much more to add apart from this thread has opened my eyes to them.

They are better than the alternative, but they are primarily interested in the revenue from registrations to keep the organisation going. 

That said they do a lot of good work with the money for dogs. 

Most of the health schemes would not have come into being without them or the breed clubs that they are an umbrella for. 

Every competitive pastime needs a governing body.

The Kennel club have diversified into other areas to raise revenue and have tightened up some areas regarding breeding. 

At one time not too long ago there was no limit to the number of litters that could be registered from a given bitch or her age. 

Good breeders can already endorse the paperwork of their puppies to ensure that no offspring can be registered unless they fulfil criteria the breeder deems necessary, for example health tests or quality of the fully grown dog.  In essence it is allowing breeders to Police their own breeding.

It is a direct result of these limited steps that has given rise to pseudo registration clubs to register the unregisterable.  Breed clubs were encouraged by the Kennel club to draw up codes of ethics specific to their breeds which usually put stricter limits on breedign age and numbers of litters as apppropriate.

For example in my own breed no bitch should have puppies under the age if two years and no more than four litters in her lifetime, all breeding stock has to be hip scored and eye tested.

There will be good breeders that fall our with their bred clubs for various human reasons, but by and large breed club membership and adherence to their codes of ethics are a far better sign of good breeding than simple KC registration, or membership the KC Accredited breeder scheme.

If the KC made registration even harder the so called breeders would just go elsewhere for pretty paperwork with which to fool unsuspecting buyers.

Kennel Club registration is barely the start of locating good breeder and well bred pups, without it you can be almost certain of bad breeding (some exceptions like Working Terriers, Lurchers, crosses from Guide Dogs etc).

Agree Barbara that we need a governing body and for all the things I say about the KC I follow every rule they bring out to the letter. In our breed they brought out litter screening for MRD. Now they have back pedalled on there being a problem and MRD isn't a fail on the eye certificate and most people are now not bothering with the screening but I still take my 6 week old puppies to an eye specialist. This involves puppies being put in a car togther (mostly for the first time) often screaming their heads off, sometimes pooing all over each other and then after all this they often get the squits for a day or so due to the journey. But as I say I do everything by the book but feel very let down by them when they can't even be bothered when they register the 6th litter from one breeder to check that they have the necessary documentation from the Council and thus the bitches are not being bred from twice in a twelve month period. Another rant over.

Certainly as they ask if the breeder has a License and it is the law of the land that any one breeding a fifth litter in a 12 month period has one then they should police this aspect and refuse registration, and report them to the authorities. 

It would be easy enough to program their computer to flag up a fifth litter within 12 months and for those with breeders licenses a litter within 12 months from the same bitch.

I think this is something that the breed councils need to campaign for to get done, as there really is no excuse.

To be honest a Disciplinary case could be brought for such matters under their own rules as surely it is prejudicial to the interests of the dog world, wilfully breaking the law of the land?

Have you tried raising this issue with David Cavil on his Our dogs forum.  this matter needs to be brought to the attention of the KC committees, but I don't know how that is done.

I agree with Lily Mc about no KC reg being an alarm bell EXCEPT maybe in cases such as my dog.
He is from a well respected breeder with very good dogs and have been in the breed for many many years and perform all the relevant health tests etc etc.  All the other pups in the litter were KC registered but as his colour is a 'fault' he was not registered.  I think this was responsible on their part as even though we would never breed him, others may do so (even though you should not) and thus also be able to register any of their pups as KC reg if bred with another KC reg dog - bringing up the original issue raised by the OP. 

ETA - My breeder does endorse their progeny but others in a similar situation may not.

Yes, that was one of the reasons I chose to say unlikely to be a good breeder - we can never say never.

However, a lot of people (and I think I probably agree) would say that the puppy should still be registered as a non-standard colour, as it gives more accurate breed statistics. Obviously, the pup would be sold endorsed, with a contract stating that this will never be lifted as the dog is not suitable for breeding. Even where breeders sell such puppies at a reduced price, the minimal cost of KC registration wouldn't particularly make a difference.

M.

Yes that is true - especially as regards to breed statistics. 
I just wonder if you would then get some unscrupulous people buying such pups (as they are as you stated at a reduced price) and 'advertising' the parents as KC reg even if the progeny can't be?  Or as I have seen selling pups from 'registered, rare coloured parents - but the pups won't be KC reg'   Although of course a good breeder would ask the relevant questions to ensure this unlikely to happen.
You really do have to do your research when looking for a well bred pup from a good breeder as there are so many loopholes in the system - something I was not aware of until we started looking for our dog as I too presumed initially that KC reg = good.

So does it mean that health checks must be done to be KC reg? If no health checks are done can the pups still be registered?

Yes, pups can still be registered if no health checks are done, or indeed if health check results are unsatisfactory.

I think it's easy for us to say that loopholes can be closed - and indeed perhaps some could/should - but humans are wiley by nature and as one loophole is closed, they'll open another. The only way forward I can see is education as to what constitutes a good breeder, and an understanding of why the benefits matter to the average pet buyer who thinks that as they "just want a pet" such things don't affect them.

M.

I agree 100% Lily.

Should Clubs have a higher profile than the KC then? It is sounding like the KC is a kind of money making idea and means very little.

I agree too!
I am by no means an expert when looking for a pup but I have a few friends that have been looking for their own as a pet I tried to get across what you have so neatly summed up.  Some of it fell on deaf ears though :rolleyes:

That situation would have been covered by registering and endorsing his papers progeny not eligible from registration. 

Neither endorsing or not registering couldt prevent him being used for breeding unregistered pups, but would preserve the integrity of the gene pool of registered breeding. 

I am of the view all pups should be registered for statistical purposes.  Then the existence and frequency of non standard colours can be researched by future breeders and avoid doubling up and producing more. 

By not registering the pup it appears that he didn't exist. Some breeders may wish to hid the appearance of non standard pups in their bloodlines.

I don't think they wanted to do that - infact I think when we were first went to see him (4 weeks old) they actually asked if we wanted him registering but as he was only to be a pet I didn't see the point.  I just thought that it was only necessary for showing/possible future breeding etc etc.  Didn't realise it was used for stats too - duh! 
You learn something new everyday (especially in the dog world )

All the other pups in the litter were KC registered but as his colour is a 'fault' he was not registered.  I think this was responsible on their part as even though we would never breed him, others may do so (even though you should not) and thus also be able to register any of their pups as KC reg if bred with another KC reg dog - bringing up the original issue raised by the OP.

I don't agree with this. It's far better to register and endorse any such pups. Otherwise what eventually happens is that, like in one certain breed I can think of, people expect pet puppies NOT to be registered, and that leaves the way wide open for people to breed from endorsed and/or unregistered parents, as the pet buyers already know they will not get a registered puppy and will be none the wiser about the parents. If everyone expected registration but unsuitable pups were endorsed, then that situation would not arise as an unregistered pup would immediately ring alarm bells.

The KC will register puppies from bitches having litters at every season. They also do not 'flag up' anyone who registers 5 or more litters in a year. By rights these people have to be a licensed breeder if they have 5 or more litters but the KC are not interested in this and do not check their own registrations at all. (I speak from experience of complaining about a licensed breeder who was registering puppies from bitches having puppies only 5 months after their previous litter) Luckily the Council concerned took this breach far more seriously that the KC did. All I received was a snotty letter back from the KC but got a wonderful rapport with the lady from the Council who was appalled at what the KC had done. So in answer to the original question, unfortunately the paperwork is almost not worth the paper it is written on but hopefully people will see beyond that and ask the correct questions of the breeder and feel that they have picked the right breeder who is KC registered. RANT OVER

That is very disappointing, Alison.

M.

There is no such thing as a KC registered breeder.  Registered breeders are those volume breeders who need a License under the breeding and Sale of dogs (welfare) Act 1999, which replaced the 1973 Act where anyone with more than two breeding bitches needed a License (problem was that some people could breed two bitches to death for money and other people owned 3 or more entire bitches who were not bred from or rarely). 

Anyone breeding five or more litters in any 12 month period is required to have such a License from their Local Authority.  A Local Authority has the option to decide that people breeding fewer litters are still breeding commercially.

There is no law against commercial breeding ,and in fact some government departments actually encourage farmers to diversify into dog breeding as a commercial enterprise.

The kennel club simply require that the litter being registered is from two registered parents, the bitch is not under a year old at mating, not over 8 years old at whelping,a nd has not already had six litters registered.

So yes plenty of puppy farmers use the KC's registration system.

The majority of reputable breeders are not licensed as their breeding activities are not commercial.

I have just followed up an advertisement for a pedigree bitch for sale - turns out, from photo owner (4th KC registered one in this girl's 4 yrs of life) to have an open sore on her thigh, and swollen joints on her hocks/wrists with inflamed skin in those areas and what looks like similar afflictions in her toe joints....    Owner said bitch had not had pups, certainly in the last 2 yrs, but KC confirmed the 4 owners and litter born Nov 2006.  

So far as I can find out it is not illegal to offer a dog in poor condition for sale!  It is "caveat emptor".   Owner has several breeds in her "kennel whether she is licenced or not, I do not yet know.   But she is prepared to put up for sale a bitch in this condition!!!!   Is this a legal loophole?

Very interesting.... so far....

Black Adder

A word with their local authority to alert them to a possibly unregistered breeding Establishment (especially if you can ascertain how may litters they have registered or advertises is more than 5 in a 12 month) and also the RSPCA to check the dog has received Vet treatment.

Please do as Brainless says. Trading Standards are worth contacting as the dog sold is not fit for the purpose.

I think the KC are TRYING to close these loopholes with the accredited breeder schemes..........if your dogs dont have the required health tests done you cannot register them under the scheme.........yes it can and has been abused by people in the past but now they ARE policing it by visiting the accredited breeders to see that they are meeting the required regulations, they have 3 grades for each part of the inspection....cant remember the exact terminology but something on the lines of poor, [ needing instruction and re visit] adiquate.......just what it says, or excelent if all the criteria are met or exceeded..................yes it will take a long time to get it perfect but it is a vast step towards a mutual goal.
I have come accross it myself recently where a dog i would have liked to use at stud had not had [ and had no intention of having] the eye tests needed.....the owner did come back saying....but i do have them hip scored!............not a requirement for my breed....so why do it?? beats me? but she lost a [very expensive i might add] stud fee, so if more people refuse to use the un tested stock then we are getting nearer a purer gene pool surely
so the accredited scheme seems to be starting to work as it should.
so maybe..............just maybe ..............going to the accredited breeder IS the way to go??
Pauline

One thing about the AB scheme that I see as being difficult to get around is that a breeder could easily do breed specific health tests on a couple of their animals and advertise a litter on the ground or imminently planned from them while also reaping enquiries for pups from dogs which they haven't bothered to test either because of expense or feared suspect results - personally I dont see how the KC can police that

of course they cant do that........but if the dogs who have "missed" the health tests are bred from they still cant be registered, the onus is on the prospective owner to ask to see the parents certificates...........as all ABS dogs have to be identified [ ie microchip tatoo or DNA]....and very soon ALL ABS dogs will HAVE to be DNA'd the new owners will know that their puppy is from tested and identified stock as it will be on their registration certificates........if they are NOT there then they have a case for the investigation of trading standards
[Pauline

As far as I am aware there is nothing to stop an accredited breeder registering puppies that do not comply to the scheme.  If this abuse is pointed out tehy may be kicked off the scheme but registraion of puppies is based entirely on their parents being registered other than Irish setters and CLAD.

An accredited breeder who used an overseas stud (at great expense and effort, as you know Barbara!) would not have an 'accredited litter' as such because overseas health tests would not necessarily tick the KC's boxes. Not always a bad thing!

M.

What I love about the Finnish Kennel club is they have a totally open database and you can check any dogs health tests, the number of litters he or she has had, their health test results, those of siblings and half siblings, great research tool.

That miffed me too, I had to pay extra to get pups registered because of them having to put the overseas stud dogs details into their computer, yet they wouldn't recognise his dual title (have him simply as Finnish champion, and he is a Finnish Hunting champion and Finnish show champion, no such thing as just champion). 

He was also hip scored and eye tested and I had to get copies for the new owners as the details were not recorded on the KC paperwork.  Makes no sens when they have reciprocal agreements with the overseas KC.

Why couldn't they be registered   Must be a new rule if that's the case ....

they CAN be registered but not under the scheme just on the normal register, so then the AB begins to loose credibilityand yes, would be asked to leave the scheme..............but if you are an AB then you could not advertise the fact if you are selling puppies  under the regulations of the scheme [ ie as Accredited breeders]...if you do then its misrepresentation and fraud, and would again be able to be picked up by the new owners as not having the health tests listed on their documents.................when you register a litter you get the option of going on the KC puppy sales register.............its free to AB's and the fact they are AB's is flagged on the KC list and they are always listed on the top of the list too..............i think its £15 to non AB's........so thats one good reason to join the scheme as if you do have more than 1 litter a year then the advertising alone pays for the membership and then some, the flag can be clicked on and all the details of the criteria is then there for the new owner to make up their own minds.
Luckily my pups are always sold before they are born, but just having the ad on the kc site generates enough interest in my breeding that most people are willing to wait for a puppy from me or ask my advice on finding one from a reputable breeder.

Hi bishop

I already know of ABs on the scheme who have generated multiple sales from one advertised litter from the only dogs they've ever health tested - personally I think that this reason is one of several as to why a large number of responsible breeders just dont want to become involved in the AB scheme.  And, as you've pointed out, the ABs are top of the puppy list and many members of the public will take it as read (without checking docs) that they've got a puppy from the creme de la creme of breeders whereas most of us more experienced in dogdom know this is not necessarily a given :(

I have never yet had a puppy enquiry from advertising on the KC list and rarely bother.

I know someone that works for the RSPCA who was investigating an AB, she said the conditions that the dogs were being kept in were horrendous. TBH in those circumstances I would rather buy from someone who rears their litter like a hobby breeder but has the relevant tests in place than buy from someone like that who has the backing of the KC AB scheme.

In my breed the KC recommends that dogs used for breeding now have their elbows scored.  Many people still are not having it done and are KCAB and belong to breed clubs.  Some people say that there isn't a problem within the breed - my reasoning is, if there isn't a problem what have you got to lose by proving your dog has a good elbow score.  I must admit I was very worried the first time I had mine done - fear of the unknown - although I have no reason to believe I had a problem - fortunately both dogs have 0:0 score - of which I am proud to advertise!

Brainless please could you let me know what government body suggests dog breeding as diversifying for farmers, we havent come across it in any of our searches when we were looking into diversifying it was b&b worm farming and the like !!!!!?????

Well most recently the Welsh Assembly who have backtracked, but previously it was back in the 80's I believe.  This thread refers: http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/101829.html#fp

Im in Scotland and there is nothing here like this, Scottish enterprise are for general public not just farmers. On websites especially for farming folk diversifying there is  not a mention of this ,Saying that a farm environment is a great place to breed dogs if that is what you wish to do loads of space no neighbours etc Puppy "farming " is a different thing, It is totally wrong for grants to be given in any circumstances for breeding dogs, if you cant afford it,because it should in theory be an expensive undertaking if done properly,you shouldnt be doing it. I would like to see some links to this rather than heresay though cos it implies if you live and work on a farm and breed dogs youre a puppy "farmer"