Hi everyone,
I have just spent an hour or probably more browsing sites looking at pups I,d love one but not just yet.
Some of the sites I,ve been looking at are offering long coated puppies for sale which are not desirable in my breed.
What I can,t understand is that the breeders are members of the accredited breeders scheme  okay so we all know an odd longcoat will crop up in a litter but do  the kennel club not check  out who applies for AB status?
Quite a lot of the sites have stud dogs and brood bitches that are long coats I,v even seen a white longcoated stud on an accredited breeders site surely this can,t be right.
The first time puppy buyer could very easily be drawn in by people advertising these as rare breeds and there will always be some misguided  people only to glad to part with their hard earned cash for "a rare specimen of the breed"
I really do think its outrageous that the kennel club allow breeders to join their scheme with dogs that do not meet the required standard that they themselves have laid down .
Its not often I have a bit of a rant I,m all for an easy life really but I just couldn,t help myself today,What do other people think?

They are not necessarily failing to meet the requirements of the scheme at present and of course these non standard coats and colours are eligable for registration. Are they advertising them as rare?  Have you raised this issue with the Kennel Club?

I asked the KC about this a while ago, and they said they would look into any Accredited Breeder or adverts claiming this staus if the person who saw it was concerned and reported it to them.

I saw a web site which I know belongs to a dog dealer which also claimed the dealer had accredited breeder status. I reported it to the KC who told me that when they investigated this claim the dealer in question was not a KC accredited breeder. He was claiming to be a local council approved breeder and a RSPCA Accredited Breeder as both had been to his kennels. One to issue the licence and the other to visit and chat about his dogs. So in that case there was nothing the KC could do. The web site is still up and running and he still advertises that he is an Accredited Breeder.

If you are concerned contact the Kennel Club. If you don't contact them they will probably not know, as even though they do try to police their scheme, they cannot be everywhere all the time. As good as the KC are they are not as yet the omnipotent, so therefore cannot control everything with out help from responsible breeders and owners.

I fail to understand what the accredited breeders scheme is hoping to achieve. In some breeds they specify that all breeding stock should be hip scored, yet do nothing when the stock that is scored comes in at well above the breed average. The dogs can be bred from regardless of their score. How on earth does that make accredited breeders better than those who decide not to take part in the scheme?
Surely to make the scheme credible, the KC should insist that dogs with higher than average scores are not bred from. That would set the accredited breeders apart and give them something of value to boast about.

> the KC should insist that dogs with higher than average scores are not bred from.

The KC recognises that the results have to be taken into account with the broader picture of the gene pool. 

But that is just my point - they don't. They merely insist that the breeding stock is hip scored, as long as the accredited breeders abide by that they are free to do as they wish, and can happily go on breeding from dogs with higher scores. Also, looking at the KC breed record supplement, a good number of them breed a great deal of litters. I fail to understand how these breeders can be breeding for the good of the breed and with the best intentions for the breed, it would appear to be purely for money.

You don't seem to have understood what I am saying which is the KC permit this because they understand that breeds sometimes have wider issues to consider than hips and that potentially gene pools could suffer if all else has to give way to the breeding of dogs with a below average score. 
As to what is too many litters, this will always be subjective.  Certainly I can think of breeders in my own breeds that produce far more litters than you and I might but have done plenty for the breed not just for their own gain. 

crinklecut many dogs with high scores are actually improvers and get excellent scores with their offspring, whereas there are some dogs with fantastic hipscores which unfortunately their pups, grandchildren do not follow, so I don't see why the KC should stop people breeding from such dogs unless it is proven after say two litters by said dog that they pass on this trait.

I must admit though that litter numbers do worry me, some dogs having six litters in their first six years of life, I just don't see any need for this.

Isabel & perrodeagua, I can see exactly what you are both saying and maybe I have not been clear enough in my points. My initial worry is not just with hip scores and other breed recommendations, but in the way that new puppy owners (who are not 'in the know') are directed towards accredited breeders and think they will be getting a better quality puppy. I thank you both for your comments.

> I have not been clear enough in my points.

Yes, you have I just don't agree :-)

> My initial worry is not just with hip scores and other breed recommendations, but in the way that new puppy owners (who are not 'in the know') are directed towards accredited breeders and think they will be getting a better quality puppy.

Yes Crinklecut I agree with you on this one, new owners might not be aware for example that champagne or blonde is not a desired colour for a breed and as there is a place on the puppy registration form  for colour of puppies to be registered I strongly believe at the very least the Kennel Club should refuse registration of non standard colours.
There are too many people being fobbed of with stories of rare examples of the breed when in actual fact the dogs are not even correct examples of the breed.

> I strongly believe at the very least the Kennel Club should refuse registration of non standard colours.

I can perhaps see a place for refusing registration of a litter from non standard parents but to refuse to register non standard puppies that occur in a litter would be to deny any record of them within a breed and where they are occuring.  

>I strongly believe at the very least the Kennel Club should refuse registration of non standard colours.<

One problem is that the people working in Aylesbury doing the data entry for litters are in many cases not dog people, and do not have indepth knowledge of all breeds or dog  breed colours. It can be confusing, I have often heard people, some owners of dogs refer to a liver flatcoat as a chocolate flatcoat! Certainly colours can be confusing because two very similar colours in two different breeds can have very different descriptions.

I think a lot of people think the accredited breeder scheme means they have great dogs is doesn't.

The requirements are:
All breeding dogs are KC reg
Give KC reg docs to new owners explaining any endorsements
Follow KC guidelines on maximum age and number of litters
At least microchip breeding stock
Do any health screening for the breed (Doesn't say not to breed from badly affected animals)
Provide a puppy pack including worming, feeding, exercise, jab record if there is one, contract of sale
New owners able to phone after the sale for advice
And this is a good one: Inform buyers of the requirements and the recommendations that apply to Kennel Club Accredited Breeders as well as the existence of the complaints procedure.

From looking at the list is it really worth the paper it is printed on.
If they did the last one more people would realise that it is really just good practice that all breeders should do anyway, I know I do all the above.

Emma

> And this is a good one: Inform buyers of the requirements and the recommendations that apply to Kennel Club Accredited Breeders as well as the existence of the complaints procedure.
>

> If they did the last one more people would realise that it is really just good practice that all breeders should do anyway

Sorry I don't understand your point there.  Are you saying they don't do the last one?
Yes, I do think it is worth the paper it is written on.  Like you say this is good breeding practice and this scheme is designed to promote and encourage that.  If you are already doing this then great but I don't see why that precludes encouraging others to do the same and at least this provides a means of giving accountability to the claim that you are a quality breeder.

>Do any health screening for the breed (Doesn't say not to breed from badly affected animals)

This is because the KC does not restrict breeders ability to use their results in a balanced way against possible benefits.  I certainly don't think this would be worse than breeding from a dog with an undescended testicle particularly as the KC rules would not allow a dog that had been operated on to correct such a condition to be shown.

Sorry I don't understand your point there.  Are you saying they don't do the last one?

Yes I am saying that as people not in the know seem to think A.B.S is a major achievement.  If they explained what was actually required they would see that show results and reputation mean more than this scheme.

I don't see why they are mutually exclusive.  Show results do not indicate whether the breeder is meeting these requirements although you would hope that reputation would.  However the average pet owner may not be aware of reputations within the breeding world so this scheme offers them the opportunity to cover that and provide accountability to ensure it.  In that respect I would say it is a major step forward.