I don't understand that.  The Breed Council will have their rules but I don't understand how they can dictate membership requirement for the ABS.  Are these tests mandatory under the ABS rules?  In which case you should report this breeder to the KC not the Breed Council.  They have taken action against breeders that are not complying.

As far as i know he has been reported and nothing came of it.
As long as the KC are getting money for registration i don't think they care.

But thats just opinion

Peanuts

> As far as i know he has been reported

If you reported it you would know :-)

What breed was it and what tests were not done as I am still confused as to whether you are saying they actually fall within the scheme?

> As long as the KC are getting money for registration i don't think they care.

They make a loss on ABS membership so it would make a lot more sense to boot him out if making money was their incentive.

Sorry to post the same yet again, but I have emailed the KC with regard to my question to no avail - so far!

Can anyone tell me if the stud that we choose to use on our bitches also has to be microchipped, tattoed or DNA profiled?  If he isn't does that mean that "we/whoever" (I'm not a member) cannot use the ABS for that particular litter?  So that would mean making sure that the intended stud has to be microchipped or other.

:)

I expect they are dealing with a lot of emails just now.  Why not give them a phone tomorrow?

> Can anyone tell me if the stud that we choose to use on our bitches also has to be microchipped, tattoed or DNA profiled? If he isn't does that mean that "we/whoever" (I'm not a member) cannot use the ABS for that particular litter? So that would mean making sure that the intended stud has to be microchipped or other.
>

Yes, as I understand it both parents must be permanently identified - either by microchip or DNA profile (not sure about tattoo :)) otherwise the litter is not recognised as being from an accredited breeder.

> the breed council state quite clearly that if you are on the ABS then all stock must be tested

Some health schemes are mandatory, ie. insisted on by the KC; some are Breed Club recommendations - these are not insisted on by the KC, but the Breed Club.

" Yes, as I understand it both parents must be permanently identified - either by microchip or DNA profile (not sure about tattoo :-)) otherwise the litter is not recognised as being from an accredited breeder. "

Well that is going to be difficult then for some as not everyone owns their own stud and those that don't may choose a dog that isn't micro-chipped etc as being the best match for their bitch.  A bit unfair I feel!

But it would be unfair to claim it as a litter bred under the ABS if the stud doesn't conform to the ideal wouldn't it?

Even someone appearing to meet all the criteria of the ABS can easily be bending to breaking point the rules. 

For example, a breeder can advertise through the ABS a litter from suitably tested and identified dam and sire but could easily have another few matings/litters on the go to offer pups from when enquiries come in.  Is Joe Public going to question the eligibility of each litter from an Accredited Breeder?  More importantly, is the KC going to be aware of what could (potentially) be happening?

Unfortunately I don't believe that the ABS has 'teeth' at the moment as the loop holes are huge and plentiful :(

>both parents must be permanently identified - either by microchip or DNA profile (not sure about tattoo :-)) otherwise the litter is not recognised as being from an accredited breeder

Of course, this also applies to people who spend the money and time going to completely different countries to find what they consider to be the best dog in the world for their bitch.

However, on the positive side for the ABS, I do know of someone who was accredited and who I wouldn't have considered buying a puppy from - and they have had their accreditation revoked. So, obviously there is some monitoring going on. I still think they need more people, but good on them that they are making changes where needed.

M.

>Is Joe Public going to question the eligibility of each litter from an Accredited Breeder? 

They might.  If they have sourced the litter through the KC they will probably know something of what can be expected and will be aware of the feedback system.  A beeder may get away with this a time or two but they run the risk of the system catching them out eventually then they have lost the opportunity of being involved all together.
Dog breeding is huge and I doubt any system can be totally watertight but the KC have investigated breeders as a result of response from buyers and breeders have been expelled.

> But it would be unfair to claim it as a litter bred under the ABS if the stud doesn't conform to the ideal wouldn't it?

I totally agree with you :)  Can I ask - do you belong to the scheme?  I am only just looking into it myself.

Not at present. It is several years since I bred a litter and do not anticipate doing so for a good few years more but I do intend joining before I do.

> If they have sourced the litter through the KC they will probably know something of what can be expected and will be aware of the feedback system

I hope so Isabel, but personally I doubt it.  Hearsay only, but I've been told this is not uncommon in a number of breeds however AFAIK those who have first hand knowledge of same have advised the KC as appropriate - 'those' being other breeders, not puppy buyers.

I agree that due to the scale of the litters registered etc (and system in general), being watertight is virtually impossible but at the moment it seems to me, and many others I know, that there are too many puppy farmers making use of this scheme and therefore some of the gaping holes need to be plugged before all responsible breeders will feel able to support it.

> that there are too many puppy farmers making use of this scheme and therefore some of the gaping holes need to be plugged before all responsible breeders will feel able to support it.

I don't really understand that.  The stated aims are sound and deserve to be supported and the diffence for a responsible breeder is their position will be secure.  Puppy farmers are being winkled out but the KC need good breeders to support the scheme to give it credence and make it as good a selling point to the public as it deserves to be.  Have you seen the webchat?  I think the KC explain it rather better than me.

> The stated aims are sound and deserve to be supported and the diffence for a responsible breeder is their position will be secure

Many responsible breeders I know do not feel confident in the 'stated aims' and even some which have joined the scheme have only done so on a "if you can't beat them join them" basis, not because they have confidence in the scheme at all but simply because they are galled by puppy farmers and BYB being seemingly promoted by the KC while they are left looking like second class citizens.

While I can fully understand your viewpoint re supporting the scheme it nevertheless falls short of my own standards as it is just now.  If the KC implement the many changes required to ensure that irresponsible and money grabbing breeders are not able to meet their criteria then I will very probably rethink my views and join. 

I haven't visited the web chat - thanks for the link :)

> While I can fully understand your viewpoint re supporting the scheme it nevertheless falls short of my own standards as it is just now.

I expect it does but the KC expect the best breeders to already be doing at least this much but the point of the scheme is to raise the standards of those that don't and to that end they ask that good breeders support it and make it the desirable thing it needs to be to achieve it's aims.  It is a case of not what the scheme can do for you but what you can do for the scheme :-)

> but the point of the scheme is to raise the standards of those that don't and to that end they ask that good breeders support it and make it the desirable thing it needs to be to achieve it's aims

In which case the powers that be have to ensure that puppy farmers are recognised by their OWN (KC) records prior to anyone of that ilk being able to join.  The reality is that for me, and many who care passionately about dogs being bred for quality - not just for the ring but quality of life as healthy, happy, good natured family companions - that part has to be addressed before support can be given.

I appreciate this is a double edged sword and as such views are wide and varied :)  I can only really comment on the aspects of which I am aware on a personal level to be contentious issues.

We clearly hold opposing views on the best way of moving forward with this scheme or at least on whether or not there is merit in joining it but I respect your right to differ and hope that you do mine :)

I don't believe there is a cast iron right or wrong decision here, merely each to their own.

>> But it would be unfair to claim it as a litter bred under the ABS if the stud doesn't conform to the ideal wouldn't it?
> I totally agree with you :)  Can I ask - do you belong to the scheme?  I am only just looking into it myself.

When someone in my breed enquired re this matter (they are the only ones who have joined) they were told that the stud they used did not have to be ID'd only the ABS breeders own dogs.  It could be difficult to find a stud in my breed that had permanent ID as not everyone tattoos or chips their dogs, though of course all club members health test their dogs if they are going to be bred from..

I wonder if it has changed since.  The scheme has evolved a lot.  I can see it would be a problem though in a numerically small breed but on the other hand the idea is to encourage more to join which will involve identifying, eventually by DNA. I don't think this will be a bad thing in itself quite apart from the scheme.

> But then it probably just comes down to fees.  The KC is a business and they get paid by puppy farmers the same as they do by good breeders.

>That doesn't make sense.  The are a not for profit organisation, all the money they raise is ploughed back into the interest of dogs.  This was one of the issues touched upon in the web broadcast.  Have you watched it yet?

Not for profit no, but they have the upkeep of their buildings, staff salary & general overheads, which all need to be paid for. I'm sorry but unless the KC go a bit further nothing is going to change. I'm off to watch their response and read what the canine papers say.

> Not for profit no, but they have the upkeep of their buildings, staff salary & general overheads, which all need to be paid for.

Well of course, but it doesn't make sense to be pushing for more profits over and above that regardless of dog welfare only to then donate them to causes benefiting dogs, which is where all their profits go.