I have been on k9puppy.co.uk

The link to the breeders own website seems really good and professional but there have been some comments posted
on k9 site saying its a scam. Might just be malicious for no reason tho.

Any tips?

You can check out if a breeder is in the ABS or through the Breed Club.

Decide what breed you like. 

Do some research to make sure it's one you can live with and cope with and to find out what health tests are required or recommended ;) (that's the fun part)  

then contact the BREED CLUB/s and ask about their puppy list or if they can recommend a breeder to you that does all the necessary health tests with excellent results - easy!

Good Luck!

To help you decide http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/435 the breed clubs are on the pages for each breed - scroll to the bottom of the breed page to find them ;)

If you have the breeder's kennel name, Google it. If they are legit and doing anything half way decent in the dog world, such as showing, agility, anything like that, you will get results. That will at least tell you they are doing something else than just breeding puppies for money. :)

Yep I always find that a useful tool for knowing what direction a breeders efforts are in.

echo that

I had a web site targeted in the same way but if you google my affix you will see how much effort I put into getting it right.

Sadly some of these adds are not placed by the breeder but are sourced from other sites as mine was - I nevernever place adds on those sites.

HTH

Its a bit of suss that i get an email this morning & she says there were puppies born during the night & there is 1 black girl that im wanting.

They say they are licensed!

They require £200 deposit & i can view them after 3 weeks. Deposit would be required next week.

Run like mad, no breeder that cares would ever ask for a deposit before meeting you and deciding you can offer the right home for one of their puppies.

I would never take a deposit until i have met the people and im happy with them, sounds abit dodgy to me

I'm in complete agreement with pepsi1
we never take a deposit I like to meet them first then place them with a pup that we think suits the family etc

Why look though these type of sites

Contact the secretary of the breed club you want , ask her to send you a list of reputable breeders and contact them.

Go along to a show buy a catlogue and contact some of the exhibitors.

Yeah i think you are right. Im not a breeder but i think i would be over cautious about who was taking a pup from me, i would worry too much!!

Thanks for everyones advice!

I'd run like from any licensed breeder. You only need a license if you breed more than 5 litters a year, and not many responsible breeders do. Many don't even have one litter per year.

> I'd run like from any licensed breeder.

I do not think being licensed in itself is any reason to conclude they are not reputable.  I can think of some licensed breeders that I would be happy to buy a puppy from.

I don't know Isabel. Look at it like this: why would anyone need to breed 6+ litters a year? Would they have the same time etc for each litter as those of us that have one at most? I know where I'd prefer to buy from.

>why would anyone need to breed 6+ litters a year?

Because they have demand for their stock here and abroad for the quality of the bloodlines in show or working and breeding at that level allows them to be both amibitious and selective to a degree that a small hobby breeder would find very difficult.  I would certainly want to look closely at how the litters had been raised but I don't see why it cannot be the case that they have sufficient help to do it properly.

For clarity ... surely the wording is '5 or more litters per year', which means that anything above 4 litters would take a breeder in to licensing territory? Still wouldn't apply to most, I'm sure, but I could think of decent breeders who have gone for a substantial time without litters due to bitches missing, and ended up with 4 spanning a 12 month period.

M.

Exactly it does not need to be huge numbers at all to be simpler just to obtain a license.

surely the wording is '5 or more litters per year', which means that anything above 4 litters would take a breeder in to licensing territory?

Yes you're right -I just double checked. (I queried it with DEFRA and had a letter from them.) It says anyone with LESS than 5 litters per year does not need a license. So 4 litters you do NOT need to be licensed for, only 5 and more. And I still think 5 litters in 12 months is excessive for anyone.

I guess the trouble is though that no one rule can apply in all cases. Taking an example off the top of my head (sorry if I'm wrong Gwen!), but I would guess that with their involvement in different breeds the [Mod removed] affix must top this by a fair way. Don't think any of us would knock them though, and sure they more than have a suitable market for what they produce.

I think that the number of litters may be an additional alarm bell, but is not necessarily a sign of a lack of quality. Mind you, who am I to talk, I've managed 2 litters in 20 years ... !!

M.

I guess the trouble is though that no one rule can apply in all cases. Taking an example off the top of my head (sorry if I'm wrong Gwen!), but I would guess that with their involvement in different breeds the [Mod removed]affix must top this by a fair way. Don't think any of us would knock them though, and sure they more than have a suitable market for what they produce.

Yes, true. I dare say though that in MOST cases, a breeder being licensed IS a bad sign. Most breeders are not licensed as they have no need to. In that sense it's kind of had the opposite effect, a bit like the ABS scheme where now it can be seen as a mark of POOR quality rather than the opposite.

> They require £200 deposit & i can view them after 3 weeks. Deposit would be required next week

not with a ten foot bargepole!!

> a bit like the ABS scheme where now it can be seen as a mark of POOR quality rather than the opposite.

What a shame if some are still thinking that.  Perhaps the KC should just give up and hand it over to some other organisation.

> a bit like the ABS scheme where now it can be seen as a mark of POOR quality rather than the opposite.

What a shame if some are still thinking that.  Perhaps the KC should just give up and hand it over to some other organisation.

What like the RSPCA?  No thanks, actually I must admit all that's going on is making me wonder whether I should bother anymore as I think that they are going to ruin the hobby that I've loved to do for years.

>What a shame if some are still thinking that.  Perhaps the KC should just give up and hand it over to some other organisation.

Maybe the Kc should use the technology at it's offices to identify breeders who are breeding for no other reason but money ;)  One good read of the breed supplement for the last quarter was enough for me to identify several breeders who appear to be breeding purely for money - why else would someone have several large litters at the same time and not even bother to name them? (KC Affix) and also have many dogs being transferred who aren't out of the same litters?   If I can identify them, they surely can?

There is also the matter of bitches having frequent litters - all there in the breed supplement!  

IMO there is really no need to have a two tier registration system, refusing to register bulk-bred/frequent litters and applying their own rules regarding registration would suffice, as would educating the public on what to expect from a responsible breeder and how to avoid BYBs and puppy farmers, by publishing the information in places that would be seen by the general public ;)  (dog magazines etc )

> Maybe the Kc should use the technology at it's offices to identify breeders who are breeding for no other reason but money

How would you word this rule about making money?  That's hardly realistic.  There are many rules already in the scheme that are there to promote ethical breeding.  If people can meet those and still make money, well good luck to them!

>IMO there is really no need to have a two tier registration system, refusing to register bulk-bred/frequent litters and applying their own rules regarding registration would suffice

The KC have repeatedly explained that they feel the change in breeding ethics must be taken by encouragement rather than force to prevent the breeding of dogs just splitting away from their governance.  This has happened in American where there are now more than 20 different "registries".  Of course this may actually be a lesser evil than the taking over of breeding and owning by other bodies.  The KC should be receiving our support in their endevours.

Dill - I couldn't agree more.  You've written exactly what I would have myself (only considerably more concisely ;) )

The KC had already lost the faith of many genuinely GOOD breeders - simply by printing the BRS in the first place.  They're damned by their own publication which shows glaringly obvious bad practices.  It's not so much a case of spot the puppy farmer but try and spot the respectable breeder!

To add further insult to injury they've dreamed up a new scheme which has clearly embraced puppy farmers yet again and are charging for the privilege.  I'd like to say that I could give my support to the KC in light of todays events and in the run up to them but I can't :(   TBH unless the KC shows us, the responsible people who are the backbone of pedigree dogs and competitive pursuits that WE matter, OUR beloved breeds and OUR hard earned reputations, then they will be left with little but BYB and puppy farmers touting their wares under the banner of Accredited Breeders.

The KC have to act now - many issues need addressed here and none IMO can be put on the back burner.

The ABS is the KC acting.  I think people need to forget the idea of having a elitist registration nice though it would be.  The fact is all sorts of people will continue to breed and there has to be a scheme that will raise their game rather than just reward those that already breed well.  The KC have stated again and again the scheme requires good breeders on it to direct people away from puppy farmers.   Without supporting these efforts I doubt the KC will continue to hang on to things and it won't be them addressing anything.

> The KC have repeatedly explained that they feel the change in breeding ethics must be taken by encouragement rather than force to prevent the breeding of dogs just splitting away from their governance.

I feel that is a cop out Isabel, and TBH a very weak one.  Something spluttered and muttered off the cuff on THAT documentary.  The KC may believe that excuses their lack of control re puppy farmers and BYB but as has been pointed out it is clearly evident in their own publications that they ignore the facts and take the money from these registrations.

The KC have not been acting in the interests of the breeds they proclaim to protect for years nor have they been acting in the interests of breeders who genuinely want to protect the breeds of which they are the future.

The KC need to do a massive clean up act here - as has been pointed out they have the technology to identify a great many of the culprits, and even if a number slip through the net that will be a significant start.  IMO only if they'd stopped promoting, supporting and advertising BYBs and PFs years ago they would have a naturally developed ABS :( 

> Something spluttered and muttered off the cuff on THAT documentary.

It has been mentioned before in the newsletters. 

How many folks read their newsletters?  How many folks RECEIVE their newsletters?

In any event what's the point of mutterings in the background without action?  None as far as I can see.  I'm sure many of us can think of a few breeders off the top of our heads that churn out "all the usual suspect" breeds as money spinners to fund their show going with an entirely different breed.  I know I can.  Those that can't only need to flick through the KCs own publications to identify them.  Why has the KC continued to support puppy farmers?  Why has the KC itself organised a two tier system that gives even BETTER advertising and promotion to the greedy and uncaring than they could have imagined in their wildest dreams?

The KC may talk the talk but it's been preaching to the converted - they needed to act, not rhyme off ideals that they have no intentions of enforcing :(

> How many folks read their newsletters?  How many folks RECEIVE their newsletters?
>

My point was to reassure you that had not just considered that point during the broadcast.

> Why has the KC itself organised a two tier system that gives even BETTER advertising and promotion to the greedy and uncaring than they could have imagined in their wildest dreams?

The two tier system is to differentiate between the more ethical breeder and those that just breed within the welfare laws of the land.  I'm not sure how that gives better advertising and promotion to the latter. The more good breeders that join the scheme the more the others will be out in the cold which is what the KC pointed out in their broadcast.

> The KC have repeatedly explained that they feel the change in breeding ethics must be taken by encouragement rather than force to prevent the breeding of dogs just splitting away from their governance.  This has happened in American where there are now more than 20 different "registries".  Of course this may actually be a lesser evil than the taking over of breeding and owning by other bodies.  The KC should be receiving our support in their endevours

This is the part i don't understand,did the AKC at some point refuse to register untested dogs? As it stands now the AKC is no mark of quality whatsoever as they register pet store and puppy mill dogs quite happily,you  can buy an AKC registered dog in the mall.People can register and name their own dogs and the system is wide open to abuse,no health testing is required at all.How has that forced all the other registries to crop up?

> The ABS is the KC acting.  I think people need to forget the idea of having a elitist registration nice though it would be.  The fact is all sorts of people will continue to breed and there has to be a scheme that will raise their game rather than just reward those that already breed well

the thing is isabel the ABS doesn't seem to do that, there seem to be a lot of irresponsible breeders getting on to it. i think it should involve regular inspections, requirement for certain levels of health results and the need to make a case them before being able to breed more than two litters a year that are registered. i'd bet a responsible breeder like yourself would not have any issue with having a kc inspector round for a shifty at your doggies (and probably a good natter about them to) and your premesis, i doubt you;d mind giving them docs on health checks and if for some reason you wanted to breed more litters than 2 a year i'm sure you wouldn;t mind explaining your reasons.

> The two tier system is to differentiate between the more ethical breeder and those that just breed within the welfare laws of the land.  I'm not sure how that gives better advertising and promotion to the latter

Because there are BYBs and puppy farmers already on their ABS and they have been from it's launch :(  Because they are on what the KC itself is trying to convince the public is an elite register, they are ultimately giving a higher profile and openly endorsing these undesirables.  It is for that reason that a great many deserving of the name accredited simply wont join.  .

Just because someone health tests a number of their animals doesn't make them squeaky clean by any means.  The KC should have been analysing the registration figures from these sources over what length of period and over how many breeds - it's easily done without having the data on computer, so they have no excuse.

If the KC gets tough with the people it should be getting tough with then they will garner more support at grass roots leevl.  As it stands even before that awful doc aired on the BBC many of the KCs own supporters were already feeling that our governing body had let us down badly :(

Charlie72: I took it to mean that but perhaps they just meant that this may happen if they close their books to people that will continue to breed anyway. They certainly can do nothing to prevent other registries opening.

> i think it should involve regular inspections, requirement for certain levels of health results

It does involve inspection when feedback merits but the scheme runs at a loss now so I would think expecting every breeder to be routinely inspected would make the whole thing unworkable.  The KC have explained why they don't wish to be prescriptive about health results as this can lead to different problems.  The results are public for all to see and act accordingly.

Hi Astarte,

individual visiting of every breeder for every litter is never going to happen - it's totally impractical and could still be open to abuse anyway.  Insistence by the KC that health tests available to each breed were mandatory before registrations and DNA profiling of all breeding stock and their progeny would be a start.  I'm sure genuinely honest breeders who cared for the improvment of their breeds and the protection of future generations would have no problem in agreeing to any of the foregoing and paying the price of the testing for progeny too.

It would not be water tight, after all just about everything set up in life can be circumvented by the desperados out there, but it would be a significant stance by the KC which proved to breed clubs, breeders, judges, exhibitors, welfare bodies and - vitally - the public at large that they were first and foremost all about HEALTHY dogs, HONEST breeders and SUPPORTIVE of breeds and their dedicated clubs.

regards, Teri :)

> Just because someone health tests a number of their animals doesn't make them squeaky clean by any means

The scheme demands more than just that.  There are bound to be breeders that are not what we would wish ourselves to be and this creates the perennial problem of just how you define puppy farmer or BYB.  I believe the only thing you can do is what the KC has done which is set a minimum standard but without support from people who easily reach that and much more it will never work and the alternatives really don't look anywhere near as attractive to me :-(

> DNA profiling of all breeding stock and their progeny would be a start.

Identification is already required on the scheme and they intend to switch to DNA profiling only.

> Charlie72: I took it to mean that but perhaps they just meant that this may happen if they close their books to people that will continue to breed anyway. They certainly can do nothing to prevent other registries opening

It's the comparison with America that I don't understand.As it is the AKC will register anything that isn't a cross breed whatever the health status of the dogs or ethics of the breeder and it certainly hasn't stopped all the "other" registries popping up.At least if the KC insisted on health testing puppy buyers would know which registry was the "legit" one?

> I took it to mean that but perhaps they just meant that this may happen if they close their books to people that will continue to breed anyway

I'm sorry Isabel but I see it that he KC will lose this business, sad to say but their revenue will fall to an unacceptably low level and will make their business untenable.

> I believe the only thing you can do is what the KC has done which is set a minimum standard

I believe their minimum standard has to be significantly higher - the breeders after all would be the ones paying out the money for this scheme, not the KC.  Sires, broods and whelps would need to be DNA profiled and permanently identified and of course all breeding stock tested for any available health conditions appropriate to their breed and to have received satisfactory results for same.  Anyone not breeding to this standard should not have litters registered.

It wouldn't stop BYBs or puppy farmers producing dogs but it would stop their stock being registered, advertised & promoted by the KC - therein lies the difference.

I honestly vehemntly hate the thought of DEFRA, the RSPCA or any other government or welfare authority taking up the reins re dog breeding, ownership, etc etc but TBH we've had a governing body in place for decades that's been doing some good but not enough.  What's more the KC are fully aware of the areas in which they fail to meet the expectations of a great many breeders but when confronted with the evidence at road shows etc they wheedle out of providing no holds barred answers.  They really have let us all down badly and now are trying to make out the ABS is something of a saviour to the pedigree dog world when the reality is very different indeed - and they know it. 

Isabel, DNA profiling has been readily available for years - intending to switch at some airy fairy point in the future is yet another example of how they have sat on their laurels :(

> At least if the KC insisted on health testing puppy buyers would know which registry was the "legit" one?

Then they can find that on the ABS scheme but the KCs aim is to hang on to the other breeders and continue to try to influence them into meeting those requirements too as they feel they will breed with or without them. 

> their revenue will fall to an unacceptably low level and will make their business untenable

As I don't think any of us would like to see them fail this is even more incentive for me to see their ABS succeed and more and more breeders making the switch to its requirement.   What use is it to us if we say you must just stop registering all the others now and go out of business?

Although I agree with your laudable sentiments Isabel, I feel uncomfortable being labelled an AB and being aligned with the less desirables.
When the scheme has real teeth I may reconsider.

> At least if the KC insisted on health testing puppy buyers would know which registry was the "legit" one?

Then they can find that on the ABS scheme but the KCs aim is to hang on to the other breeders and continue to try to influence them into meeting those requirements too as they feel they will breed with or without them 

But byb's use KC registration to charge more for their pups,if they had to health test to get that status then surely that would be more incentive? If the public could be given a guarantee that any KC registered pups parents had been health tested the message would be much stronger to only buy KC registered pups,as it is it is no guarentee whatsoever.People who don't register them now never will whatever the KC do.

i didn;t mean for every litter, but for whenever a breeder signs up to it. but yes your right, of course someone out there would abuse the scheme, such is life (annoyingly)

> but it would be a significant stance by the KC which proved to breed clubs, breeders, judges, exhibitors, welfare bodies and - vitally - the public at large that they were first and foremost all about HEALTHY dogs, HONEST breeders and SUPPORTIVE of breeds and their dedicated clubs.
>

this is why i think such measures would be a good idea- really show people that they are trying and really make KC registered a mark of quality.

> They really have let us all down badly and now are trying to make out the ABS is something of a saviour to the pedigree dog world when the reality is very different indeed - and they know it

The scheme always had to be realistic and was a very good starting point but it would have a better potential to improve if more people were supporting it thus making it more of an aspiration for all breeders.  I don't think it is fair to blame the KC entirely if we are not prepared to support their efforts.  It is also more likely for influence to be effective from within rather from the outside.