Kennel Club to Clamp down on Breeders........

In order to ensure that the plans are effective and reach all dogs, the Kennel Club has called on the government to give it statutory powers to make its established Accredited Breeder Scheme compulsory throughout the country.  If successful, this would mean that all breeders who are not part of the scheme and who have not officially confirmed their willingness to follow the health standards set by the Kennel Club would be unable to produce or sell puppies within the law.



How can they enforce this??? Taken literally, it means that anyone who breeds 'doodles or working terriers or anything else will have to be an accredited breeder.

Yes  thats what it does mean but at present it isnt defined how it will work or all the details for that matter. As well as crossbreeds and working terriers there will be the question of ISDS registered and NGRC resgistered dogs. However I'm assuming that these things would have to be worked out during the consultation process with the government.

The way I read it, it is for the breeds recognised by the Kennel club, so would only apply to KC registered pedigree dogs????

It states it is releasing the first of the new standards for the Peke today, yet the link takes you to the standard which states last revised Nov 2004?

MMMM could be read that way I suppose but then would it state all dogs if so? Is the standard still the same though Brainless and have they just missed updating that line or has it not been changed yet? I havent got my breed standards at hand to check.

If you go right down to the bottom of the page, it does say that it was updated yesterday. Just very sloppy :(

> The way I read it, it is for the breeds recognised by the Kennel club, so would only apply to KC registered pedigree dogs????

That's not what it says.

>it does say that it was updated yesterday

Yes, but it still says November 2004 and has 'Profile flat with nose well up between eyes', which is what the letter says they've changed.

> it does say that it was updated yesterday.

I think that refers to the page.  Perhaps something has been amended in the list of clubs etc. 

Peke standard link seems to refer to the same standard as that published on the Peke Club's website, which makes no reference to the changes afoot, so suspect the KC has linked the wrong standard.

M.

Yes, they must have linked to the wrong one, not the updated one they refer to. Careless.

I think they just haven't updated it yet.  I expect the report and link would have been drafted in advance to ensure the standard did not suddenly change without explanation.  They say today and today is not over yet :-)

Not good to have a live link until the update is done though, very confusing.

Edited to add, just looked again and the link to the standard has been removed

"The groundswell of public attention on the very important matters surrounding dog breeding is a welcomed momentum that will enable us to drive through, with added urgency, new and extended initiatives that will help to safeguard the health of our pedigree dogs.  We have been listening and agree with the general public's view that more needs to be done".

And that Isabel was the reason I was unable to joint the ABS voluntarily........
It has taken 'that' programme with it's "groundswelling effects" to get the KC to agree that it's practices were not up to scratch. Unfortunately it seems that their answer is to force me to join, if I wish to register or compete at their shows. Not winning hearts and minds though... but what ever is best for the dogs in the long run I suppose.
Just a shame the 'new and improved' immediately makes one think "why has it taken this to make a change."
We all wanted a clean up and a scheme with teeth, shame it took a film producer to succeed where our nagging and disapproval failed.

A lesson for many large institutions... listen to your ground root people and not wait until you're shamed into making changes.

>"why has it taken this to make a change."

It has been evolving ever since it was first mooted.

>a scheme with teeth

We have not got that yet.  None of us know if the Government will agree to giving them these powers but I read the statement as saying the groundswell etc was welcomed as it would help enable that.

I can't understand why they have to ask the government to give them powers to enforce standards? Surely the KC is a private club, and if they want to make rules that all KC registered dogs have to pass certain health tests they can just do it - they don't need government approval.

I support the idea of the compulosry ABS in theory but wonder what difference is it going to make to my breed, there aren't even any recognised health tests for patella problems etc.  It's too easy for anybody to get hold of one of my breed and tick all the boxes with the KC and join up to the ABS and ta da you have your own fully functional puppy farm with an approved seal!

> Surely the KC is a private club, and if they want to make rules that all KC registered dogs have to pass certain health tests they can just do it - they don't need government approval.

They have stated several times that their reading of the situation is that those that do not wish to comply will simply not bother with registration at all or at least not with their registry.  They had been hoping to do this by persuation and measured change in opinion but this has rather forced there hand by making their position with the public rather shaky and they are not get a lot of support from good breeders either.
Personally, I'm afraid, unless the latter at least, changes very soon the Government will simply not be interested in their plan.

> there aren't even any recognised health tests for patella problems etc. 

The KC are probably the only organisation, certainly a registration one, that are likely to work towards ever having one.

I agree, hence why I theoretically support it - however, making the ABS a compulsory requirement before introducing health testing leaves a large gap for the not so worthy to sign up to the ABS and churn out plenty poorly bred pups.  Cart before the horse for our lot.

> before introducing health testing

They can only introduce testing as schemes that allow quantifiable results become available.  There is much research in the pipe line and I expect more and more schemes will be coming along but not unless the KC continue to receive support from breeders.  No one else is going to do it.

Well hopefully once helath testing is eventually introduced, the KC will strip the ABS badge from those who don't deserve it.  This could be a good few years yet, but I look forward to it.

> the KC will strip the ABS badge from those who don't deserve it.

I'm sure they will.  They have removed several breeders in the past for not complying with the terms.

and they are not get a lot of support from good breeders either
Thats right and I am not happy with them when they quite happily register puppies from a Labrador breeder who churns out Labrador puppies by permitting his bitches to have 2 litters in a 5 month period and when I complain they basically snub my complaint. Luckily the local Council were far more helpful and gave him a caution. So I just go my merry way and stick to all the rules on breeding and health as I am very concerned about dogs welfare but don't have an awful lot of respect in our governing body.

> It has been evolving ever since it was first mooted.
>

Evolution suddenly into over-drive!
It's just a shame that it plainly seems to be for the wrong motives..losing 'general public' confidence and fear of losing it's grip on the monopoly that is - pedigree dogs.

Ah well..... if the outcome is the same then many will be pleased.

As to all the other comments about "I know someone breeding doodles".....no system will entirely weed out the stupid, the lazy and the downright dishonest but a more rigorous one might chivvy up the majority of good hearted but less well informed people who dont do all that they could already.  IMO

>when I complain they basically snub my complaint.

I take it this is a licenced breeder.  Perhaps they felt as the Council were dealing matters this was sufficiently dealt with.  Certainly it has come up before that the KC do not have a system that would allow them to feasably check all breeders registering more than one litter a year from a bitch, which hobby breeders are permitted to do, to distinguish if they are licenced breeders.  Personally, I think that particular task is best left to the people issuing these licences as they should be checking on general welfare anyway.

>So I just go my merry way and stick to all the rules on breeding and health as I am very concerned about dogs welfare

I think it's good to involve ourselves in encouraging others to do the same.

I've just signed up for the ABS - there's nothing in there that I wouldn't do anyway, but as I breed Cavaliers, and the pet magazines are giving the advice to people to check breeders are members, I thought I'd better sign up! :-)

No Isabel. My first port of call was the KC. They were not interested. I put my complaint in writing and got a curt letter telling me basically that they weren't prepared to do anything. That is when I got the Council involved. They were disgusted at the practise. I cannot see why the Kennel Club can't at least flag up when a breeder registers two litters in one year from a bitch and therefore ask is the breeder licensed. If they are then they should ask to see a copy of the license and refuse to register the second litter thus enforcing the rule of licensing that a bitch cannot have a litter from a bitch with a 12 month period. By registering these second litters they are being seen to encourage a breeder to breach his license. No I am afraid the Kennel Club should have tightened up many years ago, they have only taken the new actions because thay have been embarassed into it. Proper breeders have been doing the correct thing for years and really should have been encouraged that they had the backing of the KC. Unfortunately the KC look to revere money over health and welfare on too many occasions. I have already proven to do as much and often more than Accredited Breeders are doing and yet my puppies will be further down the puppy list than them and many haven't proven their breeding as this is their first litter. After all you don't have to have bred a litter to be a member, as long as you pay your money!!

> I have already proven to do as much and often more than Accredited Breeders are doing and yet my puppies will be further down the puppy list

That's been your choice.  If you are meeting all the requirements you could join the scheme. You may feel the KC should be policing the licencing scheme but I believe that is down to the people that actually issue the licences and collect the fee.

>many haven't proven their breeding as this is their first litter.

How many litters would you like people to breed before they sign up to the aims of the scheme?

AlisonGold
I could not have put it better myself. Well done you.

I am meeting all the requirements. I shouldn't have to join a scheme, the KC should be ensuring that others come up to the required standard.

As to the other question. You should prove yourself with at least one litter and encourage the new owners to let the KC know if they have been happy with the puppy and you as a breeder.

Those that join the scheme do have to meet the required standard so this is the way they ensure they come up to standard.
I can't see any mechanism for the KC to let puppy purchasers know about breeders who meet the requirements but are not prepared to sign up nor any reason why they should develop one. 

>You should prove yourself with at least one litter and encourage the new owners to let the KC know if they have been happy with the puppy and you as a breeder.

Why should they not sign up to the aims right from the outset?  They are still going to be subject to feedback.

>After all you don't have to have bred a litter to be a member, as long as you pay your money!!

I have just remembered this.  If someone wishes to support this intiative and the KC in their aims with no personal benefit what so ever isn't that up to them?

The new standard is on site now.
And changes to this page too.

> Perhaps they felt as the Council were dealing matters this was sufficiently dealt with.

That wasn't the case, Isabel. I know to whom Alisongold is referring as I complained to the KC also - the response I got said that the breeder in question was not breaking any KC rules so there was nothing they could do, and they suggested taking it up with the Local Authority - not that the LA were dealing with it. I feel that I got a slightly better response from the KC than a snub though - from the way the letter was worded whoever had written it appeared to agree that the behaviour of breeder in question was not acceptable (without actually saying so) and also said the KC would provide the LA with any relevant information. However it doesn't alter the fact that KC rules did not prevent these litters from being registered.

> the response I got said that the breeder in question was not breaking any KC rules so there was nothing they could do, and they suggested taking it up with the Local Authority.

OK, so the council were not already dealing with it by the KC provided guidance as to who would look into it.

> as to who would look into it

As to who COULD look into it. ;-) They didn't offer to contact the Local Authority themselves.

Did you want them to give you 10p for the call? :-P

No - I wanted them to feel the need to be proactive when a matter of concern had been reported to them. :-)

I don't suppose it occured to them that you might not.

> the KC do not have a system that would allow them to feasably check all breeders registering more than one litter a year from a bitch, which hobby breeders are permitted to do, to distinguish if they are licenced breeders.

The Kennel Club as on the registration form if you are a Licensed breeder,a nd they certainly can tell from their own records if more than five litters have been bred in a 12 month period which means they should have a License and ipso facto should not be registering litters on consecutive seasons.

>ipso facto should not be registering litters on consecutive seasons.

No, should not be breeding on consecutive seasons.  I presumed they ask if they were licenced breeders as this determines whether the litter can be placed on the puppy list.  You are right, this could be computerised to be flagged up but the breeding registrictions are by dint of the law not the KC so I really think the licencing authority are the ones to be governing this and after all there is more than just back to back breeding they need to be monitoring.  The whole point of licencing is to provide an authority capable of monitoring breeding on a larger scale which clearly the KC is not set up to do nor do they receive the fee to finance it.

Breeders that are required to be licensed are not allowed by law to let their bitches have litter on consecutive seasons.

The kennel club are colluding with a breeder breaking the law when registering a fifth or more litter from a breeder doing so.  the kennel club know exactly how many litters a breeder has registered.

> the kennel club know exactly how many litters a breeder has registered.

and so should the authorities who receive a fee to run the licencing scheme.  Why should the KC incur expences monitoring a law that they did not make and receive no fees to adminster.  Why don't licencing councils purchase BRSs?

The kennel clubs own rules state that those breeders requiring a license cannot register litters within less than 12 months fro  a bitches previous litter, so it is their own rules they are not upholding and should be.

Perhaps the councils should share their fees to finance policing it.

> I don't suppose it occured to them that you might not.

Never assume is a very good rule. ;-)

I had the information in the BRS. It does not include addresses etc. And in bringing the matter to their attention I might feel that I had done sufficient to warrant them then looking at it seriously.

> Why should the KC incur expences monitoring a law that they did not make and receive no fees to adminster.

Because they are supposed to be actively enthusiastic and concerned about the welfare of dogs (and that is a relevant issue to canine welfare). They promote themselves as being such - it would be something that would be beneficial to the canine world and that would be an argument in their support against those that argue they are not concerned. They are also the ones with the registration information at their fingertips - so information sharing and working in partnership with those that police the laws in order to penalise those breeders that are actively breaking the law would seem reasonable.

They collate all the information anyway - I really don't see that it would incur huge expense to flag those litters up... the enforcement of the law would be down to those who are paid the fees to do so.

You say the ABS relies on feedback and they cannot afford to police it fully - true - though they take the money for membership of the scheme and litter registrations - those that give feedback are not paid for so doing. So why not then feedback from Kennel Club to licensing authorities so they can clamp down on breeders acting illegally without the need for remuneration - given that those records are already collated?

> You say the ABS relies on feedback and they cannot afford to police it fully

I did not say they could not afford to police the ABS I was refering to the fact that they don't receive fund to police the dog breeding licencing laws.
We don't know how often they do refuse registrations.  Perhaps they could be more on the ball but it is not as if they are leaving it with no one responsible.  Licenced breeders should be monitored by those taking money to do so as there is considerable more to be looked at than whether back to back breeding has occured.
Perhaps Defra will prove more efficient in tipping off local councils but I don't particularly want to throw away the KC and all they do supporting the breeders who do have the interest of their dogs at heart to find out.

We don't know how often they do refuse registrations

Well they didn't refuse this breeder who registered 14 litters that quarter. Two bitches giving birth within 5 months of their previous litters, 2 bitches within 6 months and 3 bitches within 7 months. Surely alarm bells should have been ringing when putting those registrations through.
You say that the Council take money for the license and so should police it. But the KC take £12 for every puppy. That breeder registered over 100 puppies that quarter!

I doubt it is one person inputting the data.  If the breeder produces puppies in these numbers wouldn't you expect a council to be monitoring on a regular basis?  I think it is the licencing regulations that need scrutiny here.