I personally think it is 'passing the buck', Hope the BBC don't get hold of this information I am sure they would have a field day. After all they would see it that the KC are permitting the breeders to break the rules.

> I personally think it is 'passing the buck'

So do I.   On the one hand it might be good if the KC did put in a bid to run the breeding licences but then for many people that would not go down well as we prefer to see them as a badge of quality breeding so there is a lot to be said for leaving it well alone.  On the other hand they will constantly get the blame when those that are responsible for it, collect the fees and leave them to get on with it.

Alisongold - I reported a person to the KC who doing back to back mating in my breed, they also did nothing. In terms of registration of puppies they need to seriously need to pull there finger out and get a computer programme that flags up litters registered by the same bitch within a 12 month period. Surely with all the technology it's possible, and they also need a dedicated team to constantley monitor the registrations and complaints of bad breeding practices. They also need a dedicated team on the road randomly checking breeders and following up and monitoring breeders who have displayed less than desirable practises in the past, without someone coming into check breeders they will just continue thinking they will remain untouched.

> I reported a person to the KC who doing back to back mating in my breed

Were they a licenced breeder?  Did you report it to the licencing authority in order for their inspectors to look into it? 

No not a licenced breeder, and they are always advertising puppies. I don't get the breed records supplement anymore wish I did as they are very interesting. I wonder if I could get all them from this year and the last couple from last year, will check out the kc website.

> No not a licenced breeder

The KC allows non licenced breeders to register two litters in this way.  If you think they should be licenced you could speak to their local authority.

Thing is the have the info of how many litters are registered the Council will not know how many litters a breeder breeds unless the breeder tells them.

they will have to keep records which the Licensing authority are supposed to inspect, but there is nothing to stop a breeder only showing the records they want.  If the breeder KC registers enough litters to warrant a License the n the KC know about it and should insist on seeing the License and only allow registration within the License terms, nothing difficult about that as the KC have a record of what every breeder has registered.

Those who do their registrations on-line can go straight to the account that shows which dogs one still has in ones name, so they do know that a given breeder has registered x number of litters, each breeder has an individual ID with the KC,a nd any database program could sort by the relevant info.

As it is they are collaborating with these breeders in breakign the law.

> there is nothing to stop a breeder only showing the records they want.

It should not be beyond the wit of an inspector to compare this to the BRS.  The inspectors have to use more skills than just checking registration to ensure that overbreeding is not occuring because after all the licenced breeder does not have to use the KC.

> 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.

I was including within it things that you have said re the ABS on separate threads to use the KC and ABS as a comparison.

I don't remember saying they could not police it on any thread although I do think people are sometimes unrealistic about the level of inspection that would be possible or entirely necessary with the system of customer feedback in place.
Councils however collect much larger fees, some charging a fee plus the cost of veterinary inspections, so they should be able to manage much more and so they should as this area is their responsibility.

> It should not be beyond the wit of an inspector to compare this to the BRS

I agree but it should be the KC checking their own records as after all the BRS has no addresses so not really up to a LA to check every name in case they may be the same as one of their License holders, but the KC know who is breeding more litters than is allowed without a License, and therefore know that by registering litters from successive seasons the person is breaking the law and KC disciplinary rules apply to those who break the law of the land.

The LA of course can check local advertising etc as well as a breeders records to check what they are breeding, but still can't know for sure what anyone is doing other than what the breeder tells them, or unless they are tipped off.

> The LA of course can check local advertising etc

If they can manage that they can manage finding the names of their licenced breeders in the BRS surely.  I am sure they know who their offenders are likely to be.

The KCs own records of actual dogs registration names, dates of birth and pedigrees will be far more easily assessed than any LAs records :)

> I am sure they know who their offenders are likely to be.

The Kennel Club certainly will - they have maintained records over many decades of inappropriate breeding by virtue of the fact they award registration to pups from these sources bred under less than ideal circumstances.  BYBs and PFs can have the cleanest of premises (rare but true) and outwardly appear to be ticking all the boxes of their licence agreement .....  One black Lab or Bichon will look much the same to the LA if inspected whereas the KC can easily record just how many times each individual Lab, Bichon or whatever has had pups KC registered because THEY, the KC themselves, are the ones registering them with full and very specific details :)

To get this debate back on topic :) ;)
I just spoke with the breeder of my two dogs - his comments weren't repeatable on a public forum :-(, but more or less went along the lines of, the Kennel Club wasn't going to give him anything in return so why should he pay them to register his puppies? Patterdales aren't a KC registered breed, but like many other working terrier breeders he keeps his own pedigrees, and proves his dogs through working before he breeds from them. They also win quite a lot at working terrier shows, so they are lookers as well as workers. He had two questions, which I couldn't answer, maybe someone else can. They were, if the government makes it illegal to breed unregistered puppies, what sort of punishment will they hand out if someone does so? Will he be sent to prison or fined? And also, as most people seem to think after that TV programme, that mongrels are healthier, what makes the KC think that the government will support them? Maybe they will, instead, just ban the breeding of pedigrees altogether?

> are the ones registering them with full and very specific details

and they publish them.  Labs and Bichons may all look the same but the inspector is entitled to see their records so the registration documents can be compared.  This is assuming that they are using the KC registration at all. 
Perhaps the whole thing about numbers should be abandoned and the dogs merely inspected for the condition they are in which must be how it is with the kennels not using any registration and where the inspectors must work without benefit of any information from KC by any means.

> Maybe they will, instead, just ban the breeding of pedigrees altogether?

They can't do that.  Your Patterdale breeder is breeding pedigrees hie is just not using the KC registry so, athough they could stop pedigrees being registered by anyone they could not stop people keeping their own records and breeding within them.

>what makes the KC think that the government will support them?

Hope.  I am not sure I share it though.

> and they publish them. Labs and Bichons may all look the same but the inspector is entitled to see their records so the registration documents can be compared.

Yep - so, it would be best if the KC didn't register any pups from establishments guilty of the relentless breeding of bitches on consecutive seasons and mass producing pups for profit then the LAs with their appropriate powers and the RSPCA could just get stuck in there and sort it all out.

With the knock on affect and enormous bonus of KC registration not being abused or, as is currently the case, the stamp of hypocrites :)

> it would be best if the KC didn't register any pups from establishments guilty of the relentless breeding of bitches on consecutive seasons and mass producing pups for profit

I don't believe the wish to but there will always be the problem between sorting out these from the reputable licenced breeder.  I don't believe they are doing anything to stop the LA and the RSPCA in their work though.

> Your Patterdale breeder is breeding pedigrees hie is just not using the KC registry so, athough they could stop pedigrees being registered by anyone they could not stop people keeping their own records and breeding within them.
>

That's not what the KC have said.

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.

The way I read it is that anyone who does not sell KC registered pupies would be breaking the law.

> I doubt it is one person inputting the data

i am sure that the kc's system could flag during imput if its the same address, affix etc. even basic databases manage that.

Ryan O'Meara is one of the KC's strongest critics - and this is what he has to say about the situation.
Food for thought. I think he's got a point!

I know what they are saying but I don't think they have any hope that this would happen and I can't imagine how on earth it could be policed.  If your breeder said "No, officer, that bitch is not in any way related to the dog, they just look a bit alike" or even "I didn't mate her the dog down the road got at her" how could he prove otherwise.  You could have legislation to make it illegal to breed a dog without registration but I think that would be tough to bring in and would have to allow crossbreeding to be fair to those that have good reason to produce crosses

> even basic databases

All data bases are covered by the data protection act too remember.

> I think he's got a point!

I don't :-).  This is the person behind the "Dog Parliament"

yes but the data protection act does not come into it when comparing data given willing to you with other data given willingly to you- for example at my work when processing a complaint when you put in the name and address of the customer if they are already on the system it flags it. this happens for several reasons- one incase the issue has been double logged and two incase of fraud. its perfectly legal for a company to compare its own records.

Yes, I know that - and I never thought that I would agree with ANYTHING he said - but if you read through what he is actually saying, he HAS got a point. The KC COULD refuse to accept registrations from BYB and puppy farmers, but they won't. It's all about money. And what RIGHT do they have to say who can and can't register puppies? There are plenty of people who breed very carefully, but are not within the KC's fold. Not just Patterdales, what about the Lucas Terrier, the Welsh Collie, working sheepdogs? Then there are breeds that are recognised in other countries but the KC hasn't yet put on the import register? Why should all those people have to go cap in hand to the KC and ask for permission to pay the KC a fee so that they can sell their puppies legally?

Seeing that RO'M wants people to pay a fee even to keep their existing pet dog, then I don't see that he's got any right to complain when someone else wants a fee paid ...

>And what RIGHT do they have to say who can and can't register puppies?

And what RIGHT do they have to say who can and can't have a pet dog?

>Why should all those people have to go cap in hand to the KC and ask for permission to pay the KC a fee ...

Why should all those people have to go cap in hand to the government and ask for permission to pay the government a fee ...

>its perfectly legal for a company to compare its own records.

But it's not legal for a company to pass those records, or that information, on to others.

And I might point out that as an Accredited Breeder I would have to hip score, elbow score and eye test. No problem, I do that already. However, nothing would stop me from breeding from a bitch with lets say a 60 hip score. My puppies would still be registered from an Accredited Breeder point of view. Now, I am a person that actually believes that some hip scores can be environmental as I know of people who always end up with not so good scores and yet people who have the litter brothers or sisters have good scores. I also don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water and if a good example of the breed and the hip score is not too much over the breed average then potentially she could be bred from (luckily never had to do that so far, but). I believe that the Accredited Breeder scheme has too many flaws. I know of someone in my breed that bred from a bitch with a 59 hip score, she wasn't a particularly good example, but all puppies were still registered. Mind you at £12 per puppy. Then the potential £12 from the new puppy owners. I rest my case.

i was not suggesting they should, only that the KC can clearly see that multiple little have been registered so could perhaps take it up with the breeder.

does anyone know where they stand as to being required to report illegal activity?

All data bases are covered by the data protection act too remember

And that is why the KC should take a stance and contact the breeder informing them that as a Licensed Breeder they cannot register the second litter.

> Why should all those people have to go cap in hand to the government and ask for permission to pay the government a fee ...

Well, maybe that's what it will come to.  Even though I'm not involved directly with the present row as I don't breed, don't even have a KC registered dog, I can't imagine ever having to live without a dog and it seems to me that this is what people like Ryan O'Meara are really working towards - and the KC are helping him to achieve it. If I was a breeder I would really think that the KC had betrayed me.

> And that is why the KC should take a stance and contact the breeder informing them that as a Licensed Breeder they cannot register the second litter.

Exactly what should be happening as it is illegal for someone requiring to have a License to breed this way.

Of course it won't stop the breeding but will stop the KC being party to it, and the pups value being enhanced by KC registration.

> The KC COULD refuse to accept registrations from BYB and puppy farmers

There has to be a workable definition to start with.  What on earth does BYB mean and would any rule against them throw hobby breeders out in the same bath water.  Similarly puppy farmers. Someone can breed very few litters in appalling conditions and without consideration for the health and welfare of the dogs and another can breed many more with the support of good staff to meet a good demand for well proven healthy stock.
I don't accept it is all about money because the Kennel Club do not make a profit.

>Why should all those people have to go cap in hand to the KC and ask for permission to pay the KC a fee so that they can sell their puppies legally?

I agree but I think the failing of the KC in the public eye may lead to them having to comply some other authority.

> If I was a breeder I would really think that the KC had betrayed me.

I wouldn't because that would be to take this issue way out of proportion in the way that Jemima might!
There are other agencies that are directly responsible by legislation for licensed breeding and receive payment to fulfill that function.  Nor should we imagine that every other litter the KC register is by a licensed breeder flouting the rules and allow this to over shaddow all the other intiatives, research and education that the KC have given to dogs, particularly in recent years.  But I guess if people do feel betrayed they will stop registering their litters with them and look for some other orgination.  As you say it is not obligatory.

Astarte you are right, it would be so easy to 'police' even on a simple database duplications of any type can be flagged up.

Surely with things such as hip scoring, say for example, if a breeder added a hip score of say 33/34 = 67 (as with a puppy from an abs breeder I purchased a puppy from) and the average was much lower, then this should be flagged up.  Doesn't take a genius to work it out so I am surprised the kc haven't yet.

I think Alison Gold has the right idea by carrying out the tests, and breeding healthy dogs, because she actually cares about the breed.  Why should any breeder pay to join a scheme that has no value or benefit to dogs whatsover.

 

> a hip score of say 33/34 = 67 (as with a puppy from an abs breeder I purchased a puppy from) and the average was much lower, then this should be flagged up. 

For what purpose?  They do not prescribe what results can be bred from.  These results however are public and will appear on the puppies registration documents.

> Why should any breeder pay to join a scheme that has no value or benefit to dogs whatsover.

Because you would be supporting a scheme that requires people to carry out all the recommended tests and have the results published and you would be supporting the on going research and education the KC pursue and, right now, you would be supporting the KC as the best people to remain in this position.

They do not prescribe what results can be bred from

But surely if they are interested in the health and welfare of breeds and they intend to police us by demanding that we join the ABS to be able to breed pedigree puppies and be registered with them then they should take HD as a very serious consequence of the health and wellbeing of a dog. A dog with severe HD will invariably have to be put down if the owners cannot afford the ongoing treatment that would be required to keep the dog painfree. Better to breed from dogs that have a chance of not producing hip dysplastic puppies in the first instance than leave it to chance. As it stands the ABS is not good enough.

Thing is that HD is not a simple mode of inheritance, and dogs with great hips can produce poorly and dogs with not so great (not talking clinically dysplastic) can actually be producers of great scores if they coem from a line of good scores.

With multifactorial conditions it is hard to be prescriptive.

This very point has been covered again and again by both the KC and this board so many times.

Oh I agree Barbara. As I said in an earlier post, I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water, however, I do believe there should be a cut of point somewhere. I personally cannot see the reasoning in breeding from a Golden Retriever with a 59 hip score. What is the point in that, there are plenty of really good bitches out there to warrant breeding from that hip score. We are not exactly a declining breed with a low gene pool.

No one not even the KC is saying that the ABS is finalised infact it should never ever be as it should move forward and onwards as new research moves onwards and so it should continue evolving. Therefore in the future there may well be cut off points introduced however it should be a case of being sure that by having that cut off the existing gene pool will not be so limited that breeding then directs a breed towards another worrying health issue. At least this way all dogs would be tested and results published instead of xrays not being submitted and breeders saying never had a problem in my lines.
Puppy buyers are becoming more aware and with compulsery testing could become very choosey.

Isabel, I'd be interested to see what advice you would give to someone who came along and said they were going to have a litter from a golden retriever but the hip score is way over the accepted score? (50 or 60 +)  As already mentioned on this thread goldens are not a declining breed so the gene pool would not be in question!

> I'd be interested to see what advice you would give to someone who came along and said they were going to have a litter from a golden retriever but the hip score is way over the accepted score? (50 or 60 +) 

My advise to a purchaser would be to ask them to explain why they were choosing the dogs that have.  Unless there was a very good reason, personally, I would not buy a puppy.

The question was what advice would you give to someone intending to have a litter from a golden retriever with a very high hip score.  From the answer that you would give to a prospective puppy purchaser, I take it you would advise the breeder not to breed from this dog?

> I take it you would advise the breeder not to breed from this dog?

I would ask them the same question as a purchaser should.  I can't imagine what reason she might give that I would be happy with and if she was asking my advise I probably would say don't do it.

I just wonder what all the top show/breed Peke kennels are thinking and doing right now?  What about all of their Champion "Breed Standard" (what was) Stock which was until a couple of days back the best?  How will they magically get longer muzzles etc now that their stock no longer meets the standard - BYB's perhaps? 

> BYB's perhaps? 

I suppose that is the danger but I do hope reputable breeders set to the task of rectifying things.  I think there is no doubt they need to and they really only have themselves to blame if some of their stock is no longer showable.  Perhaps they can access some of the puppies that they have placed in pet homes as having too little exaggeration but having other desirable and acceptable points to use as stud for example.

Their show entries are going to be very interesting in the immediate future.  I wonder if those already entered will turn up and will the judge?!   I can imagine a few judging appointments will be declined and I wonder what frighteners the KC is laying down on those judges already appointed.