Can you believe this???

Just visited friends who are collecting their puppy next week.

How about this, you breeders out there, who have like me, strived litter after litter to produce strong healthy puppies of sound temperament close to the breed standard......

They are collecting their puppy, a Labradoodle for heavens sake....for £850!!!!!

And... the puppy has an umbilical hernia!

However they have been reassured it will cost very little to repair and she may be bred from with no problem whatsoever and no long term implications for her progeny.

I am absolutely gobsmacked.

These friends are completely taken in, I am staggered at their naivety, and the absolute cheek of the low life who are producing these puppies and giving genuine people such information. What the hell is going on??

I suggest they ring their Vet first and ask how much it will cost to repair and should the pup then be bred from. They may get quite a shock.

Know how you feel.... someone I work with has just bought one too and no amount of 'debating' with him made the slightest bit of difference. We agreed to disagree on the ethics of breeding and I know he will give the puppy a fantastic home.
Doesn't make it right though, in my eyes.....

Gabrielle

Hello....was it a very small hernia (just a fat lump) if so it will close as they grow. The muscles get stronger and it will disappear. Anything more serious will need a vet's attention and maybe an operation as they can be serious.

If it was not pointed out when buying the puppy to the purchaser by the breeder they could return the puppy under the return of faulty good act (or something similar I can  get my book out and look it up if you really want to know). I would suggest contacting the breeders and explain that there will be a vet bill  and will they pay it or contribute to 1/2 of it , or if feeling really angry and mislead return the puppy and get their money back. They could be looking at another £200 in vets bills alone.

These trendy cross breeds are rediculously priced. But if people are prepared to buy them there are people out there willing to take their cash. Easy money (with no tax) to pay especially if they have 8 to 10 in a litter.

I would suggest going to a kennel club accredited breeder every time - at least there inspected and have to accept back an ill puppy within a certain time.

But I agree with you....unbelievable

I would suggest going to a kennel club accredited breeder every time

Or rather breeders recommended by the relevant breed club. Most really GOOD breeders won't have anything to do with the ABS as it has been so infiltrated by puppy farmers that it will make good breeders look bad by joining it. I even know good breeders who would refuse to sell a pup to any breeder on the ABS.

>kennel club accredited breeder every time - at least there inspected

When did the inspections start? That's news to me. As far as I know it's all taken on trust.

OH I missed that! No, certainly no inspections, which is just one reason for WHY there are puppy farmers on it. I refuse to join it myself. They need to scrap it and start over with tougher rules.

My pup has a small hernia, causing me great concern though the vet states its nothing to worry about. Its very small.

Only noticed it when i got home after a better look at her!

Do want to show her and hope nothing awful goes wrong!

Not seen it before!

Does she also know that there hipscores are as bad as the Labrador?  Go to the BVA website and print the info of and advise her that that's not a good sign either!

Well apparently the hernia will definetly need surgery, it's a quite a big one. However the breeder has offered to knock off fifty pounds!!!!

As for hipscores, they were told as well that as the pedigree grandparents (lab x poodle) had good hips that would guarantee good hips in these pups as well. It makes me really cross that these people who are clearly flogging puppies for an absolute fortune are also giving out shockingly inaccurate and totally unethical 'advice'.

It makes me so ****** angry when I am so careful selecting the right homes for our puppies and bending over backwards to give advice, support and ensuring that the puppy has had the very best possible start in life. Why do I bother? When people like this are potentially setting up so much trouble and heartbreak for families who don't know any better.

Mind you, I have talked to this family at some length and they really don't want to hear what I say. They just see a sweet little puppy which they think will cause no problem for the asthmatics in the family......why????? Are they hypoallergenic or something, like my make up?

In Response to emma5673

This article should reassure you: http://www.showdogsupersite.com/kenlclub/breedvet/umbilical.html

> When did the inspections start? That's news to me. As far as I know it's all taken on trust.

They have been inspecting for about 2 years now - although not as yet every breeder registered on the scheme.  I know that the ABS scheme has been soundly taken apart and found lacking by several threads on this site but  I still believe that it's aims are valid, and the best way of making sure it grows in the right direction is from the inside - by being a member! 

On the subject of hernias - with one of my breeds small umbilical hernias are extremely common, we point them out to prospective owners, and advise that in most cases surgical interveniton is not necessary.  Of course, I have no idea if this is the case with the "oodle in question"

On the subject of Labradoodles - I have a dog groomer friend who has a very handsome Standard Poodle, who has been "propositioned" on at least 3 occassions by Lab. owners wanting to use him at stud.  However, this week  she had a Labradoodle bitch in for grooming, and the owner enquired about using the Poodle on her!  They got the usual polite refusal, but since then we have been speculating - would the resulting litter have been Labrdoodleoodles or Ooddles of  Labradoodle, or even Labradoodles squared?  :)
bye
Gwen

>I still believe that it's aims are valid,

Until health testing is a requirement, not just a 'recommendation' (and not even all the breed-relevant ones at that) it's pretty pointless IMO. Personally I'd make health testing a requirement for registration, but that's another story!

>would the resulting litter have been Labrdoodleoodles or Ooddles of  Labradoodle, or even Labradoodles squared? 

No, just mongrels! ;-)

would the resulting litter have been Labrdoodleoodles or Ooddles of  Labradoodle, or even Labradoodles squared?  :-)

They would have been a LOT of POO!

> Until health testing is a requirement, not just a 'recommendation' (and not even all the breed-relevant ones at that) it's pretty pointless IMO. Personally I'd make health testing a requirement for registration, but that's another story!

>

I agree with you - I think that the whole system needs tightening up, with health testing an absolute requirement.  However, I have chosen to  work with the ABS scheme, giving input when asked (and sometimes even when not asked!)  I agree with its aims, not necessarily with the early attempts to implement it.  However, when not all breed clubs in a breed are in tune with what should be mandatory and what should be desirable, and lots of breed clubs not even bothering to respond (or put to committtee for disucssion) the ABS requests for input into amendments/additions to the health testing requirments, it has a long way to go before it will be what it should be.  But I strongly feel that any scheme which is pushing towards mandatory identification of breeding animals and health testing is worth giving a try.  I hope that the more good breeders who get behind the scheme and have a voice in it's development will give the scheme enough weight to expand, especially in the inspections, and in that way weed out the undesirable element. 

There is definitely an element of checking, it's not just the free for all often assumed.  I submitted a litter registration last year and forgot to insert the sire's microchip number, got an email back from Bill Lambert (scheme inspector) by return, saying litter could not be registered without the number.  Never tried registering any pups from un health tested parents, so could not say what the response would be.

bye
Gwen

Regarding the ABS, there are changes afoot, and I look forward to seeing them!!!

Unfortunately anybody can be on there and not health test etc.  I think that this is going to change shortly and shock and out some of the not so good breeders on it!

To be honest I think the ABS priciples should apply to all registrations, I can't see how morally the KC can have a two tier system, ethical good breeders and others.

dont tar everyone with that brush there sre some excellent breeders on the ABS

Of course there are good breeders on there Sam, but the fact is that as there ARE puppy farmers that have managed to join the scheme, it has got a very bad reputation with many people actively avoiding those breeders rather than seeking them out. So it's had the opposite effect.

I agree with you.  I am ABS small hobby breeder.  Bill Lambert from the Kennel Club made an appointment and visited me about 4 months ago.  He asked lots of questions and inspected our Kennels and came for a walk with the dogs.  Following the visit he sent a report with recommendations for a seperate fenced run for a fire evacuation situation. 

He said to me that they are learning all the time but that the scheme is a step in the right direction and I agree because if they just leave things as they are then buying a KC registered puppy just means that its name and parents have been noted. 

Apparently the administers of the scheme are working their way around all accredited breeders so the puppy farms will be flushed out in due course and some breeders have already been removed from the scheme.

My breeds are Border Terriers and Labradors and I cannot register a Labrador litter unless the parents have current clear eye certificates and the hips are scored, plus the bitch must be either microchipped or DNA tested.  The only thing lacking is that the hips could have a very BAD score but as long as they are scored that is acceptable. 

I raised this question with Bill Lambert when he came and he said that at least this way the purchasers can make an informed decision and that the KC is taking it one step at a time and that one of the next steps could be to agree some sort of qualifying requirements.

Hello....I agree with Gwens (and others) comments. The ABS has had a really bad start but I hope the puppy farmers will get a shock as now they are member they can be inspected and 'chucked off ' if they do not meet the requirements which I think will grow as time moves on. Hopefully in years to come most breeders will be members and those that are not members will be puppy farmers and ' money makers'. (money makers = family pets bred to earn family a quick £1000+ tax free)

I agree with some recent report. I work for the council and in every walk of life there is more and more UK legislation and European directive. Love them or hate them  'dogs' legislation is being discussed.
I agree that if ' WE' (good and honest breeders) do not take appropriate action and allow ourselves to be regulated by the KC, then the government will do it instead! It aint going away just because some breeders disapprove! heaven help us if the governement get to lay down more doggy laws.....

I am on the ABS and await my first inspection....bring it on ....

Leo had a hernia when I got him - the breeders told me, offered him at a lower price and said if my vet said an operation was necessary they would cover the cost, or I could take him back to their own vet who would bill them.

Luckily Leo never needed to have the herna operated on - but I was pleased the breeders took responsibility, it has payed off for them as I have passed their details to people who have since bought puppies from them or take their dogs to be trimmed their.

> Following the visit he sent a report with recommendations for a seperate fenced run for a fire evacuation situation. 
>

I breed with great care my pups in my home.  I certainly would ot be able to qualify with commercial/proffesional facilities, fire escapes etc.

The nearest I come to such facilities is a kennel and run outside my kitchen, but the pusp are primarily reared in the home and the kennel and run is used in the second month of their lives and is alos soem of the dogs bedroom.

I would certainly hope that I breed and rear my pups well with the intention of producign the best pups I can to the breed standard.  I adhere to our breed council's Code of Ethics, regarding health testing, frequency and n7umber of litters and homing and rearing practice.

At the moment KC regsitration does only eman a record of parents, they don't even include a ful pedigree on the regsitration certificate.

I do not agree witha  two tier system at all, either all breeders shoudl ahve to adhere to minimum standards or the KC position is totally hypocritical.

> I breed with great care my pups in my home.  I certainly would ot be able to qualify with commercial/proffesional facilities, fire escapes etc.

I don't think they require commercial facilities - I would not have passed my inspection had they done so!  My pups are also reared in the home, although I do have an outside run for some of the adults.  From my conversation during the visit it seemed to be that they are looking at the standard of care rather than flashy facilities.  The vast majority of breeders do so in the home, and are not excluded on those grounds.

I agree with you that excellence should be a requirement for all registrations, but if the system is going to be two tier, I think that joining the scheme and having  input suits me best.  The current system simply requires the submission of a form, at least the ABS wants identification of the animals, and the recording of health tests.  Perhaps when it has ironed out all it's problems  and every ABS member has been inspected the undesirables will be weeded out?

bye
Gwen

>but if the system is going to be two tier, I think that joining the scheme and having  input suits me best.

That's part of the problem - I personally don't think it should be two-tier. I think that only pups from health-tested (with satisfactory results, not merely having been tested!) parents who've been assessed as being sufficiently close to their breed standard should be registerable, with registration denied to the others. That'd give 'KC Registered' some meaning and real value.

Me too, it is the two tier system that really stick in my craw, and the fact that the good breeders who already shell out so much more on their dogs are expected to pay extra to show that they are.

If they are going to accept registrations from what they accept are less good breeders then they should have to pay more and subsidise the breeders who maintain and care for out breeds.

Most breeders who have a real interest in their breeds are already paying an annual affix maintenance which is money for nothing really, a very high fee for just keeping it on their computer and ensuring it isn't duplicated.

The kennel club have been around for over 100 years, surely plenty of time to endure that KC registration actually means quality.

AS I see it, the existing system of registration for all is far from ideal, but I do remember some info going back a few years about the KC being unable to refuse registration unless they were very sure of their grounds, due to "restrictive trade practises", they could leave themselves open to big legal issues by doing what a court would see as unreasonable.  So this way breeders have to apply for the ABS scheme, therby opening themselves up to inspection and following KC requirements, and thus being excluded if thye do not measure up.

There has to  be some ground rules, you can't just expect them to exclude registration from some breeders without firm grounds, and this gives the framework to start off in the right direction, making registration meaningful.  IF it means 2 tiers, and the difference between the 2 are made fully clear to the public, then I don't have aproblem with that.  The annual fee is a very small sum compared to the over all costs of breeding (and showing) so I don't have a problem with that either, if it will improve standards.

Perhaps in the future, if the ABS becomes the norm for every good breeder, the puppy farms will just not pay out for "ordinary" KC registration, if it means the public know that that means substandard?  The standrd has to be made clear and easy to see and understand for all, what is acceptable, what is not. 
bye
Gwen

I'd have thought that, as the KC is a private club, they can make whatever rules they like. They can change the rules for entry to shows as they see fit; likewise I'd imagine they can change the rules for registration.

>

> I'd have thought that, as the KC is a private club, they can make whatever rules they like. They can change the rules for entry to shows as they see fit; likewise I'd imagine they can change the rules for registration.

I am sure they can, but as a business they have to make sure that whatever they are trying to enforce is within the general legal framework, which is where restrictive trade practices come in.  Show rules are unlikely to impinge on anyone's business, very few people have showing as a business, even that rare thing in the UK a professional handler usually has other dog related interests/business.

Some commercial breeders and puppy farms have that as the sole source of business income, and this is just a guess, but a licensed commercial breeder, who is fulfilling all the requirements laid down by relevant local authority might have a very good case against the KC if they suddenly stopped accepting registrations without very good reason.

bye
Gwen

>Some commercial breeders and puppy farms have that as the sole source of business income
>but a licensed commercial breeder, who is fulfilling all the requirements laid down by relevant local authority might have a very good case against the KC if they suddenly stopped accepting registrations without very good reason.

Some commercial breeders and puppy farmers don't bother with registration at all; KC registration isn't compulsory; loads of people breed puppies without bothering about KC registration - even the puppy farmers with their crossbreeds manage very well without it. And they have their 'alternative'; the public don't know the difference, but the status of KC registration would be renewed.

> Some commercial breeders and puppy farmers don't bother with registration at all; KC registration isn't compulsory; loads of people breed puppies without bothering about KC registration

I think we are at complete cross purposes here.  My point about puppy farmer/commercial breeders registrations was purely in relation to the KC being unwilling or unable  to refuse registrations from them in case of law suits concerning restrictive trade practices.  I understood that one of your objections to the ABS was that it IS being used by this undesirable element?  The ones who do use KC registration obviously see some value in it for themselves.  I was therefore postulating the theory that if ALL good breeders were in the ABS, and the undesirable element were well and truly excluded by inspeciton and rigid adherence to health tests and good practice, then what is a 2 tier registration system would in fact end up working, in that the "top"tier would include only (and hopefully All) good breeders, and the rest would not bother at all with registration as being just KC registered without ABS accreditation could be seen as a sign of poor practice. 

bye
Gwen

> They would have been a LOT of POO!

LMAO... so true

>I think we are at complete cross purposes here.

I think you're right! :-) As it stands the ABS is a toothless tiger - there are absolutely no compulsory health tests for my breed (are there for any, or is it wishy-washy 'recommendations' all down the line?) so what's the value of it? It's certainly not a mark of quality which it should be.

>My point about puppy farmer/commercial breeders registrations was purely in relation to the KC being unwilling or unable  to refuse registrations from them in case of law suits concerning restrictive trade practices.

I don't believe it's got anything to do with possible law suits - I think it's purely that the KC is unwilling to lose the income from the vast number of registrations from un-health-tested animals. Ideally there should be one KC registration - for good quality dogs from good quality parents and responsible breeders. Dogs that don't fit the strict criteria shouldn't be granted the status of KC registration.

Problem is where do you go with health testing?  In my breed I have used a dog with a high hipscore but his offspring, grandchildren and great grandchildren here and abroad all have good scores (grandson here has the lowest score in the country for the breed), whereas a dog with excellent hipscores doesn't seem to throw the same desired results.

So in effect if you only started breeding from dogs with lower scores, until all their offspring were scored who is to know that they throw such scores?

Yes, I agree that all dogs should be health tested and I do with mine but where do you draw the line?  It must be hard for the KC due to factors such as this.

How would/does 'Joe Public' find healthy dogs from good breeders if it was not for the 'ABS new vision'. (I do not mean now but in the future.) In years to come I believe that if you want a cheap pedigree dog, no papers and with no health or welfare checks then you will have to buy from a non ABS member.

I hope that all good breeders will eventually be in the ABS because to be outside it will mean you have no credibility as a breeder. There will be compulsary health checks and  inspections as well as DNA  ID for all your breeding animals. They have already said so.....it is already encouraged (it also stops people saying the father of the puppies was a registered KC stud dog (with full health checks) when he was not..... to get more money from the puppies)

Your eye inspections and hip /elbow scores etc are already recorded with the DNA and ID chips numbers on the dogs registration certificates as proof to purchasers.
The problem is there are too many people wiling to buy puppies, breed bitches and use stud dogs without these checks. How can they make these requirements compulsary.........ABS can

> Ideally there should be one KC registration - for good quality dogs from good quality parents and responsible breeders. Dogs that don't fit the strict criteria shouldn't be granted the status of KC registration.

I agree - in an ideal world.  But how many breeders would be prepared to pay for the extra staff, paperwork etc needed to police such a scheme - and who would decide what is a quality dog?  Different people have different standards.  What is ideal and what is possible are not the same thing.>

>> there are absolutely no compulsory health tests for my breed (are there for any, or is it wishy-washy 'recommendations' all down the line?)

Did your breed clubs reply to the KC letter about what health tests are required/desirable?  In one of my breeds at least one of the clubs did not reply, and another opted to recomend that only 1 condition be tested for, as opposed to the 2 required by the scheme.  Thankfully the KC kept the requirment to test for 2, and recomends DNA testing by optigen for the third -  PRA.  It is my understanding that registrations from ABS members will be refused if the animals have not been tested - as was my registration when I omitted a microchip number.

>How would/does 'Joe Public' find healthy dogs from good breeders if it was not for the 'ABS new vision'.

Breed clubs, as now.

>How can they make these requirements compulsary.........ABS can

Then why don't they? And why don't they require testing? And why not the tests that are of particular importance to each breed? Don't misunderstand me, I think the idea has possibilities but they're doing it in such a half-hearted manner! Where are its teeth? It seems that they pay lip-service to the idea of stamping out puppy farming, but until they refuse to register puppies from such dubious sources at all (not by making good breeders pay more on top!) they're just condoning bad breeding.

>Did your breed clubs reply to the KC letter about what health tests are required/desirable?

Yep. The response was that 'because the KC don't keep BAER results, they can't add it to the list of tests'. The question of why don't they start keeping records was met with a deafening silence.

> They are collecting their puppy, a Labradoodle for heavens sake....for £850!!!!!

Coming back on to topic for this thread, as we seem to have wander right away from Labrdoodles and into Accredited Breeder Scheme territory.  I wondered, for those of you who know Labradoodle owners, (or prospective owners) what led them to pick these crossbreeds?  Have they been genuinely impressed by these dogs when they have met one, or was ti all the publicity and hype?
bye
Gwen

>Have they been genuinely impressed by these dogs when they have met one, or was ti all the publicity and hype?

I'm afraid it was the latter with the one on 'our' books. The owners had never seen one before they went to look at the litter, only heard about them, and were proud to have got the pup for the reduced price of £950 ...

>Your eye inspections and hip /elbow scores etc are already recorded with the DNA and ID chips numbers on the dogs registration certificates as proof to purchasers.

In our breed, responsible breeders DNA test all breeding dogs (and non-breeding dogs) for Copper Toxicosis.   My own are both tested and come from dogs tested before breeding, yet no test results are printed on their registration certificates  ;) 

Re the buying of Labradoodles the owners I have met have simply succumbed to all the 'smoke and mirrors' hype :(   and after paying out the best part of £1000 who is going to ever say "I made a mistake" or "I was robbed, this dog moults like a shoddy rug?"

I had a poodle cross yorkshire terrier for 18 yrs, she was such a good dog. When she sadly had to be pts after i while i thought about getting another , i no i couldn't replace her but due to her being such a good dog i thought i would have a look about because they are now adv as " designer dogs" i was not prepared to pay over £ 800 for a dog.

Its now been a few yrs and i would still not pay some one this money for " a designer dog"

Happy with what i have and not being ripped off by people making money for the name. Though alot of this has come from the US!

Hi im new - yes unbelieveable.  I had a puppy in my last litter who developed a hernia at 6 weeks, she had been booked since birth and chosen early on, I amended contract stating that I would pay any vet bills incurred regarding the hernia, it sorted itself out but I felt as this had developed while the puppy was with me it was down to me to pay any bills.  Puppy is now over a year old and doing really well.

And £850 for a crossbreed?  SHOCKING.  My current litter (not advertising as not stating breed and all are sold) are 3 weeks and not going for that amount even though I could charge that but it wouldnt feel right, I wouldnt pay it anyway, litter is out of health tested top winning parents, sire is a CH, dam has RCCs and both have produced top winners.  Im pleased as health results are printed on the kc puppy regestration froms too and I still include photocopies of the results of sire and dam in each puppy pack plus the contact details of the testing companies should they require clarification.

Mind you if people are silly enough to pay it then these people will keep breeding, I would rather go to a rescue and make a donation for a cross breed than pay through the nose.

I too wont be joining the KC Acc Scheme as there is no limit to the amount of litters people can produce and as said earlier puppy farmers can and have joined.

i am looking around for FAR in the future and i have not even been looking at breeders who are marked ABS, as i understand it mroe often than not abs= puppy farmer

The breeder i got my pup off who has a hernia, she didn't tell me i only felt it when i got home the day i got her. Haven't been able to discuss it with the breeder as i am not able to contact her?

Just hope nothing bad goes wrong!

Do want to show her, I do feel anoyed that the breeder didn't inform me of this

"I was robbed, this dog moults like a shoddy rug?"

Sorry, a bit of an aside I know, but.....that made me chuckle big time!!  :-)

emma how old is pup?  has your vet seen her?  i was worried sick about the one I bred but it worked out ok in the end thankfully, I noticed the hernia and informed puppy owner but they were adamant they wanted her, hope all works out for you!

She is 9 weeks old, I went to the vets last week, the vet saud there was nothing to worry about now as it was very small. They did mention that it could be removed if i got her spayed. I did want to show her. Though if it came to health resons i would of course get her spayed then show her!

Just gutted that the breeder didn't mention it, when you pay all that money for " a healthy pup"

Hi emma,

the people who had puppy off me where going to get her spayed (they did 2 months ago) and the vets said they could do the hernia at the same time but it healed on its own anyway.

dont know what else to say as its something i have only experienced once, is it so small the breeder could have missed it?  Im a bit OCD and examine my puppies with a huge magnifying glass - ha ha well I dont really use a M glass but im keen on examing them and want them to be healthy and ok when they leave me, my vet also sees them at 7 weeks for that expert opinion but I still have to check, I cant help it.

fingers crossed yours will be ok, just keep in contact with your vets and check it regularly.

edited to add sorry gone off topic

I