I specifically went to an AGM last night as I knew that there was going to be a question and answer session about the AB. It was very obvious that 'all' the questions have been asked before as the initial talk pretty well answered my objections. However, a person there asked the question. 'If I was an AB and I used a dog whose eye certificate had run out are you saying that I couldn't register my puppies'. I was stunned with the answer of 'no'. 'However we would expect you to ensure that you informed your puppy owners that there wasn't a current eye certificate and why'. Now I thought (and from the initial talk was led to believe) that the KC were screening AB's so that when their puppy registration came in they would check their database (he said they had paid a lot of money for this new database) to ensure that all the relevant health checks were in place. So I am no more impressed that I was before I went to this talk. I asked the question at the beginning of 'if the KC are so interested in the health and welfare of breeding of pedigree dogs, why do we need the AB scheme as we should all be aspiring to that standard anyway'. He agreed but said that yes it was all about money and they couldn't afford to not register the puppies from untested stock. Think that says it all.

I friend of our joined the AB scheme and none of his dogs or bitches  have had any of the health tests that they should of had done , but all of his puppies are registered and he always is at the top of the puppy list on the KC website, so that he can sell his puppies easy.
No point to the scheme at all !!

Peanuts

I have vacillated over joining right from the start, but still am not inclined to.  Initially I objected to having to pay to prove that I bred to standards which were simply the minimum for breeding in my opinion, and I had always exceeded, including the information that I provided to new owners, and the support has always been more than reasonable telephone support.

The scheme as it stands at the moment is giving buyers a false sense of security.

anoy one can join the scheme  seems you dont have to even own a dog to be on it.

I really can't see why Responsible breeders should have to pay to join a scheme which in effect just makes a mockery of the whole registration system as if a 2 tier system isn't enough, I see now they have the ACCREDITED BREEDERS ACCOLADES - first one is the "Breeding Experience Accolade" - assigned to breeders who have bred at least five litters.

Now I wonder what type of breeder would fill that requirement quicker??  It isn't exactly going to stop breeders who breed for quantity not quality is it?

Whilst the scheme is not perfect surely it is better we have the KC run this type of thing and hopeflly improve on it than have the Government start legislating in this sphere? I think that health checks required vary from breed to breed, some are mandatory to stay in the scheme others are not. If the KC decided not to accept registrations from non helath tested parents would that stop people from doing such matings? The experience of the AKC would suggest not.

Yes but at least KC registration would mean that dogs were bred to some meaningful standard.  KC reg would mean what many puppy buyers naively think/thought it did.

The KC can't have the income from bad breeders and be seen to be serious about their reason for existence: in all ways to improve dogs.

Other Kennel clubs have mandatory testing requireemtns and also have minimum show attainments/gradings.

"Whilst the scheme is not perfect surely it is better we have the KC run this type of thing and hopeflly improve on it than have the Government start legislating in this sphere?"

I agree that it is better to have the KC running such schemes than leave it to Government (who would, as usual, legislate from a position of - at best - total ignorance, or at worst - by taking their lead from PETA-style animal rights nutters).
However, the fact that for the KC the scheme is as much about income generation as it is about ensuring quality, devalues the whole ABS.
Being heavily involved in breed rescue, we have come across several of the worst and most unethical breeders who have been members of both the KC ABS and their breed clubs -neither of whom have been willing nor able to do anything about the fact that they are seen to be endorsing completely unethical behaviour.

MickB

>KC reg would mean what many puppy buyers naively think/thought it did.

When I think of how I could have fallen into that one when first looking for a Bedlington :(  :(   I was so lucky, I knew a local Ch Sh Judge who was also heavily involved in the local canine society.  I rang him and asked if he knew of any breeders who had only a few dogs and bred mainly for themselves ie. no large kennel or similar ;) and he put me in touch with a local Bedlington Breeder, the rest as they say is history.  But it could have been so different, I have since discovered a few breeders fairly local to me who just breed dogs, KC registered but not health checked etc. They don't worry about type or temperament either :( :(   But I'd have been taken in by the fact that they KC register and the spiel they give :(

>However, the fact that for the KC the scheme is as much about income generation as it is about ensuring quality, devalues the whole ABS.

It not only devalues the ABS, but the whole KC registration system, as it stands JP can see very little difference between KC registration and the alternative registrations and it isn't difficult to understand why :(

The KC should just bite the bullet and accept the loss of revenue from puppy farmers ans breeders who would not health test.  Move into smaller accommodation and become smaller and poorer if need be.

Personally I would be willing to pay more for registering my pups if registration in itself was the standard fro well bred dogs, which should all be health tested.

Other Kennel clubs manage it.

Absolutely right Brainless.

I joined as I was quite impressed with the idea of the AB scheme, not now though, in the past year I have been horrified to see certain types of people join the AB scheme and the way the KC treats complaints. I had documented proof, free ad, web ad etc of an ab offering her untested dogs as stud to prove them. I presented all of this to the KC who did sweet didly nothing! When my renewal is up in July I will not be renewing. It bugs me also that you have to pay the KC for each wallet with a questionarre in to give the puppy owners. I give out aring binder type thing with loads of info in and this to me is a complete waste of money payomg for a flimsy paper wallet. Unfortunately all the KC seems interested in is MONEY. Going back to Alison there is a breeder on the AB scheme who has 2 dogs with failed eye certs, one with MRD and the other with HC that is still able to register their progeny on the AB scheme. It's a mockery really

Ditto that Barbara :)

From the amount of comments and interest in this topic, would it perhaps be possible to either petition or lobby the KC into getting it right.  Or perhaps a letter from every responsible breeder, say sent in in a 7 day period so that they were bombarded with correspondence.  Just a thought.  The KC seem to be taking absolutly no notice of what their clients want (us) and are not prepared to listen.  Could this be classed as a monopoly, that feels it can ride rough shod over the wishes of its members.  Not that I am advocating a second KC is started more that this one sits up and takes notice.

They have already tightened up the registration system in the time I have been in dogs, first limiting number of litters a bitch could have to 6, then giving an upper age of 8 (except in exceptional circumstances on application).  then a few years ago they brought in the not mated under a year rule.

It should be easy enough to insist on hip scoring all dogs or maybe just those that have had dogs score in the dysplastic range, when comparing with grading schemes that would mean all breeds that have had any dogs score above 26, which is probably nearly every breed, if not scored here then certainly there are OFA stats or European data to show the status of a breed.

It would be no bad thing if all breeds were eye tested too, as a breed I was involved with never used to be thought to need eye testing,a nd only when some people did was it realised that there was HC in the breed.

Other tests would be based on prevalence in a breed.

Whether we should want to restrict breeding to dogs that had proven show or working achievements is a matter for debate, as of course clever breeders have often used well bred but unseen (unshown or unworked) dogs, based on their bloodlines.

Just spotted this topic and had to say that having just put an add on the KC for my puppies (had a larger than average litter and nearly all boys lol - all placed now), I was confused by the rating of having bred 5 or more litters.  Does that mean in a year or in a lifetime?  It would certainly be easier for an unscrupulous person to breed 5 litters to my 1 every now and again.  All my dogs have health tests relevant to the breed, a regular vet check and are shown to be good examples of their kind, how does that make me less of an Accredited Breeder than someone who breeds add lib. 

And a case in point I have met a couple who breed toy dogs quote 'I wont be at the show because I have a 3 week old litter and another due any day, in truth they have only attended 2 shows in their lives and stood against one dog each time.  As well as their 4 or 5 toys litters they are just about to launch into the utility breeds having purchased a couple of big name dogs.  They will soon launch into the 6 or 7 litters a year which will give them more KC credibility - not in our eyes - but the average new puppy buyer may well be impressed by this.

Personally I would be willing to pay more for registering my pups if registration in itself was the standard fro well bred dogs, which should all be health tested.

Totally agree.
Also, I have some of the accolades, but not the 'bred 5 litters'. Now the fact that I can breed a litter that produces 2 JW winners  and also a RCC winner but have only bred 3 litters in my time I think proves that I am doing something right. But a person that breeds litter after litter can have an accolade but can be breeding cr*p is just beyond me.
The KC will (I believe) never listen to us. In fact I was astounded to see that Jeff Sampson was actually starting to get very agitated and almost angry that his point wasn't getting across. I have to say that no-one gave him a particularly hard time but it was very obvious that people were not prepared to believe his spin.

I have a similar story re untested dogs.  The only way they would go forward was if I allowed my name to be used in their correspondance - I did not think that this was either a right or fair way of taking it further.  The police don't say Mrs So & So told us this or that when questioning someone.  I believe if we provide the evidence - they should be able to act on that alone.

Problem is if they did that, then another registry or the one already set-up will end up taking over and registering dogs, so it would not really help, I feel.

Unfortunately I think breed clubs do have knowledge of certain problems and I'm sure many have tried to rectify certain areas but unfortunately I should think in many ways it could be quite hard work to prove things both legally and without being taken for slander!

> Problem is if they did that, then another registry or the one already set-up will end up taking over and registering dogs, so it would not really help, I feel.
>

Yes I am sure the puppy farmers would continue to use their own registries and create new ones but with advertising etc, people would know that KC means reputable, health tested typical, or as close as damn it.

It is because KC reg often doesn't mean squat of importance to Joe public (health temperaments and being sure of it's breed) that they see no point to KC reg and is more than happy to buy unregistered or ones with Mickey mouse papers.

Now that the puppy farmers can join the AB scheme there is no need for DLR papers they will all register with th KC as it looks better for their puppy sales.

Peanuts

What would anyone say to a puppy enqurier who asked if you were a member of the AB scheme and you said no, and they asked why not?

I'd say that I have no need to join the scheme because I have always more than met it's minimum standards and prefer not to be associated with a scheme to which less careful breeders are free to join.  My membership and adherence to my breed clubs coed of ethics is a better recommendation in my view, and I don't see the point in paying extra to join a less strict scheme.

I'd echo that, Barbara, and also add that I don't need to belong to a scheme like that to sell my puppies (and I would qualify for all the "accolades")
Carina

Just read this thread and you have all changed my mind about AB which I am a member.I originally joined because I thought great it requires all dogs to be health screened and it would help puppy buyers to go for health screened dogs especially in my breed. If I have another litter and thats a big IF I will reach 5 litters but that is over about 20 years.I don

>it requires all dogs to be health screened

No, it merely recommends. That's not good enough.

When I first came to UK I was amazed The Kennel Club is supposed to be the organisation that looks after the pure bred dog population!
I was amazed they do not really regulate the registrations and demand certain health tests to be done.
It really felt like Kennel Club sits somewhere up high and normal Joe public has nothing to do with them.
Kennel club should really look into what they are doing, how they are doing it and where they get their income!

For Joe Public, what is it that should make them pay more for a puppy that is Kennel club registered compared to "mickey Mouse" registeration, neither demand health testing etc... As an organisation that looks after pure bred dogs and breeding of them It should be the Kennel Clubs interest to educate people of these tests and the importance of them so people know to demand them and will know to avoid litters without!
But how can they even encourage the normal dog owners to demand health testing etc when they themselves do not care?

Just read this thread and you have all changed my mind about AB which I am a member.I originally joined because I thought great it requires all dogs to be health screened and it would help puppy buyers to go for health screened dogs especially in my breed. If I have another litter and thats a big IF I will reach 5 litters but that is over about 20 years.I don`t need it to sell my puppies as I don`t breed unless I have a decent waiting list and want one myself.That part is annoying as I can`t stop advert going on and have to look for it appearing on site by the time they take it off site I have had loads of calls from buyers some nasty as I have no pups for sale .I think it could be a good scheme if it was run properly and vetted the breeders .Even better only litters from health screened dogs registered.

I'll second that.

they do not limit number/frequency of litters unles you are council regulated.

they recomend health testing but if you test, get bad results + still breed are happy as you tested so showed willing.

they do not vet the breeders joining at all.

i am an accredited breeder but it means nothing to me now.

i feel the kc should only register health tested litters from breed club members + refuse to register anything diff.

i know showing isn't for everyone but attending ring craft as puppy socialization with experts in your breed + judges there to give opinions on conformation isn't the same as showing so anyone can do it.

you also dont need to show to belong to a breed club but need morals to not be thrown out.

Like many people who have posted on this thread, I am so disillusioned with the KC.
It almost seems that they are just working as a commercial organisation and care more about commercial gain and publicity than the health of dogs.
I would like to think that there are more breeders who care, mentor and love dogs than those who just breed for money alone.
Issue 23 of K9 magazine has a 'no punches pulled' article on this subject. Well worth the read.
I would join any lobby to bring the KC to accountability. There should be checks and balances in place for any organisation in a position of social responsibility.

This link http://www.nopuppymillscanada.ca/byb.htm about puppy farming and back Yard breeding mentions stats from the USA that are a bit old, but I rather doubt it the percentage of good breeders compared to others in likely not to be much different over time or geography (lloking at newspaper and online litters advertised rather confirms the view that well bred litters are very much in the minority).

".......Where do all these dogs come from? Puppy mills churn out 20% of the total number of dogs whelped yearly, and roughly 1% are the results of feral dogs reproducing on their own. Less than 12% come from breeders who actively test their stock in conformation, obedience, and field trials. ....."

however if you are in a minority breed and only have one breed club available and do not wish to be a member of that breed club due to the current management's ethics and beliefs then should you be penalised for this, particularly when there is no other club available to you?

Ahh but there are some people who don't like being members of breed clubs as they find the health testing etc. requested too stringent I would think.  It's hard to know what is the best, but I thought that the KC were changing to ensure that all breeders did the health tests that the breed clubs request and that at the moment there was a 6 month cooling off period and if breeders are not following these guidelines in a few months that they will be taken of the AB's scheme????

there might be, there are also those who do all the health tests over and above those required by the club but have other issues regarding the management of the club that are in fact nothing to do with breeding

Im not sure how clubs work....BUT if you are unhappy can you not vote members off? . You have no voice if you are not a member surely? I guess things take time to change but you cannot do it from the outside.

Trust me, sometimes it doesn't even work if you try to change things from the inside by being on the committee yourself.  Sometimes there really is nothing you can do.

no hun its a 6 month perid in which to health test stock but then they allow you to breed carriers, affecteds etc etc.

their words to me were well you had the dog tested so showed willing which is all we ask it doesnt matter to us what the results were.

in this case a sbt eye tested for phpv usually given an affected or unnafected result with an undetermined conclusion (not knowing result same as not testing).

> no hun its a 6 month perid in which to health test stock but then they allow you to breed carriers, affecteds etc etc.

Not for all breeds as the Irish Setter breeders have opted for a clear to clear only breedings being registrable.

To breed from a BC/WSD carrying CEA to a Clear means that no affected dogs are bred & TBH anyone who buys a BC from a breeder whose dogs haven't been fully DNA tested(MDR 1, CEA/CH, TNS, CL)& clinically tested for HD & PRA is a mug. Eventually CEA etc carriers will become very rare, it will be only the unscrupulous that breed. It is well known that a WSD line has Labrador in the bloodlines BTW

Hi,

MickB said However, the fact that for the KC the scheme is as much about income generation as it is about ensuring quality, devalues the whole ABS.

And I totally agree, whilst the KC 'accolade' it's members (an example of which advertises,including on this site, puppies produced by full litter brother/ sister mating and both of these are still puppies themselves) without rigorous vetting, I for one don't want to stand shoulder to shoulder with this type of breeder.
A random sample....... or the tip of the iceberg?