hiya all--it's happened again!
i have learned of yet another person who has breed a litter of puppies using a kc registered dam,and a non kc registered dog-only to use the kc number registered dog stating that it's the stud dog.
i know the above information to be a FACT
surely theres something we can do to stop this,
i have spoken to the kennel club only to be informed that they can only register puppies with the information they are given! there must be a law against this?

has anyone got any advise/ideas?

Mark are you in the UK? Are you saying the person is passing the pups off as being sired by one dog when he knows this is not true and they were sired be a different dog? Surely if this person tries to sell the puppies knowing the information about them if false he is contravening the trade descriptions act  and committing fraud?.  The problem would be prooving this. I heard on the radio this morning that in America DNA testing is being used to identify the breeding of recovered stolen dogs. I would think there could also be an application for the use of DNA testing in the context of fraudulent breeding.

Mark tell the breed clubs, they may be able to sort it ;) Unless the breeder also owns the stud them there are two people involved in the fraud.

Indeed there is a law mark, its called the trade descriptions act, and there is no reason why it cannot be applied to a dog, same as any thing else. If you are certain of your facts, then tell trading standards (if you have bought one of these puppies) or the KC. If you go through the latter route you will need to put everything in writing, including your evidence, and be prepared to attend a hearing etc.

hi ive had experience of this to, a lady i nearly bought a pup from(and shes registered on this site) used to register non kc pups all the time it wasnt unusual for her ckcs to have litters of 14!!! tri pups from blen parents no one ever questioned hershe would breed back to back and register the litters to spayed bitches.......i did reprt her but nothing ever came of it :(

If we are to stop this sort of thing it is up to every one of us to report such things, along with evidence to the Breed Clubs, the Kennel Club and the Trading Standards, if they are not informed then we can't expect them to act, bearing in mind the ability of the various bodies to act without clear proof. Unfortunately they can't act on hearsay or suspicion but if anyone is sure such an act has taken place they should let all interested bodies know what evidence they have and make it available to them.

There was a case a few years ago of a breeder who was not sure which stud dog sired her bitches puppies. she had them all DNA tested and found that half the litter were sired by one dog and the other half by the second dog. She had mated her bitch to a champion dog and during the last days of the bitches season another dog accidently got to her. Rather than lose the puppies sired by the champion dog she did the DNA testing. The KC registered both sets of puppies and each had it's correct sire listed. So if you are suspicious you can under the trades description act get the breeder to provide DNA samples for you to check against your puppies DNA sample.

Whilst I agree with all the sentiments expressed here, and think that the idea to contact the breed lcub is excellent, we all have to remember that contacting trading standards will only be applicable is a) the pups are advertised and it can be preoved they are not as described or b) the pups new owners provide the documents they bought them with, and can prove they are incorrect.  DNA testing would be the way forward here, but is only possible if an interestd party (eg puppy buyer) is willing to act.  The KC are also very unwilling to act unless someone affected by the mis-description makes an official complaint.  Just knowing what has happened, but not being involved, it is much harder to get an action taken
bye
Gwen

I know someone who had her dog DNA tested.  Problems with HD, from parents with an excellent hip score caused her to have doubts.  She contacted the stud owner who was only too pleased to oblige and the test only cost her £25.  It set her mind at rest so was worth it to remove the nagging doubt.

The AHT do the tests which  cost, £10 each per dog,

However they have a minimum charge of £50   so if you send in 1 sample it is £50 and if you send in 5 it is still £50.. any other charge is if you get the vet to take blood or do the scraping for you etc.

The Kennel club have been very very guilty of doing nothing in these types of cases. I know of 2 myself just now.   They ahev shown no interest whatsoever.

There is nothing they can do with out first hand proof and a complaint from an injured party, mind you it is always worth letting them know if they get complaints with proof they will take action, but they are a private club so they need proof that their rules have been broken, they have no redress in law on hearsay.

Jackie not sure if you reply was to my post or not :-) but ;-)

Can't comment on what the others know in the cases they mention but the case I know of and know the 100% whole truth , with no hearsay (I am 100% against hearsay comments myself) the evidence etc was given to the KC , who wrote to the party involved and the breeder said it was a mistake. 

" a mistake that she forgot to use the actual stud from that she got from the stud owner"
and " a mistake that she said the dam missed and didn't have any pups" , the breeder had been under a lot of stress.

They accepted it. Does that sound like like a fair outcome.  The wrong done party did actually start a legal action but then decided to leave it as the hastle and stress was too much and they would really gain very little more than they already had with the evidence.  A few people know about it and hopefully in the future decent breeders working together can help avoid these type of things.  The good thing for them is their name is now not connected to the ofspring.  Rightly or wrongly.

Think that is fairly common, a group of people consider these things and decide if they will accept the explanation given or not, in this case they decided to accept it. Agree it is wrong if you know it to be so but the KC is not a court of law and do what the disciplinary committee think fit in each case. It normally takes a repeat offence or more to bring down the full might of the KC. and then the breeder involves just transfers the dogs to a family member and carries on doing as they wish. The KC has to be very careful not to bring the law down on themselves.

>> The KC has to be very careful not to bring the law down on themselves. <<

Exactly Jackie :-) but I am thinking I think from the opposite end , if the continue to allow obvious things go by without sorting them out someone may cross their path and have them in court for knowingly doing nothing.  There are moral, ethical and healthy implications buy turning a blind eye.

All Clubs around the world whether Dog, cars, whatever have disclaimers coming out their ears this doesn't mean they are above the law or by having disclaimers gives them a get out clause. Not all the time.

A very good example of this is in clockrooms in pubs and clubs etc when you put your coat in and pay £1... everywhere you go there are disclaimers saying that whilst in the cloakroom the club is not responsible for the item blah blah people believe them..  utter rubbish.  Club takes a fee they are responsible for that item the whole time they have it.

People tend not to rock the boat I think with groups like the KC , I can understand this.  I think they know this themselves.

Not debating anything , just sharing my thoughts.

BFN Pam

Hi Pam, but the problem is, in this sort of instance, the KC are very unwilling to act unless people actually involved in the fraud or whatever are willing to substantiate the claim, and follow it thorugh.  As previously said, the KC can only take private action, and whilst they have a lot of resources they cannot possible effect a full legal investigation, they can only weigh the probabilities, and must themselves be cautions about potential slander/libel actions if they unjustly accuse (albeit on the word of a 3rd party).  As said in one of the posts above, the puppy buyer concerned in that example did not want to take it further, this is so often the case.  So whilst the knowledge may be presented by people who have "insider knowledge" the KC are always aware that in our 'sport" an awful lot of allegations are made on a 'sour grapes" basis.
So if someone says they made a mistake, and used a wrong form, how can they prove otherwise?  Espoecially if no-one who has bought a pup is prepared to stand up (or write in) and complain?  This is one of the reasons I think I am in favour of compulsory DNA testing, with it being recorded on the registration, and verified when a litter is registered.  Of course, this would increase the costs to breeders, so lots are not in favour.  It is part of the new Breeders scheme, will be interesting to see what the take up rate will be.

bye
Gwen

Hi Gwen. :-)

Totally agree with you. :-)

Sadly the case I know of all the factual evidence was put on the table, DNA results, pedigrees, receipts, e-mails you name it.  It wasn't someone in my breed I have to say but someone I know locally ,a very upstanding and breed enthusiast. I am sure it isn't the first or last you will hear though :-)

Although I will never be a regular breeder I do to agree and like the DNA Idea myself and would participate in anything that can help the breed. I am not quite 100% yet about the accredited breeders scheme but will follow closely. My fear is that it will attract more Puppy farmers into yet a possibly great marketing tool. My breed WHWT  have no test requirements at all on the list and it is the usual requirements that apply when selling a puppy, something most breeders do. I do however favour the DNA and permenant identification.

I think between internet breeders lists, and schemes I wonder how much more of the puppy market did the PF gain.   Buyers are still falling for the trap that breeders listed on sites, KC lists must be very good breeders.

The other side I suppose is education to puppy seekers also. ie if they read some advice on the boards they may steer clear of PF and unethical breeders.

I guess we have to plough on ;-)

Pam