I was talking to someone at the college the other day about all the litters that say 'pedigree but not KC reg' and she, not a dog person but would like to have dogs in the future, posed the question 'why is it so important to get a pup that is KC registered?
Now, to be honest I could only think of the fact that, in theory, you know where you dog comes from, ie it parentage etc but apart from that, oh, and being able to show at KC licenced events.
Can anyone else suggest why we pay the KC lots of money and be not quite sure why:D
Emily - who has just spent £28 adding my affix to the end of Idõ's name......long story :D!!!

It's really that you are more likely to be given true details of the dogs parentage and know that it's the breed that you think it is.  I've seen many breeds that are nothing like the breed that they are supposed to be.

Hi Emily,

KC reg is no guarantee of all being perfect but pups not registered could be due to parents having registration withheld by their breeders because of health reasons etc. For eg.  they may have endorsed the pups "progeny not for registration" but sold on to a less reputable or inexperienced owner who goes ahead and breeds their endorsed pup on or to a corrupted line. Pups born from that liaison cannot be KC reg because of the parental endorsement and so it becomes fairly easy thereafter for the originally well bred lines behind a pedigree to be so diluted as to have little of quality left in them for health, temperament and type etc.  I'm pushed for time here but have tried to simplify my reply - but reading it back myself I'm not sure I've been too clear :D   HTH "a tad" anyway, regards, Teri  

they may have endorsed the pups "progeny not for registration" but sold on to a less reputable or inexperienced owner who goes ahead and breeds their endorsed pup on or to a corrupted line.
sorry to rebirth an old thread..can I ask you about this. One of my dogs has this endorsement but because we did not pay breeding price even though it is a good quality pup. We were told we could breed but just not register the pups.  Were we to show and compete and prove this dog and do all the right health checks and breed because we really believed this was dog who would bring a superb litter into the world ..would that be wrong?  OKay I could not make much money out of it but if I really believed in this dog and wanted to compete in sports or have as a companion or therapy dog etc... surely that would be okay.   In what way would it make the pups lower quality or lower health then a registered litter? It seems these days there is a huge desire to  overly control this aspect of dog ownership.... to me surely it could be more that  breeders want to breed from their own owned dogs and not have to compete with the rest of the litter they produced rather then a genuine desire for quality.  I am just confused about all these breeding rights and how it all works.  Or is it breeders withdraw these restriction if you prove worthy? Thid is hyperthetical..I have no intention of breeding niw but might in the distant future and like to know what the political  side to this is really all about.  Sorry I am such a cynic! huge Thanks.

Unfortunately the rescue statistics would bear out that there is not enough regulation and control of puppy production as opposed to reputable breeders ensuring the welfare, quality and survival of their beloved breed.

No breeder that I have ever met would be jealous of one of the pups they sold doing well for another person as it enhances their reputation, but poorly bred sub standard stock produced from dogs they breed does the opposite.

Oooh, I beg to differ, I think that there are some breeders out there who are jealous of pups that they have bred being used at stud etc.  Very sad, but oh so true.  Myself I'd be over the moon if one that I bred passed all the health tests etc. that I state have to be done before I remove restrictions, because it's still my kennel name on the papers at the end of the day. 

Unfortunately some people don't seem to think the same way!

But also surely this could encourage people not to follow reccomendations in health checks and quality because what incentve is there to maintain standards if you can't actually register the pups you breed...  I thnik many people will do what they will do no mater what... ... all this may well put people like me off breeding because I am an idealistic  stickler for overly high standards ...but I actually think I would be a good kind of person to encourage to breed because I am, though I say it myself, rather a responsible type.

I do wonder if this is all so innocent why customers can normally pay a huge sum more for a breeding quality pup and not have the restrictions?  From what I see this is average of £200 extra to have the right to breed. ) At 8 weeks old it surely must be hard to know a pup is fit for breeding..and once peopole part with money for this 'right' wouldn't the average norm be highly motivated to breed regardless of quality ?  ( remembering there is more to quality then just doing the hip scors and eye tests ) Again this surely promotes thoughtless  breeding?

Sorry...just picking up on changes old timers point out to me and why they find new breeding trends worrying.

If you are serious about the prospect of showing and breeding you will buy from a breeder who stipulates in the contract under what circumstances endorsements will be lifted and they will be agreeable to both of you.  If you did not realise this before buying it is unfortunate but I do not think it justifies bypassing a system that is there to ensure the quality and health of dogs available for the show and pet world.

I don't think you are understanding what I am questioning at all. 

Sorry... this is totally hypethetical so nothing to do with my dogs!   I am trying to understand these concepts which don't really all seem to add up.  KC registeration does not equal quality... that I am clear in my mind about. For quality one must look much broader and be less trusting in registration looking in depth at the wider picture.     quality dogs have been bred long before the KC existed...  but I think my question is lost because maybe it is not understood here as people are too established in the established mindset to appreciate the thoughts of those outside it. 

Quality dogs were certainly bred long before the kennel club but so were a lot of rubbish dogs paraded as true bred.  I agree registration alone is not a good enough recommendation of the quality of the dog but put together with the opinion of show judges, healthy results from breed club recommended and KC supported screening, KC restriction of breeding practices liable to compromise health of dam and offspring and latterly the endorsement of possible breeding stock until quality established represents the best possible opportunity to maintain the standard of pure bred dogs.  I think it is highly unlikely a breed would be able uphold all these latter requirements if KC registration is not involved.

thanks I suddenly grasped this in your other post....I get it..you are thinking from the perspective of breedrs who will lift endorsements and I am thining of those who won't...I was assuming the latter was the norm.    So it would be important for someone interested in breeding to make sure they had meetable endorsements and were able to be given or buy breeding rights.  I gather as this is verbal agreement do you know if there a legal requirement for breeders to lift endorsements?

I can see how long term the registratin is needed..which is why I bought KC registered dogs..I was just confused as to how endorsements preventing KC registered dogs being bred from would help the breeds... I could only see it through the eyes of a cynic that it only helps the breeders. But if breders will always lift these for proven dogs then that is okay and makes sense.

I don't think they will always lift them which is why it is important to have a clear understanding between the breeder and purchaser.  It is always important to let the breeder know from the outside that showing and breeding is being considered.   Many breeders will give a written contract defining under what circumstances they will be lifted and if they don't I think it is reasonable to ask for one.  Without putting it in writing that an endorsement has been applied the KC will not uphold them anyway.

The Kennel Club require that endorsements are understood and agreed to in writing at purchase.

My dogs are sold at the same price be them going to pet homes or show homes.  When I say "pet" I don't mean that the dogs are pet quality but the people buying them are only interested in them as pets and not to show or breed from.

Anyone who charges more I would be suspicious of, but hey, I'm suspicious of many things :d

Anyone who charges more I would be suspicious of, but hey, I'm suspicious of many things 
:D

ah!....like minds! :D

Most good breeders endorse ALL their pups and sell ALL THEIR PUPS AT THE SAME PRICE, the exception being mis marks in breeds where this is an issue, and otherwise healthy but faulty such as unilateral deaf etc.

At the puppy stage no breeder can tell which will be breeding quality animals, or show winners, the most they can tell will be that they have potential, but they can often be wrong.

No-one can ever guarantee a breeding prospect, as they may turn out to be infertile for one reason or another no matter how good they are.

You can show your dog regardless of whether he's endorsed. In fact if you do, and he does well, and passes all the breed-relevant health checks, them his breeder might well agree to lifting the endorsement so that his progeny could be registered.

If you're talking about a dog rather than a bitch (it's not clear) then nobody with a quality bitch (without endorsements herself) is going to be interested in using him as a stud because of being unable to register their puppies. If it's a bitch, owners of quality stud dogs aren't going to be interested in allowing their dog to be used (in fact it's against many breed clubs' codes of conducts) for the same reason.

But you could still go ahead with all the activities you wanted to (trialling, showing, agility etc) even with the endorsements in place. :)

thanks .. This is hypethetical as I don't intend to breed and the breeder in my case is lovely and highly protective of her brood!

But I would not be so sure in all cases as you always seem to pay so much more for not having this endorsement.. and long timer dog competition peope have told me I should not have supported breeders who place endorsement on pups as when you buy a pup it becomes your pup. They say new style breeders charge massively more for pups and yet withhold so many rights of ownership...they were very cross with me for buying dogs from breeders like this.   I think people with quality dogs who increasingly find they all have this same endorsement may well like to match up and breed as they meet at competitions...the pups would still be proven to be  actually be as high a quality as any registered pups.

It could sort of create a second class lines of more affordable equally quality dogs.

This may be a feeling within a particular breed but certainly in the two breeds I have been involved with endorsements are seen as an ethical and responsible way of controlling inresponsible breeding.  Puppies are sold for the same price anyway as no puppy has more than the potential of being a show or breeding prospect. 
I think the idea of a second class line of dogs would be just that and I think the public deserve better and can get better by going to breeders who have earned the lifting of their endorsements through the recognised routes.

I do not mean secong class in quality...the dogs if proven and with health checks would be high quality...you are talking registration..which is a bit of  paper. You prove more about the dog through working it and showing it and seeing how its health is and health checks. I could actually be breeding a higher quality pup without papers. Please remember this is hypothetical....  I am trying to understand how these endorsement can ensure quality rather then simply maintain control of who breeds the expensive dogs.

the average member of the public actually have no clue about this.. and bit of paper typed out can be enough to persuade people they have a high quality dog worth paying a small fortune for! Even KC registration is not enough to ensure pups are high quaity or that they are well cared for...it is a very basic registrtion and is not proof of quality.

What I am saying is for the vast majority of breeds that operate this type of endorsement policy where good show and health results will lift the endorsements those left with them will be second rate quality.  I don't know about the peculiarities of your breed but the general principle is there is no justification for breeding from these dogs.  If you think your breed is ill served by these endorsements the best course of action would be to join the breed club and become active in promoting better use of the scheme.

What I am saying is for the vast majority of breeds that operate this type of endorsement policy where good show and health results will lift the endorsements those left with them will be second rate quality.
oh right. I get that... I got the idea that some endorsements could be lifted  if you had the requested health tests done and that I see as good practice...but I got the strong impression that it was normal practice that endorsements could not be lifted if yiu had not paid the breeding price.  Some breeders I know only permit breeding from their co-owned dogs.  Maybe this is different in different breeds and also depensing on the breeder...  I can't find a code of practice about this.  If I myself breed it will be with support probably ideally through co-ownership and in many many years time but I want to understand how this all fits together by then.

Paying a higher price to have removable endorsements is not the normal practice for my breeds.  Like you say I think you need to find out what is normal practice within your breed perhaps the breed club will be able to give you better guidance rather than asking individuals. 

okay thanks...I may well  have totally misunderstood the endorsement thing ...

.... this is long term way in the future if at all ever idea to breed..and most likey if I do it will be ideally through co-ownership which looks to me like a helpful way to begin breeding.  I hadn't realised the differing breeds would be different.   guess it may differ by location too as different local areas develop differing traditions in most things. THanks you ave actualy been very helpful as I've been wondering about this and how to meet arguments at training club about this issue.

>as different local areas develop differing traditions in most things

They do :) this is why you will get a better overall view of the situation by talking to someone at the national breed club.  When you are looking for breeding stock you will find you are going far beyond your own region anyway :)

A sliding scale of charges seems to be involved in this question, myself I haven't come across this so much in dogs (it is the norm for pedigree cats) any pup I've bought or  friends and family have bought or sold have all come from litters where the price is the same for all pups regardless. The only exception being for slight health concerns that should not cause the puppy any future problems but should definitely mean they remain a pet and not be bred from.
I can't see how a breeder can charge more for a potential breeding dog or bitch as they could find when the time comes that the health tests have not been as expected and the dog shouldn't really be bred from.

It is not the norm in my breed either but I don't actually have any issue with it providing the breeder and purchaser are both clear about the meaning of it all and a contract spells it out.  As you say it is the norm with other animals and I can't really see anything unethical in principle.  It's up to the purchaser really if it is acceptable.

Yes  I agree its up to the breeder and purchaser concerned as the contract is between them. However I think it needs to be made clear that this isn't neccesarily the norm (as yet) with regards to buying a pup.

Yes, certainly nobody else has come forward and said this is what is normal in my breed.

I wonder if it is something that's creeping in from the USA?  Dog people here locally all say I was very bad and  wrong to support this by being prepared to pay more for a pup but I thought it was the norm...first time I've had a KC pup! ...I actually in my eyes just fell for the most expensive pup in the litter whatever the cost or restrictons.. such a cute characterful pup! I don't think initial cost is a big issue over the life of the dog and living/medical costs even the price of a massively expensive breed soon becomes nothing in relation to running costs and must have designer beds and leads! :D 

Yes, I do think it could be creeping in from the USA. :)

In my breed at least the thankfully small number of the breed produced by people that are not bred devotees but breeding a cash crop actually charge more than members of our breed clubs who breed according to a code of ethics and do expensive health screening.

One such based in Northern Ireland recently advertising even wondered why anyone would want one ,and maybe they might like a beagle or Bassett instead.  They also appeared to produce (I can't say breed) Border Collies and Old English Sheepdogs.

I've never known people charge more for unendorsed pups - in fact the breeders I know endorse all the pups in the litter, even the one/s they keep for themselves for their own potential breeding animal. There's no way anyone can know that any animal will be suitable for breeding until it's adult - anyone who sells an unendorsed pup could possibly be considered uncaring of what happens to their pup and therefore someone to avoid ...

Unless a pup has an obvious breed fault which would preclude it from ever being of breeding quality, many breeders sell all the pups for the same price.

I might have picked this up wrong :) but I think we are talking about paying more for puppies that have endorsements that the breeder may be willing to lift rather than puppies that have no endorsement from the outset.

I ALWAYS endorse my puppies "progeny not for registration" - but I can lift this endorsement if the puppies are health-scored with good results (which means later than at least 15 months, so no early puppies ;) ) .   So far, I think I've lifted this endorsement once - when one of Purdey's boys was used at stud - which happened only once.    At this moment in time, I haven't even lifted the endorsement on the two that I've kept, although I probably will breed from one or other of them sometime..........

I've always told my people to keep in contact with me with regard to their plans - it may be their dog, but it's still my baby!

Margot

You cannot show or field trial a dog that is not KC registered on the Breed Register.

You cannot compete in any of the other disciplines unless it is registered on the WT/Obedience Register; so anyway you look at it, if you want to do anything more than just have a pet, KC registration is a must.

Being KC registered, also means that the bitch will not be bred and overbred as registered breeders can only breed a bitch once a year or unregistered twice, with no more than 6 litters and only upto the age of 8.

It also means that a young bitch is not being abused and bred from 6 months of age up as this would not be registered.

KC reg are more likely to be health tested, with knowledge of the parents.

Not likely to be stolen dogs which are then bred from, many none reg pups have come from dubious backgrounds. Dogs are stolen all the time.

Breeding from a none KC reg dog, means there is no knowledge of parents history, in other words, you don't have a clue what you are getting.

Need KC reg for Showing and field trials as already said.

I wouldn't touch a pup that was not KC registered, as it is usually a bad reason why they are not.

<<One of my dogs has this endorsement but because we did not pay breeding price even though it is a good quality pup. We were told we could breed but just not register the pups.>>

This raises alarm bells with me.    I cannot understand why a reputable breeder would tell you this - the important thing is that the HEALTH CHECKS - ie hip/elbow scoring, annual eye testing and any other health tests advocated by the breed club/society - are carried out before breeding.

I cannot understand there being a different price for breeding stock, unless it has already had all the above carried out - in which case you won't be buying a puppy.    Just as one cannot guarantee, at 6-9 weeks, just which puppy is going to be the show stopper, one cannot guarantee that any puppy is not going to have some particular fault/trait that should preclude it from breeding.

Of course there will always be the puppy that has been the weakest in the litter, that doesn't have the acceptable colouring, or has an immediately noticeable fault - an umbilical hernia for instance - that should, imo, take it straight out of the breeding/showing equation, but will not stop it from being a wonderful family pet.   These are the dogs that should be slightly less in price than the others - the same care and attention (often a bit more) has gone into rearing such a puppy.

Margot

It may have been a misunderstand between the meaning of can and may ;)  The fact is we all know endorsements do not form a chastity belt and the breeder may have just been acknowledging that in a resigned way although it is probably better not to put the idea into people's heads :)