yesterday we had a letter from the Kennel club asking us to join the Accredited Breeders scheme (as I suspect many other breeders have recieved )...or giving them any reasons why we won't ...our logic is simple , as long as the KC continues to register dogs from those that over produce, do no health testing and do not belong to any breed club then I see no logic in joining such a scheme ...if they refused to give KC recognition to the fall out from  puppy farmers ( and I know this is a difficult to define term but defining it could be a start !) then the KC registration would in itself be a mark of quality and there would be no need for any additional scheme !.....your thoughts ???

Yvonne

Agree with you entirely.  There should be no need for the double standards that the scheeme promotes, it should be the same high standard for all. The KC seems to be saying 'its ok for puppy farmers/producers to reg their pups, but the better breeders are on the acred scheme'. It would be so simple to nip the rubbish breeders at the point of registration, but then the Kc would lose money, and we can't have that!

Whilst i agree with the first two points regarding over production of puppies and health testing, I actually have a real problem with them prefering breed club members.

I am a member of a breed club for one breed I own but not the other.  The reason for this - it's the only breed club the KC will allow a numerically small breed to have, not giving owners/breeders any freedom of choice regarding membership of a club, and I cannot agree with the way the breed club is being run and do not feel that the officers and committee members represent the best interests of the breed. 

I was a member for over 10 years, but no longer, and yes, i have tried to do something about it whilst still a member before resigning membership.

I actually have a problem with the Accredited Breeder scheme allowing all and sundry to join whether they've ever bred a litter at all - surely experience and evidence of carefully bred litters, with correct health tests and testimonals from new owners is essential in making a breeder worth accreditation?

>surely experience and evidence of carefully bred litters, with correct health tests and testimonals from new owners is essential in making a breeder worth accreditation?

You do have to give a statement of experience on application and feedback from new owners is a feature.

Unless the statement is checked, the writer could put anything down. Unless its legally binding, the Jackanory story could be soooooo interesting :D

I think many people would hesitate to put in writing something that may come out in the wash later.  Certainly any claims to have been breeding and showing with any particular level of success can be easily checked by the KC from their own records.  It may not be legally binding, I'm not sure, possibly in terms of fraud perhaps, but you will risk you being kicked off a scheme that buyers may increasingly look to when choosing where to get their puppy.

Is there any evidence that people are choosing acredited breeders over others.  As at present puppy famers fare just as well as bonafide breed enthusiasts litters I doublt it.

There aren't many (I know of only one) people in my breed who have signed up to the scheme.

No evidence, just an opinion :)  The KC are obviously going to promote it at every opportunity and they also place these breeders at the top of the list of litters available.  Having a browse of the lists shows many breeds have litters from Accredited Breeders with current litters so, together with those that don't, I think we can assume there are a fair few about already.
Puppy farmers do fare well and I am sure will continue to do so :( as they will always have a market in the folk that you and I would not touch with a barge pole but the people we would want to compete for ie the intelligent and informed are likely to be picking up on this scheme..............in my opinion :). 

Those that are straight may, I agree, but there are those that know the Kc aint gonna take the time to check, so will stretch the truth a bit LOL and who cares if you get kicked off, you can still reg the puppies. its where it all falls down, and where puppy purchasers are the ones that advise on the breeder. Do you want someone who has little knowledge on breeding and rearing making complaints about you? I bet there is a lot that wouldnt fancy this. Surely it should be up to an experienced, unbiased person to judge the 'whole' not an inexperienced person who may have a grudge......and may have not followed the instructions given when they bought the puppy.

The scheme is good, needs correct policing and guidelines, and then should be mandatory.

I think if a complaint is received the KC will take the time to check, at the very least to check if a pattern of complaints is emerging.

>Do you want someone who has little knowledge on breeding and rearing making complaints about you? I bet there is a lot that wouldnt fancy this. Surely it should be up to an experienced, unbiased person to judge the 'whole' not an inexperienced person who may have a grudge......and may have not followed the instructions given when they bought the puppy.

I am sure the KC are wise to these things and are already experienced in dealing with vexatious complaints within the competitive world of dog showing ;)

You think they do, but that doesnt really mean they do, does it, and from what has been said on here in the past, they don't have a fantastic record of investigating complaints. I bet there are more 'vexed' puppy owners than vexed show people, again if this and other forums are to be believed ;) As yet they don't have a group of people set up to check premises, so how they police the breeders is anyones guess :D If they simply checked the breed registrations now, they could tell who was breeding more than they should, and take some action, but they don't. They need to get up to date, use all the new techno at their fingertips and reorginise themselves to be more caring of the dogs and type of breeders they allow to register puppies.

How the scheme is policed and a bit more :).

Lots of 'maybes' there lol......and the usual rules and regs. be a shame if a good breeder 'fell out' with the breed club mind, I'm sorry but I can see a lot of bitchyness there ;) It needs someone to be totally unbiased to check, and I don't think breed club members may be the best. I know personally of very well respected people, from exceptional show kennels, that have fell out with their breed club, and reading the dog press over the years with all the falling out and inbiting and sheer nastiness within some clubs I can't see that is a good idea lol........totally independant I would say. I can really see why so many don't wish to join, reading that made it far clearer!:) So thankyou for the link.

Many people are joining but obviously it is a choice.
People may have individual issues with their breed clubs but personally I can't think of a better group, a larger concensus of opinion and interest in a breeds well being. 

sadly with a lot of back-biting if your face don't fit. Someone independant would be a far better choice.

I still think the Kc could wrap it all up to make dog breeding better for the dogs it produces with just a little effort. BUT, just like the govern will never make smoking illegal (sorry to those who smoke but this is a good example) because it brings too much tax in, the Kc will never clamp down on the puppy farmers because of the money it brings in. For such an illete organisation, that has over the past years done so much for dogs, it is a shame they can't wise up, use all the resources available and clamp down on what they encourage...puppy farming by registering every puppy thats put before them, with no identification, very often no parental health checks, no affix, often the breeder can't even be bothered to name them. Its not that difficult...........;)

I dare say a few individuals do have problems fitting in with them but they are large democratic organisations that the KC has historically worked with on many fronts so to me they are an obvious choice.  Can't imagine where an independent group with the knowledge and understanding would come from.
I don't see how the KC can "clamp down" on puppy farming when no definition exists.  They have various codes that limit their activities within their registration scheme but at the end of the day if the law cannot sort it out I don't see how we can expect them to either.  Offering buyers the choice of breeders that do perform to a tighter code seems a good step within those limitations to me.  The buyer has the ultimate choice.

I can see what you mean re the Kc, my point is that, if they insisted on only registering puppies that have parents with health tests relevant to that breed, only register puppies from breeders that have a licence if more than 4 litters a year are produced, and only register from people having an affix that may just cut the numbers down, making it more difficult for those that are breeding just for the money to register their litters. This is more than possible for the Kc to organise. They could also advertise widely where to get a puppy from, and what to look out for, far more than their normal 'KC registered...of course' which means little.

As to someones suitability to check out breeders, they could well have their own group, and engage the services of a vet or two, to physically check out breeders premises and actually see how their dogs are kept and what goes on. if they are going to promote a breeders scheme, they should organise this also. That way, personalities should be less likely to get in the way.

>They could also advertise widely where to get a puppy from

One and half million hits on their puppy lists in the last year suggests the advertising is pretty wide.

>As to someones suitability to check out breeders, they could well have their own group, and engage the services of a vet or two, to physically check out breeders premises and actually see how their dogs are kept and what goes on. if they are going to promote a breeders scheme, they should organise this also.

Well they are not bothering with vets, and I can't really see they are necessary, but they do have inspectors to visit breeders homes, which they agree to on joining the scheme.
Have you actually read up on the scheme at all? :)

The 'hits' on their list are just that, Hits, they need to advertise more widely, and yes even in mags like Dogs Today (or even more so) to get the message across, although of course its double standards to register puppy farmed/produced puppies, and have them on their own list, then say that people should not buy them ;)

Oh, Iv read the scheme lol.............and yes I saw they had ONE insp to cover the country (unless they have added to that now) A vet would be the only person to confirm the dog was in overall good health? They had to be present to confirm the health of breeding kennels dogs for their licence I believe (not sure if that is still the case). Yes, I know what you sign for.........but its pointless if there is no one to reglate it, or even check up on it :D

>The 'hits' on their list are just that, Hits

I don't understand.  As I understand it, it means people were stimulated by something they read or heard that they could access the KC web site for information about puppies and this happened one and a half million times.  Even allowing for many of the hits being repeats I think that indicates a fair level of awareness. :)  Likely to increase with internet use too.

>A vet would be the only person to confirm the dog was in overall good health?

I disagree. I think that would be overkill. Not many of us feel obliged to ask a vet if our dogs are in general good health to breed from, for instance.  I'm sure any inspector will be just as competent as us.  Anyway I think the inspection is more about facilities etc.
Yes, the inspection team has grown with the number of members.

Hits simply means someone has had a look, could have been a quick one, or a long search, or multiples. I had 204 hits on one of my ebay things, only 3 bid lol.......

BUT, I ask again, how can they condem poor breeding when they do nothing to stop the puppies from such breeding being registered.

Why is it overkill to have a vet on premises check? All the dogs should be in good health, and well looked after, not just the breeding ones. maybe this would catch out the ones that keep the overspill iadults in sheds with no warmth or bedding. If there is nothing to worry about, why object or feel it is 'overkill' to have ones dogs correctly assessed. After all, as you often point out the only person qualified to give an opinion on the health of a dog is a vet.

Doesn't matter how quick the look it demonstrates awareness of where to look.
I don't think it would take a veterinary degree to inspect premises or "catch someone out" for having no bedding.

>After all, as you often point out the only person qualified to give an opinion on the health of a dog is a vet.

Do I?  I think it takes a vet to diagnose what ails an animal when it is ill but as I say we do not generally rely on them to tell us our animals are fit and well enough to breed.  I think it unnecessary and would obviously create huge extra expenditure and possibily actually limit the ability to do home checks.

As part of the breeding licence vets do check premises. Why not for all breeders. How many insps are there for the AB now?

I have done a google on puppies for sale, a 'named breed' puppy for sale, named breeds, and all I come up with are the puppy sale sites (of which there are amazing numbers) the only time I came up with the KC site was 3rd down on Kc reg puppies for sale. Its a shame the Kc cannot be headed on each and every search, and where are the breed clubs? Not everyone who wants a puppy knows about breed clubs. The best hit was the fact this site has links to here from some of the searches.

As I say, the Kc could advertise far and wide and be more pro active regarding advising the public where to find a puppy, but with a two tier system it begs questions. If only AB are worth buying puppies from, why do the Kc register puppies from those that are not, and why do they allow them to advertise on their site. I can see a lot of very good breeders and puppies being passed over because of this. As someone has said, if the AB put themselves out with all the paperwork, home checks etc, why should they pay more for this. Something is needed certainly, but a two tier system has to be more confusing for those that know nothing about breeders and where to buy a puppy, and the Kc seem to be giving conflicting advice.

If the checks done by local authorities on commercial breeders were any good then we wouldn't have puppy farmers.

I agree, thats where the Kc should step in, they are the only ones that can control registration.

You echo my own doubts.

BUT, I ask again, how can they condem poor breeding when they do nothing to stop the puppies from such breeding being registered.

...my point exactly ! ...there would be no need for any kind of enhanced 'scheme' if the the KC registration itself meant that the pups came from eithical breeders ...of course this would simply mean that 'puppy farmers' would use alternative registration schemes but the message would be very clear to the General public that ONLY KC registration was a guarantee that the breeders met ethical breeding criteria. A two teir sysytem will simply confuse puppy buyers who in many cases think that KC reg means quality anyway !.

Another thought - if there needs to be a general tightening up of breeding standards than how about introducting the 'Sujet Recommendee' and 'Reproducteur Elite' to stud dogs and breeding bitches ...this is clear way of knowing that they have reached a level of excellence as an example of their breed and have good health test results ...it works abroad ...why not here ?

Yvonne

There may be a box for 'experience' but as some AB's have not even bred a single litter yet, is this of any real benefit?

The new accolades seem a bit of a sop to me - the only one that I see as being of any benefit is the stud book numbers one. Anyone can be a member of a breed club, and as we know having bred multiple litters is in no way an automatic sign of quality.

I do have an issue with the fact that whilst dogs need to have the appropriate health tests to have an accredited litter, there is no requirement for a good result. I can understand that there needs to be some leeway for otherwise outstanding dogs, but surely the whole point of accreditation is to have people reach a higher standard than the run of the mill? I know of a ABs who are registering accredited litters from dogs with far higher than acceptable hip scores, and charging extra for the privilege as they're accredited.

Another issue is that those who make take the trouble to go abroad and use a carefully researched litter cannot register it as 'accredited', as the stud dog won't have the relevant accreditation in this country.

I think it's a positive scheme which is currently ill thought-through.

M.

>but as some AB's have not even bred a single litter yet, is this of any real benefit?

If you read the link I have given you will see the KC rationale behind that.  As you say, the number of litter bred is not an automatic sign of quality :)

No, but no litters bred is certainly not a sign of experience either.

M.

The KC rationale appears to be that you can aspire to an informed, ethical approach before you even have your first litter and I can't say I disagree with it. 

On paper yes. In practice, I don't see how. A person with no breeding experience at all can register, agree with everything, yet still not have either the breed knowledge or rearing experience to produce puppies that, somehow, are 'superior' to anyone elses. As someone has already said, its a bit ill thought out. But then, things can be good on paper that has holes when put into practice, it just needs some fine tuning. The Kc have the power to refuse registration if they changed their rules a bit, and I can't see how anyone would mind if health checks, giving good results, would be essential to registration, unless in some way it would cut down the gene pool for some breeds?

The KC have given a good rationale, I believe, as to why they want people on board right at the beginning of their breeding career.  Over and above that there are "accolades" awarded for experience so anyone utilising the scheme can see quite clearly what they are getting.

Must admit apart from my objection to paying to do what I do already I am seriously considering joining, but it does rankle, I still feel the non acredited should pay more for KC services. 

I had actually filled out the form with my affix newsletter, and at the end turned it over and it says it has to be in black ink (filled it in in blue).

So I may yet join, but don't hold your breath.

  Quick, I'm gasping for breath :)
Now, what do we all feel about becoming Affiliated..........................? :D

LOL, now that would be going over to the Dark side. :rolleyes:

Why would anyone want or need to? This is simply another money spinner....but ya knew i'd say that ;) :D

I'm reserving judgment until I understand more about it but it's possible you may convince me of that with this one :) 
On the other hand if you like taking the Gazette and can make use of the Crufts discounts it may not be a bad deal.

On the other hand if you like taking the Gazette and can make use of the Crufts discounts it may not be a bad deal.

And you can get a lovely tie or scarf too lol :D :D

....and very dapper you would look too :D

Whisper
Isabel, have you seen it? its got little white bones all over it :D :D

I too agree with you on all points bar the Breed Club membership.  If there's only one Club for your breed, and you don't agree with how it's being run, or even think it's corrupt! then you have no choice but to follow your own morals and ethics and not be a member.  But as I said, everything else, yup, agree 100%.

Debs

> as long as the KC continues to register dogs from those that over produce, do no health testing and do not belong to any breed club then I see no logic in joining such a scheme ...

I think a more logical move from that stance would be to boycott KC registration alltogether, wouldn't it? :)
You acknowledge yourself, Yvonne, the difficulty in diferentiating between puppy farmers and responsible breeders. Personally I think this is a good step in helping guide the public to not only understand differences occur but also provide a mechanism to enable them to seek out a better standard and maybe even influence, by market forces, those that previously fell short.

I totally disagree.  I may not be happy with many things that the KC do but when you look at some of the dogs registered with the other "Club" and see names of champions on the paperwork that are a totally different breed it's better the devil you know!

The KC is slowly improving, but of course it's a business and they want the money.  Let's face it most things that we sign up for companies rely on us telling the truth.  Some people will lie, unfortunately that is the nature of some people and the KC can't be expected to check up on every single one of us before registering a litter, that would just be unworkable.  Although I must admit I look forward to the day when all dogs have to be DNA tested, I bet that would bring up some interesting results!!

I will not be an accredited breeder because as others have stated there are some breeders on that scheme that you wouldn't touch with a bargepole, who don't do the breed recommended health tests and whose pups are having problems.  The KC say that they deal with certain matters internally I wonder how many people have heard anything from the KC if they don't follow the health scores recommended?

>Isabel I totally disagree.  I may not be happy with many things that the KC do but when you look at some of the dogs registered with the other "Club" and see names of champions on the paperwork that are a totally different breed it's better the devil you know!

We don't disagree at all :) I would not dream of not registering with the KC.  My point is, if you wish to boycott the scheme on the grounds that have been stated I cannot see why you would not apply those grounds to the KC as a whole.

>who don't do the breed recommended health tests and whose pups are having problems. 

If this is the case you can report them to not only the KC but also their breed club.

>Although I must admit I look forward to the day when all dogs have to be DNA tested

Do you mean DNA identification?  This is a requirement of the scheme.

DNA identification is not a requirement, positive identification is and can be chip or tattoo.

To be hones what does the DNA profiling do for a puppy buyer unless the pups are all DNA profiled and proved to be the offspring of the DNA tested sire and dam?  How many people are going to query parentage?

You are right at present you do have the choice although the KC have stated an aim to move towards DNA being a requirement. 
I don't suppose many puppy buyers do query parentage but those that go on to breed themselves may have them DNA identified so sooner or later a breeder of disrepute is going to be caught out so surely a strong deterent.

Only if the DNA profile ever gets compared to it's parents, and there doesn't seem to be a system in plce for verifying parentage of all DNA sampled dogs.

To be honest the requireemt shoudl be for sampled parents and the pups before sale.

There may not be just now but I can well imagine such a data base comparison will come along before too long so a big risk to take even in the present.

Agree, the Kennel Club want their cake and eat it.

Still take the puppy farmers money and grant their output KC reg and then expect us to pay to show that we are better than the Dross.