[Sleeping_Lion]

The only exceptions are to breeds not able to register with the Kc like klee kais, English shepherds etc which I believe they use another type of register?

I find allot of people saying they didn't want a kc dog because it's just a pet, for me if I have the history of the dog it makes it easier to find out about parents history etc especially when in concerns health.

The ad part is though is when bad breeders charge up to £200 more just so you can have the kc papers, which is ludicrous and makes no logical sense to me other than pure greed. I think sometimes it's the bad breeders that put people off and it becomes an assumption that all pedigree kc breeders cost more.

There are breeds that are bred to type that the KC don't register for various reasons. Anyone who is responsibly breeding a non-registerable breed, or even cross breeding, should know the lineage of their dogs and will keep records of this and other details.

As regards the bad breeders who charge extra, yes, unfortunately there are, and that's where a contract of sale comes in. If you aren't offered a contract of sale, you need to get some written form of proof of the terms and conditions, just as you would with any other purchase, just because it's a cute puppy it doesn't mean these same sort of rules don't apply, in fact for me, it means you should be so much more careful. The KC can only rule in favour of a puppy buyer if it is set out in black and white, otherwise they can't intervene or take any action.

 

[Sleeping_Lion]

Should I be worried then? I was told that the Chihuahua I'm buying hasn't been registered as she has a defect with her mouth and also because he wants her to go to a pet home. I've seen the parent's Pedigree and they are both registered but my pup won't be.

If she's pedigree then yes, I would want her papers, the breeder can ensure endorsements are in place if they don't want any progeny registering with the KC, and can explain this to you. It basically means that unless your dog fit certain criteria, they wouldn't lift breeding endorsements, which stops you registering (if you ever bred that is) any of her pups with the KC. Witholding KC papers, and endorsements don't stop anyone from breeding unfortunately, it will just stop KC registration being made possible, personally, I don't think there is any case for witholding papers when endorsements are there for breeders to use. Apols if that's not what you want to hear, but I would most definitely be asking questions.

 

[Sleeping_Lion]

I told the owner of my unregistered pup I sold yesterday he wasn't registered because he had a retained testicle but if it did drop before he was 12 months old I would be happy to send off for his papers. They told me they weren't intersted in papers and as for his testicles he wouldn't have any as soon as he was old enough to be castrated.

Can I ask why you didn't register him and put endorsements in place? Just interested as I would have thought it better to have a record of all dogs you breed with the KC, rather than miss any out for whatever reason?

 

[Sleeping_Lion]

Then should I ask him to register her with some sort of block so that she can't be bred or shown?

It's entirely up to you, but there isn't really any good reason why she couldn't be KC registered and endorsements put in place. If the breeder is unwilling to KC register the pup, you could either offer to pay for the registration fee, which isn't a great deal, or ensure you have a bill of sale to transfer her into your name.

I can't think of a good reason not to register a pedigree pup, and endorse it, rather than allow a pup to remain unregistered; in fact I think there is more of a case to do so particularly if the endorsement relates to a health defect, such as an undershot/overshot jaw, retained testicle, surely records of this sort of problem within a gene pool are better known about, than disappear off the edge of the radar. It may be a one off, but what if it isn't?

 

[Sleeping_Lion]

My Dobby wasn't Kc registered unfortunately but I'm wanting to register him. Can I register him myself of did he have to be registered by his original owner (the lady who owned the mum and dad)?
Also, I've heard about companion registry...
could someone who knows about Kc registering explain companion registry?
I don't plan to show him, plus at some point I'd want to neuter him (DONT RANT PLEASE LOL!) he's just a family pet but I do want to register him with the kennel club.

Thankies!

You can't register a dog you haven't bred, and to be honest, the majority of breeders don't own both parents, they usually own the bitch, and travel to find the right dog to use.

The companion registry is (I think) for dogs involved with KC activities/competitions, and your dog doesn't have to be a pedigree to be registered. I don't know much information about it as I've never needed to look, but it's all on the KC website.

Look into neutering before you book him in, a lot of people have it done when it isn't really necessary, so take your time to read up and research about it first

 

[Sleeping_Lion]

Ahhhh so he has to be registered with Kc first... and then I could join the companion club? when i look on the application form it asks for a KC Reg number so I assume you need to register in another catagory 1st (so confusing) lol! I though I'd post on your thread as you always seem to know allot about these things
So... does it mean because the original owner didnt register him... I can't register him into the companion club one?
If so, tis a shame.... I really want him registered somewhere lol!

thankyou for your reply.

No, you can register a non-pedigree or cross breed, there's more information about it here:

Activity Register - The Kennel Club

If you're unsure, then you can email the KC, they are very helpful

Just to clarify, the Activity Register isn't the same as the Breed Register, which holds all the information about KC registered pedigrees, hope that makes a little more sense for you.

 

[Sleeping_Lion]

Thankyou very much

No worries, I've just added a bit to my post above to try and help explain it a little more

 

[Sleeping_Lion]

Hi Sleeping lion. thought i would latch onto your wisdom on the subject of endorsments as i was going to start a thread sometime about it. so hope you dont mind me picking your brains about it here.
i have a couple of dogs both with papers and endorsed, which was explained to me totally by the breeder when i picked up last pup, fair enough.I had heard of endorsing puppies but as i am not a breeder it did not mean much to me as long as kc registered with a good breeder which they were. So after some research with the kc i can definitely see the benefits of endorsment to keep the breeders good name intact etc. But i know it is an ongoing issue with breeders of kerry blues(my breed) that nearly all decent breeders endorse their puppies with some saying they would never release the endorsments as too much unregistered kerries requiring rehoming due to bad breeders etc and such like and this causes a lot of friction between breeders and terrier enthusiasts as the kerry is one of the terriers on the endangered breeds lists. I have even read that some people accuse certain breeders of trying to be custodians of the breed! I think that is a bit unfair though as usually these breeders only have the dogs interests at heart.
I think the argument is how can the breed grow in number again if no one is allowed to register their puppies under eg a new kennel name! Surely there should be some sort of middle ground like an inspection of dogs and new breeder by the kc or whatever to check they are breeding under kc legislation or something and a deal be struck between buyer and original breeder for if nothing else, to try and ensure the breed goes from strength to strength.
I am only shooting the breeze here and just asking the opinion of those more clued up than me. i have no agenda to breed, well not as yet, but i am definately interested in the health and future numbers of the breed. thanks

It's a very good point to raise, there are two types of endorsements, as you know, one that prevents any progeny from being registered with the KC and one that doesn't allow a dog you've bred to be registered abroad, which would prevent any progeny from being registered with a foreign KC, as I understand it. Any good breeder, would work with someone enthusiastic about a breed, and lift the endorsements free of charge, upon certain criteria being met.

It won't be the same for all breeds, but, for example, with Labs, I'd want the contract wording so that a bitch/dog had met a certain age, and were good examples, possibly proven in some way. For a dog I would definitely want them proven in the show ring or in competition, as they have the possibility of siring so many more pups than a bitch could have during the course of her breeding career. I'd want certain health tests in place, hips, elbows, bva eye cert, and any relevant dna tests.

All this should be worded in a contract of sale, at the time the puppy is handed over, and both the new owner and breeder should sign and keep copies, including an explanation of the endorsements. The new owner signs to say that it's been explained to them fully, and that way, if it comes to lifting endorsements in the future, the breeder shouldn't be able to refuse if they've met all the criteria asked of them, which I know has happened in the past.

The problem isn't so much as numbers, but with the gene pool. Labradors are a numerically large breed, and yet both my bitches have an individual COI above that recommended for the breed, I believe this is simply because they're chocolate. Why does that make such a difference? Well it's all down to the overuse of one very popular stud dog, and you'd be hard pushed to find a chocolate Labrador without him in there. So even with a numerically large breed, you can have quite a close gene pool in some respects, which isn't a problem, as long as you're aware of it.

With all the new innovations, with health testing, easy COI calculators, as well as the ways of proving your dog as an example of the breed, either working, showing or competing, we have more information now to make better breeding decisions than ever before. Unfortunately, some are looking at the present, without thinking about the future, and I can see how this makes some of those who have been around for a while, a bit twitchy about their beloved breed(s). There's also a misconception that we've now discovered pedigrees are unhealthy, which I just don't think is the case necessarily, more that medical advances mean we now know more about our dogs, and their health status. I know more about the genetic status of my dogs than I do of any other living creature, I know that both of them won't develop certain illnesses, and how many humans can we say that about with certainty?

Hope that sort of answers your point, and I've waffled on a bit as usual. I haven't actually bred one litter of pups yet, I may yet do, but I do (as you may have guessed) like to do my research properly

 

[Sleeping_Lion]

Sleeping Lion. To say you do your research is understatement of the year
You sure know your stuff! and thanks for enlightening me some more .
Gene pools is another subject i am wholly interested in and have my opinions but at the risk of boring the whole of PF to death on this fine sat night :blink: i will spare them the torture and take a rain check for future discussion with you. thanks again though for taking the time to reply

I actually pick the brains of lots of much more knowledgeable people, but I do it in rota so they don't get bored of me, chuckle.

I've got a couple of chores to do, feed the dogs, and then I'm getting a G&T, after which I will make even less sense than usual

 

[Sleeping_Lion]

Bit early for me to start drinking, will wait til we go to the pub later. (ice come up 'home' to Newcastle for a family thing).

To me, the kc aspect is less important than the health testing. I was incredibly naive both times I got dogs. The first two were kc reg, the second lot aren't. I don't know if the breeding of the first two has anything to do with Jake's health problems. Certainly, I should have looked for health testing this time, stupid fool that I am going out far too soon after Jake and getting the first cute pups I saw.

What I would say is that health testing is of paramount importance and kc reg must go hand in hand with this. I cannot understand why its not a prerequisite of kc registering. It should be.

I can see where you're coming from, and it certainly would make things more clear cut for people who know little or nothing about the various health problems some dogs have, but first of all, I'm going to ask a couple of questions, what about conformation, temperament and ability? All of those are also important, and yet often overlooked.

Back to health testing, and just as an example, take hip scoring, the BMS for Labs is 15. So, what if someone tests, and their dog has a hip score of 26, do we then start setting a limit? If so, what happens if you get an exceptional dog with a score one or two points above this limit, and want to breed from them? In a similar way, with a simple genetic condition, that can be bred clear from, how would you regulate that?

I think the key to health tests, is educating puppy buyers about them, so they understand more about the health status of a particular breed, and what to look for.

 

[Sleeping_Lion]

it seems to be quite common within my breed to withhold papers if the breeder doesnt want the dog to be shown etc

Do you know why they don't make use of the endorsements?

I feel it could be a loophole some unscrupulous breeders could use to hide progeny, that are born with some sort of problem. Personally, I would prefer to see all pedigree dogs KC registered, and endorsements being used where appropriate. That said, I think the KC also needs to be more open minded and helpful, there are cases where KC registration has slipped and people still want to carry on breeding their line, they just do so using other pedigrees, and are unable to register their own dogs. In that sort of instance there's no reason the KC could look at each case on it's own individual merit, and come to a decision.

 

[Sleeping_Lion]

I probably wouldn't place a limit...I'd like the knowledge that every bit of information was laid out for puppy buyers to see, alongside the breed average on parent's certificates and they could take it from there. But then I expect puppy buyers ought to research and be more aware before they visit any dogs, and having no limit may appear to condone breeding dogs who might actually suffer because their hip score is so high.

Wishful thinking I suppose, its hard to really come up with anything workable.

I think we're getting there slowly but surely, and every single extra person educated about all the ins and outs of dog breeding, what's ethical and what isn't, helps get the message across. The KC website seems to be continually changed at the moment, with more and more explanations about health testing etc.

Hip scores are an odd one anyway, as dogs can have very high scores, and never show any sign of being clinically affected, where as dogs with much lower scores can suffer terribly. So that is a really difficult one for people to initially get their head around.

One thing that I think is off putting about the health tests is the description 'affected' for a status, where a dog isn't clinically affected, but has the genetic propensity to develop a disease. Where that disease isn't fatal, and can be bred clear from I personally see no problem, but there is such a stigma associated with the status that many people wouldn't bother, even if it was a very good example of a breed, even the 'carrier' status is much less used than it otherwise would have been.