From PG's column last week regarding a letter received from a reader:

"A person deeply concerned in what is happening in her own small sized and popular breed, scans the quarterly totals of puppies registered in her breed and is so dismayed at what she reads that she has on occasions rung the KC to be told 'there is 'nothing they can do'. Her findings for just one quarter show that one person registered 198 puppies, all but one litter by the same stud dog. Not only that, the litters were of 8 and 9 puppies in a breed where the normal litter rarely exceeds 4 or 5 and is more likely to be lower. Is the person who is registering all these large litters continuing to breed from old worn out bitches and adding their offspring to the litters whelped by the younger bitches? It would be one explanation."

198 puppies in a quarter?!?! Good grief. I always knew there were breeds that suffered badly, but hadn't realised it was to quite this extent, bearing in mind that if this is just one breeder in a popular breed, there will be many more churning out ridiculous numbers.

Anyone care to PM me with which breed this is, as I'm sure someone will know? I'd guess it would be one of a few breeds that spring to mind, but would be interesting to know if I'm right.

M.

As for the KC's claim that they can do nothing, surely they can refuse to register puppies from someone who is so obviously churning them out?   but then they'd lose the revenue on the registrations

I believe that there is going to be a shakeup shortly by the KC, especially for AB's.  Let's hope so as even they do this type of breeding!

This " can't do nothing" drives me crackers.  I wished the KC and many other dog organisations would get some back bone and forget the . £££ Ching Ching  ££ Ching Ching  for once.

Organisations Can choose there members, breeders list CAN choose who they have on or not and the KC CAN do far far more policing.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/914/pg_dtl_art_news/pg_hdr_art/pg_ftr_art

this page on the KC website claims that they are trying to stop puppy farming.  But if they are willing to register huge numbers of pups from one breeder, they are at least complicit in puppy farming    It isn't as if it would be impossible to set up the registration system to automatically flag up names and addresses who continually and consistently register large numbers of pups

For a start volume breeders who breed more than 4 litters in any 12 months could easily b flagged up by computer and the next litter a breeder tries to register they should be required to produce their Local Authority breeding License with how many litters etc the LA are allowing.

I would prefer they didn't register from high volume breeders at all, but as it is not against the Law they might have problems.

On the other hand surely the KC is a Private organisation ans it is entirely up to them whose litters they are prepared to register.

This is where emerging or resurrected (as in Eastern Europe) Kennel Clubs have been able to take the high ground as they have never been used to the kind of income the KC gets from volume registrations, so having rules as to which litters can be registered, studs and broods having to met minimum standards for show quality, health and temperament has been easier.

I have said before the Kennel Club have branched out into other areas of financial gain and will have to simply accept the loss of Income from these breeders, to be see to be aiming for the improvement of pedigree dogs.

Trying to run a two tier system is just morally untenable.

The general public are increasingly not seeing KC registration as necessary and not a mark of quality so eventually KC registration will loose what credibility it has with the general population and they will loose money anyway as the mass producers won't feel the need to even use it, as they will be able to sell their pups purebred or cross for just as much..

> breeders list CAN choose who they have on or not

Champdogs Terms and Conditions of Membership

Champdogs membership is open to non-commercial dog breeders and owners. We do not accept membership applications from commercial breeders or puppy dealers.

We expect all breeders on Champdogs to adhere to the relevant breed society/club ethics and expect all the appropriate health checks for their breed to be performed.
We reserve the right to refuse or terminate membership of any breeder found to not be acting in the best interests of their dogs. In particular any breeder found to be breeding from an underage bitch or breeding on consecutive seasons will be immediately removed.

I would like to think Champdogs has the most stringent criteria of all the UK internet sites for accepting breeders onto its breeder lists.

All our advanced members (those with the stars next to their names) are carefully vetted before they are granted membership. They are also re-appraised annually when their membership subscription is due. 

Our terms and conditions are not just for show. If we find a breeder has infringed the T&Cs we do not hesitate to remove them.

Just today we received an email from a breeder who had applied to rejoin the site after a period of absence :

"Many Thanks, I have read the terms and conditions and agree to them. I wish all other sites were as particular with their terms and conditions they are a credit to you."

Some numbers for you :

Current Champdogs Membership - 14047
Refused or Removed Memberships - 6719

Draw your own conclusions from those figures regarding Champdogs and "£££ Ching Ching".

I daresay if you look around the site you may find some breeders in amongst the 14000+ who you know to breed less than ethically.

If you do then contact us privately, back up your allegations with solid proof and we will act accordingly.

Champdogs has built up an excellent reputation within the dog world and we intend to keep it that way.

Very impressive 'refused or removed' number, Mark.

M.

That's great to see vetting and the refused removed numbers.  ( I would probably keep them published )  This is a perfect example that clubs, internet sites, AND the Kennel club DO NOT have to accept undesirable members or breeders. 

There is no discrimnation law to membership of said.

Please note Mark my comments were not directed at CD directly but all sites and groups in general that we all have a choice.  The KC keep defending their actions like their were some law in place prohibiting screening.

My only comment I think I would add that I personally think was a negitive step in the recent changes is the linking of forum to the breeders list by the breeders button.  That is just my opinion though

Ditto Barabara.  In the long run there will be problems.   I think the government is the one who has suddenly started to take notice of the monies being made from dogs.

I genuinely believe this site is the best by far as regards breeders' lists and admit, somewhat shamefacedly LOL, that at one point I was temporarily removed from the advanced members pages because I failed to come back in good time to include my then advertised litter's KC Registration numbers!  And quite right too because I could easily have been abusing the advertising facility by having no intention (or ability) to KC register my pups.

This was a few years ago now and was rectified promptly and without any ill feeling on either part - it was my oversight, picked up speedily by the CD powers that be and as soon as I provided the info the pages were reinstated

Having surfed around at many other sites over the years I've found several questionable sources for puppies given high profiles

Teri (of the hopeless short term memory )

Sounds like the things I do Teri

> The general public are increasingly not seeing KC registration as necessary and not a mark of quality so eventually KC registration will loose what credibility it has with the general population

the kc is obviously losing credability even amoung those not of the general public, as we see from this thread their own breeders and exhibitors are losing faith in their abilities.

i don't know, i'm starting to feel that the kc should become other than a private organisation and actually be responsible for legislation regarding dogs. it would mean that people with some experience of the dog world would be responsible for dealing with legislation on 'dangerous breeds' and on breeding limits rather than misguided, uniformed MP's, and were such subjects law the kc would be forced to examine their own methods and regulations.

alternatively we could ditch the kc and let champdogs be in charge as they seem to be sensible

Just wondering how people are vetted on this site?  I wasn't when I did the advanced membership bit!  Not getting at anyone and as my last litter was over two years ago I know that I'm not the type of breeder that this thread is aimed at.

I am guilty of that too Teri... I think my last litter... I had a waiting list for all my pups bar 2 kept, and one unsold... I like my litters to be seen whether all sold or not.. but I had a buyer for the final pup before 3 weeks old and I closed the listing (all sold) before I had actually registered them...

Ah.. now theres a question for Admin.... If I or anyone else does this.. how can we go back into a previously sold litter to update with KC details of litter?

With reference to early comments on the 'flagging up'. I brought to the attention of the KC a Labrador breeder that had bred 14 litters in one quarter with 2 of the bitches having litters 5 months apart, 3 litters 6 months apart and 3 litters 7 months apart. I asked why they couldn't flag up that he should be a licensed breeder (which he is). And as a licensed breeder should not be breeding from bitches without 12 months between litters. They did not want to know and said they couldn't do it (they meant wouldn't do it). Luckily I could report him to the local council and they took it seriously and served him with a caution and are keeping an eye to his breeding ethics. I do everything that the KC require of me to do when I breed, follow all the breed club codes of conduct but I will not pay into the Accredited Breeder money making scheme until the KC can prove to me (and act on it) that they are in fact determined to stamp out puppy farming.

> I do everything that the KC require of me to do when I breed, follow all the breed club codes of conduct but I will not pay into the Accredited Breeder money making scheme until the KC can prove to me (and act on it) that they are in fact determined to stamp out puppy farming.

Ditto strongly

MarkR
Good for you for implementing these thorough vetting procedures now. When I contacted you previously regarding a bad breeder and even though I provided all the proof needed you did not act on it for some considerable time. It was not until the head of an animal organisation became involved that you then decided to remove the breeder. All the other breeder sites that these breeders advertised on took immediate action. I am glad to see to see you have changed your policy in line with the other breeder sites.

Welcome to the Forum 'Aga'.

Every year we get complaints about breeders that have no substance. Sadly, the world of dogs can be very nasty place at times. When jealousy and bad feeling prevail, some people will go to extreme lengths to discredit other breeders and competition. When allegations are presented to us, we do investigate further and we do not take anything as read. We do take all complaints very seriously indeed. However, we do require evidence to back up the allegations and we do check that 'proof' supplied is genuine.

This takes time but we have to make sure that the allegation is true and not just someone out to cause mischief. Recently on the forum, there was such an allegation made about a breeder and when the member was confronted and asked to provide us with their name and address and 'proof' of their allegation, they refused to stand by their claim. Instead, accusing us of not acting. Even we can not act when we do not even know whom they refer to! Their complaint may have been genuine, but their failure to substantiate their accusation or provide us with basic details, made it impossible for us to act. We will not act on rumour or hearsay.

Hi, do any posters on this board subscribe to 'Our Dogs' as I would like to read the article that is refered to here Peggy Grayson on puppy farming. Maybe, if someone does could they please put a link to the article, it would be much appreciated, thank you. I do on occassions purchase the dog papers but not regulary as I am neither a breeder or show dogs, just have an interest.