Was visiting a friend a few days ago who has a small toy breed. The bitch has her paper and the dog does not (he was £300 cheaper because he had no papers even though all her (breeder) other dogs had KC papers. This meant that the litter was poor quality, the bitch had already had her max. amount of litters, she was older than she should have been to breed or maybe she had a post partrum mating and therfore did not want to declare it....some thing anyway !)

My friend wanted to breed her dog to her bitch and we discussed this as he does seem very nice dog and matches the bitch very well balancing each other very well. Another friend that was present said she could use the KC papers from her dog (same toy breed) so that the puppies could be registered. This would mean that although her dog was not going to be used...they would pretend they had used him.......and register him as father...get puppies also registered ...and get more money for them !!!!

I could not belive it. The thought had never crossed my mind that you would use the papers of a KC registered dog that was not the father to get more money. Thankfully my good friend dismissed the idea immediately as cheatig and not honest.....but it does make you think how many other people may do this. get one dog fully health checked  and maybe a champion and say he is the father of loads of litters.

Thank goodness for DNA checks. The KC are going to bring them in for Accredited Breeders. All dogs will have to have a mouth swab and the DNA will be unique to the dog. This also means that if you one day when you breed from a dog or bitch then they too will have to have DNA checks and the parents can be guarenteed. More importantly they can use the DNA checks in the future to see what dogs are carrying genetic diseases and these can be elliminated from a breeding programme. At this stage this is not done....but maybe in the future we will be expected to use these advances in medical science to improve the health of all dogs.

DNA checks are £15....

Thign is that unless the pups have to be DNA chekled then it proves nothing.  How many puppy owners woudl realise when looking at Charlie that he bears no resemblance to the said sire?

DNA testing would only make sense if the pups have to be DNA tested to prove parentage.  My dogs are already permanently identified b bothe tattoo and microchip, and these details ahve to be cheked when they are eye tested and hip scored, but they are still not compulsory.  So if the parents are ID'd the health testign is OK.

I like the idea of going down the Thoroughbred route, where the foals have to be tested before registering.  Last time I had to register with Wetherbys it was by blood testing, but perhaps DNA swabbing has taken over know.   I am sure we would get the old complaints on the grounds of cost, but it woudl cut out a lot of the puppy farm registrations straight away.

I absolutely agree.....
I guess the only time the puppies will be checked is when they are DNA checked before they breed too. If they do not match the parents then someone is pulling a fast one. I guess it happens.....but a unplaced dog with a bitch but say the father is a huge champion belonging to another owner. save on the travel and stud fees!

I guess that DNA checks will be really important if you can check to see if your dogs are carrying genetic heath problems.

DNA checks cannot do any harm.....can they?

The pups won't be matched against the parents DNA though, maybe this will happen eventually, but the vast majority of pups will not go on to be bred from, and puppy farmers know this so even if it were to happen it is unlikely to affect them.

The breeders who would never dream of falsifying pedigrees are the ones whose pups would be easy to check, when they came to be bred from or health tested, but the checks wouldn't really be needed for these.

There is no sense or advantage to a real breeder to falsify a pedigree.  A pedigree is simply the dogs ancestry used for planning a breeding program, so if they are false they are shooting themselves in the foot.

I have heard recently about someone who didles the kc and she is about to get her comuppance, she registers another pup on a litter and then uses it for non pedigree dog, one puppy died 3 monthds after purchasing it and the new owner wants the dogs dna tested.   YIPEEEEEEEE.  I cant wait she is always in the local park with about 8 cavs most aren't registered.  Been reported to council several times.

Linda

It does make me sick.

Acredited breeders are required by the KC to have ther dogs perm identifiable by 1 or more of the following methods, Chipping, Tattoo + DNA profiling.

Mine are chipped + tattooed before bieng DNA health tested + we are having them all DNA profiled this year.

It is good though that some people are getting caught out + that others are helping police the scheme, i know someone constantly running down the accredited breeder scheme but she told me yesterday she has brought 3 pups at diff times from accredited breeders who didnt give her the questionaire they are required to under the rules of the scheme 1 asked her not to say anything, i imediately asked her how she can dismiss the scheme as a waste of time/money + something peddlars can get onto also when she helps keep them there?!?!

Its frustrating that anything really can be diddled if people want to enough espesially when there are so many peops trying to do their best by the breed.

I was talking to someone who shows dogs the other week.
She said someone high up in her breed has to affixs. She breeds 2 litters at a time and sells the show quality pups through her show affixs and any non show quality through the other affixs so the show affixs always throws good pups
Now I dont know that for certain but thats what I have been told :o :o :o
Lea

> She breeds 2 litters at a time and sells the show quality pups through her show affixs and any non show quality through the other affixs so the show affixs always throws good pups

Well if true that would suggest falsifying paperwork for both litters, as the pups were "shared out", however, whilst a "good story" (in the worst way!) it does seem a bit unlikley - I wish you could guarantee bitches coming into season at any time. let alone together!  And if a breed which comes in various colours, they would have to be biches who could produce the relevant colours too.
OF course, they would show up in her name in the BRS too, regardless of the affix, so would be well known in her breed.  Doesn't seem worth it, to me, even if possible, becasue we all breed pups who are not show quality, and no-one thinks the worst of you for it, as long as you breed the "good'uns" too!

Thats what I thought, but then again anything is likely
As I say this was from someone I was talking to Not from my own knowledge. I did think it was a tall story but then this women doesnt seem the vunerable type.
I just wonder if it does go on :o :o
Lea

I have met someone who does that, to date they haven't been caught out.

Linda

So it is possible????
Not in the Toy breed by any chance??
Lea

> I have met someone who does that, to date they haven't been caught out.

Did they happen to say why, because I can't see any point in it at all.

the one I heard about was so they didnt have a 'bad dogs' registered under their name :s, I also asked the same question Gwen as I couldnt see the point in it either :o :o
Lea

i got told it was because they paid more

linda

welcome to the world of dog breeding, although now thank to DNA testing those who got away with it before are not able.... the mind boggles

> i got told it was because they paid more

Who paid more?  I still don't get it, breed two similtaneous litters, then sort out the pups early enough for registrations to be done,  into good and bad, register under 2 seperate affixs - which so far costs the additional affix fee, all because they want one affix only to breed "better" pups - who would know?  It is usually only the show quality pups who are seen by the rest of the dog world anyway, and if both affixs are registered to the breeder anyway they will be published in the BRS under his/her name, with the 2 affixes, giving cause to some comment, probably. So they risk their reputation in case of being caught out, just so the pet quality pups don't carry the show affix?  I am sure I am missing something, but I am intrigued!

> The breeders who would never dream of falsifying pedigrees are the ones whose pups would be easy to check, when they came to be bred from or health tested, but the checks wouldn't really be needed for these.
>
> There is no sense or advantage to a real breeder to falsify a pedigree.  A pedigree is simply the dogs ancestry used for planning a breeding program, so if they are false they are shooting themselves in the foot.

I agree with this line of thinking.  If folk want to kid themselves, it doesn't affect me in any way.  I know what I am aiming for in a show dog, and happily have a very good mentor in the breed.  I thoroughly enjoy the satisfaction of "getting it right" i.e. putting the right two dogs together.  To falsify any records would just be pointless for me, and Brainless is right in as much as, it would be very easy to check my current pups pedigrees.  I guess it all comes down to why people are into dogs.  The thrill I've had with my breeding this year is great.  But I also am sensible enough to know that, just using a good sire isn't going to give me 100% show puppies.  I'm over the moon that I am keeping 2 pups out of 2 litters.  The boy because I feel he has potential, and the girl because I particularly wanted a bitch out of this pairing.  The people willing to falsify records are into dogs for totally different reasons.

> Did they happen to say why, because I can't see any point in it at all.

You're right Gwen.  No point at all.

> The people willing to falsify records are into dogs for totally different reasons.

Absolutley agree, which is why I find the "fraud" described in this thread so hard to understand.  Most of the cases of pedigree falsificaiton I have heard of have been money based - either using different papers for an endorsed or not reg dog or bitch, registering pups to a different bitch so the 6 month rule is got round, all the usual puppy farm dodges, and all to either make more money upfront or to slide round KC registration so pups are registered which should not be - which I think comes down to making money anyway, as I am sure the reason Puppy Farmers are keen to use KC reg is so they can charge more.  But this case seees to suggest it is being done for some kind of quality deception, and is actually costing the perpetrator more, even if it is just an additional affix fee. 

I know a well known breeder in a certain breed of dog who does lots of falsifications.  She breeds a litter from one sire, but would register to her champion sire so as to charge more money, she would breed from poor hip scored dogs and then register to good ones, she would also breed a bitch before/after relevant ages and register to another properly aged bitch, and then she would breed bitches on subsequent seasons, and register to other bitches.  She even used a dead dog details as a sire.

And this is all from what is supposed to be a championship breeder.

So fraud goes on all over, and unless statutory dna testing happens for all KC dogs (no dna test = no registration) then it always will.

Nikki x

let alone together!

most bitches living together do come in season together

You see, this amazes me.  Not the fact that the fraud goes on - but that people apparently know about it and yet do nothing! 

If people have strong suspicions that the sire on the pedigree is not the sire in reality then why not report it to the KC?  This happened to my Mother and Sister.  They were told by someone at a show that a bitch they'd bought was not sired by the sire on the paperwork but by a different dog.  So they informed the KC who demanded DNA testing from the breeder.  The fraud wasn't proven but at least they knew the true breeding.  The breeder was pleased because it proved them right and My Mother and Sisiter were pleased because their bitch was bred the way they thought it was.  The only person to come out of it in a bad light was the person (and her cronies) who were spreading the lies and rumours.

I guess what I'm trying to say is - if the people on here who've been saying they know about certain breeders and their unethical practices actually do know, then do something about it!  Otherwise it's all rumour and gossip which could well be untrue.

Debs

Totally agree, if people know or suspect then let the KC deal with it, as simple DNA testing will prove the truth..

Also I don't see the point in such practives in the mainstream proper cnaioen world.

I have never charged more for pups sired by a champion compared to a young untried dog, adn to be hoenst most puppy buyers are impressed with a bit of red in the pedigree even if it is at the end of the pedigree, so that is irrelevant..

> most bitches living together do come in season together

IF only!  Yes I know one bitch in season can bring others in, but unless you have an awful lot of bitches the chances of the "right" bitches coming in at the same time is limited, I think.

> if people know or suspect then let the KC deal with it, as simple DNA testing will prove the truth..

Absoutely agree!  Reading the last few posts, think the probabilities of a lot of these tales being fiction are pretty high, mainly rumour, gossip, general malice and jealousy.  Looking in any BRS it is fairly easy to pick out breeding patterns which are unlikely, and mostly these are from Kennels who do not feature in the show world, to put it politley.  I am not saying that all show breeders are 100% accurate and honest, as in all walk of like there are crooks, but lots of thse stories have to be just that - stories - as to perpetrate some of these completley pointless frauds borders on insanity!

my post wasn't fiction, tales, rumour, gossip or malice.  The breeder I am talking about, her daughter was engaged to my brother for 2 years, they lived together etc etc, this was about 9 years ago.  At the time, I didn't know anything about the KC so wouldn't of known how to go about complaining about it.  All the things in my post were spoken about freely, so I didn't know that it was wrong either (although I had my suspicions).  Its only been since I've had dogs of my own, and know several fantastic breeders of several breeds that I now know, and would also report if I thought it was going on.

I don't know if this particular breeder even still owns dogs, let alone shows them etc, so wouldn't be much point me complaining now.  If she did, and I knew, then I would report her.  Unethical was an understatement were this breeder was concerned!

Nikki

I recently reporter a breeder who bred a bitch under 12 months the whole process took a while to resolve, the outcome was the litter had its KC registration cancelled.

> my post wasn't fiction, tales, rumour, gossip or malice.

Hi Nikki,  All the details in your post were quite clear, and whilst no-one anyway concerned with ethical breeding would want to hear about these practices being perpetrated by a so called "good breeder" , it is easy to see why she was carrying out these frauds - money!  They all sounded very straight forward, and sadly are quite common in the puppy farm fraternity, hopefully much less common in breeders who hope to porduce quality dogs!

However, the theme of various of the posts concerned tales which seem unlikely or pointless.  The dog world is fraught with rumour and scandal mongering, most I hope without any truth behind them.  It occured to me yesterday that one of the reasons I found this thread interesting was that it must have stirred forgotten memories.  15 or 16 years ago my ex-partner and I bred 2 litters of American Cockers, they were our 3rd and 4th litters ever of Yankees I think, we were very much novices.  We used 2 stud dogs belonging to a local breeder/exhibitor and were so proud of the pups!  The litters were born about 2 - 3 weeks apart, and both conained buffs and black pups.  The stud's owners visited and made encouraging noises about them, we took bookings for various pups, nothing out of the ordinary.  Then we noticed an increase in the number of doggy visitors we were getting, lots of people we hardly knew just dropping in for a chat or coffee - what a frienldy bunch, we thought .  Turns out our litters were the current hot gossip on the dog show scene.  It was "well known to everyone" that the pups simply could not have been by the dogs in question!  Impossible for either both or one (depending which version of the story you heard) to have produced buff in those litters!  The tale varied at this point - either we had confused the litters (the pups were 2 - 3 weeks different in ages, big difference when the oldest litter is only 5 or 6 weeks old!), the bitches had been "got" by our resident black American Cocker male
but we were still using the papers from the other stud dogs, or we had paid the dog's owners to give us paperwork, even though our dog had done the mating!  We never found out where the tale originated, the closest we got was finding out that the main distinct themes seemd to depend on if people were friends or not of the stud dogs owners, as one version made them innocent victims, the other co-conspirators!  Years later, and with much more indepth knowledge of the breed, it was easy to trace the colours in the litter - and it turned out that actually genetically it would have been impossible for my boy to produce the buffs to those bitches!  However, we were never too bothered by it all - there was one very good reason why we knew he had not sired the pups - he had been neutered at 5 months old, about a year before the bitches came into season!

It wa just one of those silly stories which got about, and the speed with which it spread was amazing!  No idea why we would have  been though to have done it, all the pups went to pet homes, and I don't suppose the names of the stud dogs would have made any difference at all to the puppy buyers.  Wondered if the stud's owners were so  appalled at the pups that they wanted to disown them, but didn't seem likely.  Had forgotten all about this until thinking about this thread popped it into my mind!

I wonder if this kind of thing is why the KC don't leap inot action as quickly and easily as we would like?  How many times are they alerted to things which turn out to be completely false and unfounded!  Perhaps the dog world is it's own worse enemy in keeping bad practices under control by generating so much tittle-tattle that the real complaints take ages to surface?

Does sound funny in hindsight Gwen, but can't have been pleasant at the time.

Must admit when I had my two litters only four days apart in 2006, both by Norwegian dogs who had common ancestry (grand-sire of one was full brother to sire of the other), that I kept the litters strictly segregated from each other (they could see each other through weld-mesh) to avoid anyone thinking I had mixed them up accidentally.

Funnily enough the one I kept who has a cosmetic fault would have fitted in for type with the other litter more than her own as she is tall and leggy much more like her grandmother and the sire of the other litter.  The rest of her own litter are like both parents very standard for size and neat, but there is no way she could ever be mixed up because of the distinctive cosmetic fault, which made her recogniseable from birth.

There would have been no advantage to me to not present the pups as being by and out of the dogs/bitches they were.  The Mums were mother and daughter both champions.

This post reminds me of when i was looking for a cavalier pup ...Knew a lady who had a litter expected and got on her waiting list....wanted a bitch and the litter only produced one bitch , so the breeders where undecided whether to keep her and let me know straight away that they might be keeping her .. so i decided to look about for another pup... a few enquiries i made were very strange ....they could get me any colour of cav as they were family breeders( was not even interested in colour just sex as i have bitches at home )...... if i wanted Kc it was £50 more than an unregistered when i asked why this was, they told me... this was because it was just a bit of paper only worth paying for if i wanted to show....... thankfully my breeders rang me back and i got my little girl as they had decided not to keep her ( and as i had been on the list from confirmed pregnancy ,they offered me first refusal on her ((sounds bad that ,,, but they could have sold her ten times over ))...and i nearly kissed her down the phone ...lol)
But it is obvious K c fraud goes on ... just ring a few breeders up and it is obvious ....

I think that the majority of us are only too willing to say what we bred out of what.  However good a pairing, nobody is going to get a litter full of show champions.

I have had 2 litters born in January this year.  6 days apart.  Theoretically I could purposely mix up the puppies to suit me.  But anyone who really knows me, knows that I won't ever keep a pup out of a bitch that needed a C-section.  Rosie's pups are being sold as pets, and I have explained in depth to the new owners, my reason for breeding restrictions.  I have even had them sign that they understand why.  If Rosie was too narrow, then her daughters are very high risk for C-sections.  Rosie is being spayed.  Because I don't have enough knowledge to know if this genetic problem can be passed down through the male offspring, the boys are going to pet homes too.  Although another breeder, having seen the best dog, has told me that it is a total waste, selling him for pet. 

The bitch that had a super easy whelping, is exactly what I am aiming for in this breed.  She had two pups, and I'm keeping both.  Why would I want to lie about parentage?  I am only too pleased to be working towards my aim.  Okay, so I won't be breeding again this year, so what I want to achieve is going to take time.  But I don't have a problem with that.  I am totally enjoying my own little efforts to improve my own line, and surely most of us are that way inclined.  Or am I just being naive?

> But it is obvious K c fraud goes on ... just ring a few breeders up and it is obvious

I wouldn't class these kind of people as breeders and I doubt they have any standing within the ethical breeder community, which is why regulars on her so often say check any breeder out with the breed clubs or get a breeder or puppy list from the breed clubs.

Good breeders can and do advertise in places where the puppy farmers do really in an attempt to get people looking in the right direction, but if you are contacting a breeder from an advert check their reputation with breed club sources first.  Yes clubs have politics etc, so even if a good breeder doesn't belong to the club because they have fallen out with someone the club secretary will still be able to vouch for their reputation, and will know who the exploiters of their breeds are too.

I hear what you are saying here Brainless .... but as i have been a lurker on this site for a while ,i knew what they were saying was poppycock.. but some first time buyer , non reader of this site or any other information site would have been taken in ... I got  my first husky because i offered to look after one ( battersea could not take him for two weeks and the owners wifey was going to have him PTS or take him to the police station an pretend he was a stray ... ) Then i looked into buying one and realised a dog needed KC .. so i got one with KC paperwork .. only to realise (even though KC reged , hip and eye scored parents ) i had bought from a farmer ... ( N I reland at the time )They had a litter staight after my dogs litter and even contacted me to tell me so ... just incase i knew of anyone who wanted a pup...  I learn't the hard way but what i was trying to say was it is easy for 1st time buyers to get conned into buying a Kc pup ... cos it seems anyone can breed a Kc dog and bitch and get paperwork to prove it ...

JeanSW... "the boys are going to pet homes too.  Although another breeder, having seen the best dog, has told me that it is a total waste, selling him for pet." 
But would you be willing to let this breeder have the best boy ......
Just a query not an attack or anything like that .....

No I wouldn't.  What if it is hereditary?

Not attacking here ... but if they were breeders surely they should have been able to advise on this (whether hereditory or not)... especially if they were saying it was a waste to sell to pet homes ...
It does seem that there is a divide among dog breeders ... to me if a dog is bred surely it should have good type and temp ,, so what is the diffence if it goes to show or pet home ... beauty is in the eye of the beholder not the judge of the year ...
What would happen if the pet owner decided that they fancied showing ? would you advise against it as they had bought a pet home pup ?
These are just question's i would love to know the answers to ... not solely directed at you JeanSW ... but curiosty and all that ....

if i wanted Kc it was £50 more

this is normal for a lot of unethical breeders- they just want more money!  i dont think however that it has anything to do with fraud?

> so what is the diffence if it goes to show or pet home

As a breeder I think I can explain here.

When I breed a litter it is in order to move my breeding program along trying to breed the best dogs I can.

I obviously want all the pups to go to loving homes where they will be appreciated and lead a full and interesting life.

I also would like to see the efforts of my breeding go on to contribute to the breed and be seen by fellow enthusiasts, a breeder is judged by the quality of the dogs they produce, and this is seen by them being shown.

For a breeder to have some really promising puppy and for it never to be seen (except by it's owners and people in the local park) is a disappointment.

For example I went to a lot of trouble to travel abroad to mate my bitch.  I was lucky and got a lovely litter, but sods law dictated that there were only two bitch pups in the litter.  I had promised a show potential, foundation bitch to a keen new exhibitor, so let them have the most promising girl, and they have done well with her so far.  I kept the other who unfortunately has s cosmetic fault which will prevent her really being a show dog.

I had hoped that at least one of the dog pups would end up being shown and available to be used at stud if he did well, but sadly none of them look like they will be shown.  One was shown twice as a real baby, another owner entered a show but didn't come and has given the idea up, and a third who was going to have a go at showing decided not to bother too.

I am really pleased with the pups homes but disappointed too, in some ways.  The primary aim of breeding should be to improve and maintain the breed, not just to produce puppies.

So when you see an advert saying pick of male/female for show home, this is someone like me who can't keep another pup them selves (I can't keep males for example or already have all the dogs I can keep myself) who feel this pup has the potential to offer something more to the breed than being exclusively someones companion.  As a breeder you are always thinking a couple of generations ahead and where particular bloodlines may fit in and complement the gene pool.

As for what if the owner wanted to show, if the pup had no obvious serious faults, then they would be encouraged.  After all the breeder is picking potential at 8 weeks, some pups fail to reach that potential and others exceed what was there.  Often there is very little difference and a mater of opinion between pups.

It is not uncommon to have two or three in  a litter do really well, an some litters none of the pups are more than typical who will win the odd class, but whose owners still enjoy showing them.  If the breeder has done their job right even the less high flying may have positive virtues to offer the breed and be able to produce something better than themselves.

To be honest the worst looking pup in a well bred litter is likely to be streets ahead as regards conformity to breed standard as the best pup in the litter of a puppy farmer/back Yard breeder, or just someone who mated a pet bitch to a dog around the corner with no knowledge or real justification for the pairing.

It is always great to read this Barbara. I found in our breed it seems to be the opposite. Try and buy a puppy to show. It is near impossible to begin with.  

I think the trimming in my breed plays such a big part in this because even if you sell a really good dog to someone to show if they can't trim it.  People often say teach new owners but this can be very time consuming which a lot of people don't have. 

I am not sure what the answer is really. We could really do with some exhibitors north of the border as there are so so few now.

Well i think it is fraud ... what do they do with the KC paperwork ,if they can offer any sex of any colour then i think it is a little fraudulent.... but thats just me and my thoughts ...
Brainless i understand all that about wanting your dog to be out there and be seen and i am sure you do not have to advertise often for a show home , as you always come across as a responsible breeder full of care , knowledge and understanding ... but not every puppy buyer has the advantage of reading on here or does read after buying the pup ... i bet there have been many a thread on here with new puppy owners thinking they have bought a cracking dog just cos it has papers ....(not all papers mean a decent dog and maybe not even the actuall breeding )

> Well i think it is fraud

> what do they do with the KC paperwork ,if they can offer any sex of any colour

It's getting a little hard to keep track of this thread, which bit are you referring to please, shusky?

I replied to sara1bee when i wrote the comment ... sorry

Did anyone read into days Dog world about a couple of puppy farmers have been jailed for printing off their own fake copies of K.C registration papers?

> What would happen if the pet owner decided that they fancied showing ? would you advise against it as they had bought a pet home pup ?

There have been so many issue brought up here, and obvioulsy lots of people are unclear on points of registrations.    First ,dealing with the above point - you used to be able to endorse the registration "not for showing" but that option is no longer available.  We put in our puppy contracts  if pups are sold as pets or with show potential.  Always used to retain registrations for pet only pups, which did not give the opportunity for the new owner to register them in their names, but if you are a member of the ABS you can't do that.  For most breeders who are serious about showing, it is important to have only high quality dogs conforming to the breed standard.  The pups sold as pets may have what seem totally insignificant ( or eve invisible) faults to the pet owner, but ones that would be a severe embarrassment to the breeder if they were to be shown - for instance, mismarked coats, incorrect bites, bad tailsets, poor movement, these are things which can occur in the best bred litters, don't make an ounce of difference to the pups being great pets, but mean they should not be shown. It is also a waste of the new owners money to enter these dogs, as they will be unplaced under any decent judge, if someone wants to show they need to find a breeder who is willing to help them get a good show prospect puppy, and help them with training, presentations, handling etc, etc.

Next, confusion about potentially fraudulent behaviour and simply  poor practice.  The breeder offering to register a pup for an additonal fee is not doing anything fradulent, if they are registering with all details correct, however it is a sure sign of a less than adequate breeder.

>The breeder offering to register a pup for an additonal fee is not doing anything fradulent, if they are registering with all details correct,

And as long as they don't charge more than the registration fee (is it £12 still?).

> We could really do with some exhibitors north of the border as there are so so few now.

That is why I let my better bitch pup go to the couple in Scotland.  We have a Scottish breed club as it used to be a hotbed of the breed, but there were no established breeders left in Scotland, and only one or two litters bred by newcomers in the last year or two.

It is no wonder really there are only 4 sets of CC's in Scotland Hound Association of Scotland in April, SKC in May, Border Union in June? and the Scottish club show in October.

The numbers don't justify more tickets and the entry is primarily made up of English and Welsh exhibits, but it doesn't encourage any new person to show if they aren't prepared to make very long journeys to England.

One new owner who is breeding their first litter has to travel further to to Kelso than most of the English exhibitors.

> but if they were breeders surely they should have been able to advise on this (whether hereditory or not)...

I don't need them to advise on this.  My mother had awful feet - which I inherited.  Fortunately my sister inherited gran's, which were worse, so guess I should be grateful.  What I'm saying is, any pup in a litter can pass genes down the line.  So, shusky1 I am not prepared to risk being slated later if this happens.  Anyway, I never, ever go back on my word.  The pup had been promised to someone, as a pet.  It was never for sale to a breeder, at any point.  If the pet owner wanted to show him, I have no problem with that at all.  However, your debate is a different topic to this post entirely.

And as long as they don't charge more than the registration fee (is it £12 still?).

JG it is not fraudulent to charge extra even at £200 more.   breeders can charge what the like.      It is maybe not ethical to do these types of things BUT is is definately NOT fraudulent.

The only way legally it could be deemed fraudulent is if the person sold the puppy then when the new buyer asked for registration , the breeder then said it actually costs £50 to register a pup and took the funds based on this claim.

Prior to a sale the breeder can " advertise" the puppy at any price they like.  Remember in the eyes of the law the purchaser makes the "offer" the seller accepts.  The buyer didn't have to pay the money.

There have been so many issue brought up here, and obvioulsy lots of people are unclear on points of registrations.    First ,dealing with the above point - you used to be able to endorse the registration "not for showing" but that option is no longer available.  We put in our puppy contracts  if pups are sold as pets or with show potential.  Always used to retain registrations for pet only pups, which did not give the opportunity for the new owner to register them in their names, but if you are a member of the ABS you can't do that.

Gwen that would mean that a new comer who happened to buy a pet and did not at that time want to show would not be able to show or breed on.
I brought my first labrador 11 years ago as a pet. I then took her along to a few fun shows at 15 mths of age and won best in show. I then asked the breeder about an open show and we went along to one. We won BOB and G2. Her next few shows she won BOB and even a RBIS. Her breeder was at the shows we went too and was very pleased with her awards. She had actually not kept anything from the litter as she thought they weren't good enough. Next the champ shows and she qualified at her first show and was never placed lower than 3rd at any champ show. I later bred a litter from her that produced 2 1st prize champ show winners. Her second litter produced the same. Those kids have gone on to produce their own progeny who win well not ownly for me but for other breeders too.
I understand that that is not always going to be the case and alot of pet quality puppies could not do that. I brought my first labrador from a breeder who lived 10 minutes from me but had years of experience. I can see your point but if my breeder had thought along the lines of pet quality so can't be shown and bred from I wouldn't be where I am now.