Tuesday, 17 December 2013

The Discredited Breeder Scheme - a Kennel Club disgrace

In 2004, the Kennel Club launched its Accredited Breeder Scheme, promising a quality assurance scheme that would take the guesswork out of buying a happy, healthy puppy.

The Scheme - now the Assured Breeder Scheme - has been plagued by stories of accredited status being given to puppy farmers... of health-test demands being inadequate... of setting the bar so low that the crappiest breeder can join.

But over and over again in the past 10 years, the Kennel Club has reassured us that it's doing all it can to ensure the integrity of the Scheme -  via laying down minimum standards, checking breeder records - and, critically, through physical inspections done by a network of regional breed assessors.

And although the suspicion has always been that the KC is accrediting a huge number of breeders without inspecting them, it's been hard to check as the KC hasn't released detailed information.

In 2011, the KC assured me that "it is their intention to inspect every new breeder at the point of entry to the scheme". They said the same to me a week ago. Every impression has been given that it is well on the way to achieving this - but no way of checking because inspection data has not been made public.

In January 2013, though, the scheme became accredited by UKAS and UKAS  demanded that the KC lists its breeder inspections. So it is now possible to check.

And a Pedigree Dogs Exposed audit of the scheme reveals the shocking truth.

According to the information available on the KC website:
• the Kennel Club has admitted 1058 members into the scheme in 2013 - and inspected just 39 of them (3.7%) 
• hundreds of puppies are currently being advertised on the KC Puppy Finder, bred by breeders awarded the "Accredited" stamp who have never been inspected. 
• 90% of the new ABS breeders who have previously registered 5 or more litters with the Kennel Club have not been inspected (this despite KC assurances that volume breeders are a priority).
Here is our audit for the Top 20 breeds  - which comprise about half of all ABS breeders.


Our audit for every KC breed is available on request - please email jem[at]pedigreedogsexposed.com

 It shows that so far in 2013:
• of the 7844 assuredd breeders listed, only 287 have been inspected in 2013 - 3.6% (despite the KC saying its aim is to inspect all breeders at least once every three years)
• half of all breeds have not been inspected at all (97 of the 199 breeds that have ABS breeders)
• 96% per cent of all new ABS breeders have not been inspected (only 39 of 1058) 
The KC's Bill Lambert maintains that they will have done 800 inspections this year by Christmas. He also says that there can be 200-300 in process at any one time and that breeders are given up to 60 days to provide all the paperwork/make improvements.

From that we can assume that the 287 inspections listed on the KC website are correct for the first three quarters of 2013.

Even if we are generous and assume that there are 300 inspections in process (although that is way over the pro rata rate), it still doesn't get anywhere near the 800 inspections claimed.

(I have asked the KC for an explanation and will add/edit when I get it.)

So where does this leave the Kennel Club?

You tell me.

PS: if, like me, you feel that UKAS should never have accredited such a scheme, you can complain by writing to: customerfeedback@ukas.com
-------------------

Many thanks to Nicola, Georgina, Corina and Hermina for their help in compiling these figures.

46 comments:

  1. I am in no way surprised. There are several ABS Whippet breeders I wouldn't touch if they were the last people breeding, and I warn everybody away from them. (There's one outstanding ABS breeder I know of off the top of my head, but she's been breeding so long, she doesn't need the accreditation).

    When does something like this become fraud, and the KC can be sued?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now, Fran in response to your last paragraph. But if you know of whippet breeders who are failing, have you complained to a welfare society outside of the KC? Warning people away from them is pointless because the dogs are still suffering, the puppies are still being bred and the money is still rolling in. Someone else pointed out that longevity in a breed does not automatically equal good animal husbandry, and I think we are all learning fast that from politicians, to bankers, to societies they are seriously found wanting despite our belief that they are beyond reproach, honest, true and exemplary.

      Delete
    2. really ? money "rolling in" from breeding Whippets? My sister has two.. She paid 300 dollars for one and 500 for the other.. wow those breeders must be rolling in dough.. funny thing both breeders have full time jobs to support their hobby..The ABS is a good program.

      Delete
    3. Anon 1909, dogs are a hobby they shouldn't be self financing and if the owners of the whippets you refer to are working full time I do hope there is adequate provision for the welfare of those dogs during those long hours on their own. "Rolling in" was maybe an over dramatization on my part, it was just to point out that dogs are still being bred from a possible suspect source and those puppies are being sold for money. In principle the ABS is an excellent idea, in practice it is found grossly wanting and inadequate, a nonsense. Have a look at the stats, they are very clear.

      Delete
    4. I will not join the ABS because i feel it is a perfect tool for just the sort of breeder the KC say they are trying to stop. I breed maybe once every 2 or 3 years, I have people waiting, and dont usually have any puppies to sell, so i dont need to be a member of this farce. Not only do they let puppy farmers join, but you dont even have to own a dog!!! how stupid is that!. I wasent wild about your program, it was very unbalanced, and one sided, there are good breeders out there, and people who try to breed healthy fit pedigree dogs, you only showed the down side, and the result is that alot of people now breed ooddll doodlle every thing, charge a fortune for the mongrel pups,and the public, frightend by all the negative press the pedigree dog got after your program,will pay it, believing they are getting a healthy dog, when it just isent the case. There are no rescues for these cross breeds, no clubs to mop them up, and the people who breed them breed them for money, and money alone. However, I do agree some breeds need sorting, and a lot of breeders need stopping. The KC has its umberella up, as always, and the ABS is actually a help to all that is wrong with dog breeding.

      Delete
    5. Georgina, breeding dogs with serious health problems is not against the law, especially when those health problems are not tested for in the breed (because they were previously unheard of).

      There's a world of difference between doing your utmost to prevent problems arising and... breeding from affected stock.

      Delete
  2. Also, breed clubs are not sufficiently impartial to be doing inspections. If a person is high-up in the breed club (i.e. been in the breed 40-years), then it would take a very brave person indeed to expose them. I'm sure there are many such breeders that really shouldn't be breeding, and don't treat their dogs with kindness and respect, but they will not get removed. Either because they're too high up in the breed club, or have friends in high places.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is such a good point. It's like the banks regulating themselves!
      Impartiality is key to effective regulation.

      It's a spectacular failure by the KC.

      Delete
  3. I think many people are guilty of assuming that because "an entity" exists which is prepared to lend its name as a stamp of approval for its membership, therefore said entity must be credible and trustworthy. In this case, the entity is the KC.

    Realise though that in the case of the animal fancies, their federations/governing bodies are hardly the Bank of England when it comes to trustworthiness. Unlike proper listed companies, they don't have a watchdog keeping a beady eye on them at all, they don't have properly constituted boards of directors accountable for performance and they don't have shareholders demanding return on investment. In fact, the KC in England, the AKC and the CFA in the US, SACC, CFSA, KUSA in South Africa (and all the rest of the fancies worldwide) are merely bodies which are set up and run by the selfsame breeders who spend all their time breeding and showing animals for the next award - and all governed by the excesses of type dictated by the breed standard.

    I'd not be looking overly much for an independent audit committee report from any of these bodies, so when they blithely assert that chalk is cheese or black is white, we might be a little circumspect before assuming all is hunky dory in the state of Denmark (metaphorically speaking).

    And when one recalls that the sole purpose of these registries is to perpetuate their own existence, predicated on a fee income flow from new animal registrations, changes of ownership, stud fees & etc, it's hardly surprising just about anything goes. I recall reading a business plan from the GCCF (Cat fancy UK), stating that 80% of fee income is generated from new registrations, so these were the “life blood” of the organisation… I'd suggest it's high time some proper independently adjudicated standards and measures are put in place by external inspectorates, primarily focused on animal welfare.

    Let's see who is truly interested first and foremost in the health and welfare of the animals, rather than making a name for themselves and selling a bunch of high priced "merchandise" ?

    I suspect if the KC truly was interested in getting its house in order, it wouldn't be dragging its heels w.r.t the recommendations from the advisory board, and PDE wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place.

    So no - I'm not surprised in the least. But kudos to the UK - you're streets ahead of South Africa when it comes to awareness of the problem....

    ReplyDelete
  4. One of the major problems with the ABS is that if and when they are inspected they are given notice of up to three weeks that there will be an inspection. I have known an AB who was given this notice and you would not have recognised the place by the time the inspection took place. Another AB was pulled up because she did not keep a diary but write it on a calendar, which is her diary. Physical checks should be carried out un-announced and then the true picture can be seen and does not allow for massive clear ups just to pass muster. The whole thing is an absolute disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ok, so how many ABs have been dismissed from this scheme because of failure to comply? Maybe the KC would like to reveal these stats. We know there is one, or maybe possibly not!? It makes a howling nonsense of UKAS, they need to distance themselves and remove the KC as damage limitation and protect their reputation as a professional body. Ironically, today the local paper has done an editorial on "Puppy Dealers trading in misery" and inevitably the KC logo pops up with their advice, and ok, you are one step ahead of me and I quote "Always go to a reliable and reputable Kennel Club Assured Breeder. There are currently 6,500 active members of the scheme". Really? I don't think so but I howl in protest for the really good breeders who love their dogs and in reality membership of this scheme has altered nothing for them in the care of their dogs. This is a shambolic travesty for them and if I were one of them I would demand my £10 annual fee returned for how ever long I had subscribed. Misrepresentation rings in my head and because there is a lot of space in my head it is echoing loudly. I will definitely be adding my name to the UKAS as a complainant.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I had an AB inspection in April of this year. I asked for it in March as had been a member for nine years but did not breed sufficient puppies to warrant an automatic inspection prior to accredited status (3 litters per year). The inspection was extremely thorough and there was no problem with my dogs' obvious health and welfare, my record keeping (computerised or on paper equally acceptable), their health tests (current and passed) and the state of my facilities. Photos were taken of my kennels, inside dog rooms & storage, runs, access and my exercise paddock and gardens. Although an occasional breeder, I had checked with the demands of my local council and do not have sufficient numbers of dogs to be licensed or inspected. Most of us would be perfectly happy to have an inspector calling without notice but, of course, we might be at the supermarket or even walking our dogs (yes, we do that too as they are also our pets). Do not forget that the KC are also inspecting the likes of me alongside those who have recently signed up as members and, instead of knocking the ABS, give it the credit it deserves for introducing a system of checks where before there was none.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How about 2014 you GET A LIFE! and stop trying to muck rake, if the press and TV production industry was looked at closer they would see the sewer of lies, mal practice and lies, and you are a fair reflection of all those.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact is that Ms Harrison is not taken seriously save by her few supporters. Isn't it true Ms Harrison that the Beeb refused your making of Pedigree Cats Exposed.

      Delete
  8. I joined with my 'stud dogs' in 2012 because I was already doing more than the scheme asked for in terms of supporting bitch owners, health testing, stud contracts etc and because I hoped to be able to steer the scheme from within. It's aims are laudable and the scheme itself is not rubbish BUT it is always going to struggle to inspect every breeder and some people will always find a way round the rules and to make a scheme for improving dog welfare a money spinning game for themselves.
    I gain nothing from being and ABS member; my dogs are used once or twice a year by people who don't know or care what the ABS is but use my dogs because they like them and because of the backup I offer them.
    I was visited before gaining my status and found the process thorough and interesting and I made many suggestions! One of which was to turn the scheme on it's head so non-ABS breeders paid more to register pups thereby paying for more inspections AND pushing more people into the scheme.
    I do hope that this awful affair won't push buyers AWAY from ABS members in the way that PDE pushed them away from KC dogs to puppy farmed designer mongrels with more health and behaviour issues than you can shake a stick at (and registrations in my practice show it has), because there are some superb ABS breeders out there...that said, the motto remains, 'buyer beware'.
    VP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could not have said it better. A very good post to group that wold prefer that no one breed any dogs except those that they approve of and of course the author runs a rescue and owns mixed breeds so what does she care about pure bred dogs except for the notoriety it brings her? Nothing.

      Delete
    2. No bestuvall. You could not have 'said it better'. That's because you are barely articulate and sensible on here at the best of times!

      There is a mentality here that is intrinsically warped. Get over the fact that whether the dogs are purebred, mixed breed or cross breed it is irrelevant! The KC pledge that they care about the welfare of ALL dogs regardless of breeding. Check the UKKC web page and read their remit. It's the welfare of sentient beings, regardless of their pedigree or otherwise that is the issue here.

      I am in no doubt that the vast majority of dog breeders love what they do and place the dog's welfare at the heart of their practice. However, the ABS scheme should be a robust system with processes in place to easily identify the people who don't. As it stands, it's nothing more than a loss leader.

      Delete
    3. The fact is they misuse the word Assured. Look it up in the dictionary and I think with the figures that are coming out the use of the word Assured with this scheme is breaching the trades description act, especially as in videos and literature they imply all breeders are inspected.
      The fact that a few good breeders have registered on the scheme is no defence for the KC. You are going to get bad slip through the net in any thing you do but when you don't even bother to cast the net and its just one big hole you have no right to call it an Assured scheme. The scheme has little preventative policing, it only has policing when something goes wrong (andif it gets reported to them.
      Breeders and show exhibitors should not be part of the policing of themselves, perhaps thay should up the fee substantially, which I have suggested and farm out inspections to the RSPCA or Dogs trust etc. Now that would be interesting.

      Delete
    4. Puppy farmers and bad breeders use false advertising and lies to mislead the puppy buying public. The KC are doing exactly the same and the public at large have a right to know. If this "awful affair," in other words TRUTH, puts buyers off so be it. There is no one to blame but the KC themselves.

      Delete
    5. It should also be noted that this only applies to breeds the KC recognises, my wife breeds an FCI recognised breed, although not KC recognised and because she cares about what she does, meets and in many parts exceeds the requirements of the ABS. Since the breed is not recognised, she cannot be a member of the scheme. She must be a bad breeder then?

      Delete
  9. The school I work in had an Ofsted check recently. The school received notification from Ofsted 24hrs before they arrived !

    ReplyDelete
  10. Spot checks would be a great idea....but I don't sit at home with my dogs all day so the inspectors would frequently be disappointed. Then again... *bring bring* "Hello" "Hello, it's the KC ABS. Can we pop round in an hour?" "Yes but I'll be in a wood working two of my dogs and the other has gone to work with my husband." At least they'd see them being 'fit for function'!
    Inspections are expensive, even if the inspectors are volunteers (they need training, appraisal and expenses). Should ABS members foot the bill, making following best practice the expensive option for breeders and buyers OR should the KC subsidise inspections from non ABS registrations fees OR should another way be found to fund inspections? Ideas?
    VP

    ReplyDelete
  11. Welcome to the tech era. Some private breeders put a web cam above the litter, so that they can watch their puppies 24/7 even when they aren't home. Other breeders leave their web cam site open so that anyone who has asked about a puppy knows where to go to watch the litter that they are interested in. Sometimes, the breeder wears a hat when she is in with the mother dog and litter, since the camera is in the ceiling, you only see the tops of people's heads.

    Surely, the kc isn't going to be outdone by a 12 year old with a web cam?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great post!
      Welcome to the 21st Century you dinosaurs!

      A new personal standard that all potential puppy buyers should insist on.
      PuppyCam.

      Delete
  12. I agree that this is a travesty of a program, but at least they're inspecting 3%. I'm an American, and the AKC's similar program--"Breeder of Merit"--doesn't require any inspections, ever. Here are the only requirements (http://www.akc.org/breederofmerit/requirements.cfm).

    * History of at least 5 years involvement with AKC events.
    * Earned Conformation, Performance or Companion event titles on a minimum of 4 dogs they bred/co-bred.
    * Member of an AKC club.
    * Certifies that applicable health screens are performed on your breeding stock as recommended by the Parent Club.
    *Demonstrates a commitment to ensuring 100% of the puppies produced are AKC registered.

    No actual proof of health testing is required. You just list on the application what tests you perform (which you could make up out of thin air). I think the main point here is that you "promise" to AKC to make them even more money by registering all puppies.

    Anyway, no inspections at all.

    I used to live in Missouri, the infamous "puppy mill state," where the Dept. of Agriculture supports puppy millers as any other farmer. When I lived there, there were 1250 licensed and 1250 unlicensed puppy mills, with an average population of 150-200 breeding dogs. And to inspect all of these, there were three part-time staff from the Dept. of Agriculture... A tiny fraction got inspected once every 10 years. If there were findings, such as dead dogs in kennels, starving puppies, mange, etc., the puppy mills have until the next inspection (in 10 years... or never) to correct the issue. Horrible!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi SKY,

    I wouldn't even know where to begin to fix up the AKC. They had the LUA Dalmatians right in the palms of their hands! Then it took them over 30 years just to get back to where they were. And, it was almost redundant because once the British KC accepted the LUA Dalmatian, American breeders could go around the AKC by importing LUA Dalmatians with acceptable papers from the United Kingdom.

    How embarrassing for America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought the United Kennel Club was the creator of the LUA Dalmatians? Maybe I'm losing it, but I thought at one time the American Dalmatian club was against the idea of introducing the LUA in their lines.

      Delete
    2. Hi Anon 306,

      LUA Dalmatians were created by one man, Robert Schiable. From what I understand, the AKC accepted them, but then under pressure from the Dalmatian club, cancelled the papers on the LUA Dalmatians.

      The United Kennel Club accepted them. The UKC is about as old as the AKC, and both are American clubs. The UKC has mostly focused on events like hunting with dogs, allowing shows only for dogs who were entered in a hunt the day of the show. I understand that they are having some more typical shows now.

      The UK KC in Britain accepted the LUA Dalmatians just a couple of years ago, and the AKC after that. I forget the exact numbers, but it wasn't a landslide vote in the Dalmatian Club of America. What was it? 45%-55%?? Something like that. There are still Dalmatian breeders who don't want to have LUA Dalmatians.

      The term "LUA" is sometimes called "NUA" because they are really Dalmatians with normal uric acid, it is only called "low" because the Dalmatian breed has a mutated gene for high uric acid. But the "LUA" is popular, if less technically correct.

      Delete
  14. Anyone remember the Dogs - A healthy future video. Interesting at 23:38

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Anon 2128,

    I might be a tad uncomfortable with a puppy cam running next to my bed, over a litter, while I was home, but that might be the best future answer.

    No club can do the inspections. Too much driving, too much time wasted. And having a strange breeder, from a club, walk around your house inspecting it, is an invasion of privacy, especially unannounced visits from strangers looking you over.

    In comparison, a puppy cam might be less invasive, and it is always up to date.

    Also it is part of a larger shift in culture. We use to have people whose job was "data entry", they typed words into computers from forms filled out in pencil. Now people enter their own data. Like pumping your own gas/petrol, you get use to doing it yourself.

    A person who wants a puppy would probably be better off watching a litter live on the web, seeing how much it poops and barks, so they know what to expect if they decide to buy a puppy. And would be in a better position to choose a puppy.

    Unfortunately for some (dinosaurs), it is not the old brick and mortar types who have welcomed the new technology. But what could possible assure a person looking for a puppy more than getting to see the puppy's whole life?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Big Brother Is Watching You" - 1984

      Er, no thanks. I, as much as anyone, want to see an end to animal suffering, but not at the expense of person freedom.

      This is the problem when society shifts from personal accountability, to a nannying state - people never develop the ability to be self-responsible.

      Delete
    2. Hi Fran,

      I wouldn't want a web cam watching me either. But people who work often leave a web cam over their puppies, and (more creepy, but perhaps understandable) over their children and nanny. Which just begs the question of when does the parent quit spying on their own home and children? When the children are 6? When the youngest is 10? When the oldest/youngest is 18? When the children are 45? 75?

      And what of children who spy on their parents?

      People who spy on their neighbors? Their employees? Their guests?

      A web cam over puppies doesn't seem so bad.

      And if it were just for those who wanted to be "assured breeders" and they chose the camera and put it up themselves over each litter, then it would be okay.

      People could choose. Breeders would choose to join and put a public cam over puppies from the first week until sold, or just not join the assured scheme. (Hint, if you use a public cam, put another private one nearby in case of thieves because they will know where the public cam is).

      And people shopping for a puppy could look at the club website, and choose if they wanted to login and view assured breeder puppy cams, or do it the old way by phone and visit without prior views.

      Wikipedia has a page on a Shiba Inu puppy cam that has been running in San Franscico USA for 5 litters. They are common enough.

      Delete
    3. It's hardly Big Brother. It's an example of putting technology to good use. If you live in the UK, we have more CCTV cameras per square mile than just about anywhere!
      Good idea! But each to their own....

      Delete
  16. In time, with the correct training and care, your puppy or dog will hopefully become a well-adjusted adult who is a pleasure to own and a credit to you and the dog society at large.

    ReplyDelete
  17. FACT pde has caused to be created more unhealthy untested badly reared puppies that the vets are now seeing in droves and rescue centres are flooded with, than the caring breeders of pure bred have ever produced. Get a life and your facts right. If the K.C. hasn't got it right yet at least its trying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly I think you may be incorrect anon 0924. Why? Because they have implemented a scheme without thinking through the whole picture. As a revenue raising scheme it is excellent, as a functioning "Assured" project it is shambolic. Look up the meaning of assured and you will understand why they should never have used that word. The findings of this exercise reveal that using that word, assured, puts them in a very questionable position from all view points and none of those view points are winners because of the ill thought out implementation. The good breeders are fine, they never needed a certificate in the first place, the bad breeders have just used, like the KC, a way of charging more for puppies so in effect the receipt of money was always the true aim, not the welfare of the dogs. Your statement is somewhat explosive and deflamatory and I suspect you are lucky that PDE is here because it loves dogs and will not stop until it sees justice, honesty and good practice. Yes the KC is trying very hard indeed to raise revenue and yes it is trying, and very worrying, with it's unprofessional conduct. Someone raised the point that it is expensive to visit and inspect the scheme, and?, they are, I believe in the process of selling property for £12M and intend to spend £4m on new premises. Why so much money, because I am certain that they could purchase a small farm, centrally located, for considerably less and what of the remaining £8M and the art and effects? As previously stated I can't remember, apart from the pension scheme, how it was to be distributed/invested and would welcome a reminder. Oh yes, the KC is definitely trying.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 09:24 You say FACT then bring your facts to the table, please let us see ?
      The KC are making you think they are trying. Rhetoric don't get a lot done, as we are seeing now the fruits of just rhetoric by the KC and that is exactly what the ABS is, just rhetoric, its the doing that gets things done.
      KC needs to stop looking at the mountain.

      Delete
    3. You should have written "FACT: The denial by those criticized by the program PDE that there was and is a problem has caused..."

      That denial is still the set mentality it appears.

      Delete
  18. Ms Harrison - quick to criticise and dramatise as always but we don't hear much in the way of constructive, credible alternatives from her do we? There may be faults in the ABS scheme, such as the apparent ease of gaining membership, but given support and backing they can be ironed out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no need for anyone to provide an alternative...the KC could just you know....actually perform the 800 inspections it says it planned to do this year. That would go a long way towards ironing out the issues that were pointed out here.

      Delete
  19. Must apologise for dyslexic typing in my previous post on the first blog on this subject.

    I just wanted to point out re the 5 litters or more experience accolade.

    The impression is given that this is volume breeding, when it actually refers to someone having bred more than five litters EVER, not in any specified period.

    Volume breeders are considered by the kennel club to be those who breed FIVE OR MORE litters in a year, and therefore required to be licensed.

    I have the five litters or more accolade having been breeding for nearly 20 years averaging a litter a year. Don't think I'd cope with the work of more than one litter (or rarely two within the space of a year), and all that goes with supporting the new owners.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So here we are, the "official" letter has now arrived from the KC advising us that if we wnat to register a litter as "Assured" breeders from Jan 1st 2014 to contact the KC to arrange a visit from an assessor. It then goes on with plenty of rhetoric about how how the KC is proud to be the only organisation accredited by UKAS to certify dog breeders, yaddah yaddah yaddah, blah blah blah, big yourself up KC!!

    It then explains that the cost, to the KC, of carrying out this visit and maintaining a membership over a 3 year period is in excess of £200 but, they will continue to subsidise membership fees as part of their commitment to improving dog health and welfare. What's this "continue" bit? At no point previously have I ever been advised that my membership fee was being subsidised in any way?

    It then explains that as an existing member I have two options open to me:-
    1. Annual Full Membership. The cost of this for 2014 will rise from £10 to £30 and then increase incrementally over the next 2 years to £45 in 2015 and £60 in 2016. Are they mad? An increase of 200% in 1 year followed by a total increase of 500% over 3 years? Do the KC have the slightest inkling of the term "shooting yourself in the foot".
    2. Annual Associate Membership. Exclusively offered to existing members who breed "infrequently". Annual Fee will be just £12 but I would need to pay an inspection fee of £167 when I decide to breed and register a litter under the ABS. This assessment will last 3 years if successful. Again, do the KC have no idea just how badly most peoples budgets are stretched?

    What part of this letter is supposed to inspire me to gain UKAS accreditation for my ABS membership.

    Nuts to it, let the ABS membership lapse and continue to register litters without it. We know we're exceeding the ABS specifications for our breeding practices and our puppy buyers can also see this when they visit. They are welcome to view the whole house, all our dogs, eat dinner with us, watch while we "do our thing" with our pack and encouraged to join in an participate in our ethic. We ask everyone who contacts us to "not look for a puppy but find a breeder" and I for one cannot see that this UKAS accreditation will make one iota of difference to the majority of puppy buyers who are really not interested in anything other than the fluffy bundle they see.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The problem is you have vested interests that run the clubs then selecting what criteria they want in – usually to their breeding requirements. The standards and requirements should be designed by vets and an organisation such as AHT. You have people that are on the breed committees/ A list judges that are on health committees and are then breeding with bitches who’s ages are about 7 months apart – repeat mating or not registering pups as they come from an illegal mating ie mother/son.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi i am Aly im new on here and am looking for some advice please, i have just bought my lovley frenchie girl 3 weeks ago, i boight her from Harrogate, whe i went to get her, the breeder gave me a bag of food which i was told she was nothing else,no pork, no treats, no scraps, only this food which i have never heard of, nor has my vet nor my local pets at home, nor my local pet shop,anyway after we git home i put the pup outside in our garden to go to the loo after our drive home, and noticed that she had very runny poo,which was a light amber colour,she had apparently been fed at 1 0clock, and was told by the breeder that she was never fed after 4pm, so i got her bag of food out of the puppy pack and noticed it was adult working dried food, well excuse me but isnt that like giving a new born baby a roast dinner?, as it was saturday i had her booked into the vet on monday morning and went first thing, the vet tld me that it was tottally the wrong food for a puppy and advised me to put her on a good quality puppy food, which i did, obviously she had diarrhea due to this but the vet assured me it would pass in a few days and at least she was now getting the correct nutrients a puppy should have,biy it didnt get better in a few days it got worse, she was passing very loos poo very light in colour, i went back the vet and was told it might be because she had left her litter, and had her food changed and to give her a day or so as she seemed really bright and very playful,,i tried to ring the breeder to let her know the situation but was unable to reach her so i left her a message, she never got back to me, the puppy has got still got really bad diarrhea worse that before and shes been on the new food for 2 weeks and that is all she has , she does not even have a biscuit, i rand the breeder today and was horrified, i was told in no uncertain circimstances that they did not want to know, she said my vet was trying to rip me off,thats what they do Aly she said, she said that the pup had been vet checked 3 times and was fine, she put her partner on the fone and he said.."if i sell you a car that takes petrol, and you go to the nearest gas station and put deisel in, that your own fault, you changed the food and you were told not too, i dont know what you have done to the pup, they didnt even ask me if she was ok, i said well ill see what the tests say but if they tell me that she has something wrong that is unfixable and she has to be on medication forever, well id would like my money back because i saved for 2 and a half years to buy my puppy, ive always wanted one and waited till my kids where old enough so i could really look ater her and so could thay,it cost me a lot of money and for that amount you expect to get a healty dog,i would not give that pup back to her now for anything, she would only sell it on and she would proberly get passed around from pillow to post, so with the help of my vet i will get her better (i hope).. its just maddening to think that a breeder could be like that,, also,, thats not all,, a few days after i git her i was just about to fill in the kc reg form and noticed it was marked down as fawn, whe i asked about this, she said oh you cant reg blue, blue fawn or blue pied you have to say they are fawn,also the breeder down on the form is a complety differnt person and address, whn i asked herabout it she sai, thats because i can only have so many dogs and so many litters so i have them in other houses with mates, what a crook...what should i do?


    alyjane

    Posts: 1
    Join date: 2014-07-14

    View user profile Send private message

    p.s she has an add on pets 4 homes right now saying she has been breeding for 6 years and has 5 to 6 litters a year.. she told me she gets 4 litters out of a bitch and then gets rid of it,,, she said she makes 20 to 30 k a litter... this person is not a bog breeder she is a money brabber and a rip off and its not fair to take 3,500 of someone for a sick puppy then just tell you its your fault why there sick.. despite the fact what my vet said.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have supplied the KC with irrefutable evidence regarding a Labrador Breeder in Somerset. I even gave them the false pedigree. Our vets did a report regarding the young dog we had into rescue which sadly had to be pts because as our vet stated his skeleton was as if it had been in a car crash and put back together all wrong. All the evidence was supplied to the right person at the KC who did nothing whatsoever about it. The woman continues to breed litter after litter, supplies false pedigrees, charges a fortunate and the dogs are in appalling conditions. She still holds her accreditation - why she is a puppy farmer out and out. Sorry it proves yet again this is the old boys club raking in the money.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Please feel free to contact me privately with this info.

    ReplyDelete