KC registered?

[Bexx]

So for the first time in 15 years, 3 years after my lovely old lab passed away, I am finding myself in the position to offer a new home to a lovely pup. I've been looking through adverts today for puppies for sale and some are coming up saying not KC registered. How important is it to make sure your puppy is KC registered? Some breeders have given a reason that they only want the puppies sold as pets, is this valid? Or is it more likely they are trying to hide something?

 

[CorvusCorax]

Whilst there is room for massive improvement in all kennel clubs, KC registration gives slightly more assurance that the mother of the litter is not too young, too old, or overbred, as the litter would not be able to be registered otherwise.
Also slightly more likely that the parents will have been health tested (BVA HD/ED etc).
It gives some form of traceability/a paper trail in terms of health/heritage, so that if your dog has an issue, you have more to help your research than Bob up the road thinking that it was Betsy x Bruce...or was it Billy...maybe they were all close relations....who knows, no one wrote it down and there's no way of proving which dog was which.
You can also research the lines of your new puppy before you buy it, if the parents are registered/have a pedigree.

The best thing would be if the kennel clubs made DNA testing for proof of identity and health testing with good scores a requirement for registration of puppies, rather than an advisory, then it would be a true 'registry'.

 

[Clodagh]

Whilst there is room for massive improvement in all kennel clubs, KC registration gives slightly more assurance that the mother of the litter is not too young, too old, or overbred, as the litter would not be able to be registered otherwise.
Also slightly more likely that the parents will have been health tested (BVA HD/ED etc).
It gives some form of traceability/a paper trail in terms of health/heritage, so that if your dog has an issue, you have more to help your research than Bob up the road thinking that it was Betsy x Bruce...or was it Billy...maybe they were all close relations....who knows, no one wrote it down and there's no way of proving which dog was which.
You can also research the lines of your new puppy before you buy it, if the parents are registered/have a pedigree.

The best thing would be if the kennel clubs made DNA testing for proof of identity and health testing with good scores a requirement for registration of puppies, rather than an advisory, then it would be a true 'registry'.

Although of course you could just pretend another bitch had the litter, or it was sired by someone else.
I would still not buy a non KC reg pedigree, a mongrel you pays your money and take your chance but for a pure bred I want papers. Not KCing them so they can only go as pets doesn't actually prevent pregnancies!

 

[CorvusCorax]

That's why I said DNA would improve things even more

 

[Equi]

If the pups are the correct age, have been wormed and fed good quality food and have seen a vet then kc reg wouldn’t be too priority if you don’t want to show as it’s not really an indication of a good healthy animal. That said there is always a part of me who think people just want to get some money in the bank and don’t want to pay to kc reg and parents probably haven’t had health checks or reg either which is more typical of a hobby/backyard breeder.

 

[blackcob]

If both parents are KC registered and the puppies are not then yes, they’re hiding something. Probably fairly innocent (endorsed as progeny not for registration), possibly a welfare issue (bitch too old or had too many litters) etc. Certainly it warrants close scrutiny.

Otherwise, I think it really depends on what you’re wanting the dog for, and whether you’re happy to research things like health testing without the back-up of the KC database (flawed though it may be )

 

[MurphysMinder]

The cost of KC registration is small compared with all the other costs in producing and rearing a litter properly so I really don't understand why breeders wouldn't register, unless as bc says they are hiding something.
I always preferred my pups to go as pets, but that didn't stop me doing all tests etc and of course registering, not doing this to me infers somehow that pets aren't as important.
Another thing to remember is that a breeder that goes to the trouble of testing, registering etc is more likely to give lifelong back up. Not blowing my own trumpet but I have recently helped in the rehoming of an 8 year old dog I bred (very sad reasons for needing a new home), the owner of the stud dog also helped. The dog now has a wonderful new home, to me this is all part of breeding a litter .

 

[CorvusCorax]

Yep MM, boggles my mind why people who specifically want to purchase a puppy as 'just a pet', which they hope to have living with them into double figures, but don't want some sort of proof of health of ancestors....for me, a pet is the most important role a dog has, even for those who also show and work.
Also 'full bred or pedigree/non reg' is a bit of a misnomer. You can't prove one without the other.
And as I've said before, I've had people who have got dogs which have turned out to be extremely talented in certain disciplines, but their options are extremely limited because the breeder didn't bother registering them, or couldn't.

 

[suebou]

We always register all our litter and only about 10% of new owners ask or care......no idea why

 

[AdorableAlice]

Please always buy from a licensed breeder. The new legislation has really exposed the back yard breeders and if the public keeping buying non health checked puppies from non health checked parents all you are doing is fuelling puppy farming.

 

[Tinkerbee]

As someone who has only ever had complete mutts, or a crossbreed (which I paid for, to the horror of my grandmother and no doubt others ?) if I was going to get a Pedigree and spend that sort of money I'd definitely want a KC Reg, for the reasons everyone above has mentioned.

 

[CorvusCorax]

We always register all our litter and only about 10% of new owners ask or care......no idea why

Have you noticed a downturn following a certain documentary?

Please believe me, I am no fan of kennel clubs, but it's better than nothing.

 

[windand rain]

We used to give the option if someone wanted to register the pup we did if not we didnt all were eligible to be registered but many didnt want to bother but we havent bred dogs for more than 10 years so maybe the rules have changed. I have always bought kc dogs

 

[{97702}]

Ha ha you can tell I’m indoctrinated - if both parents are KC Reg and the pups aren’t I would be very very wary. I’m afraid ‘we don’t want the pups bred from’ is not a valid reason at all IMO, if someone is going to breed inappropriately KC reg or not won’t make a slight bit of difference.

I’d buy a KC reg pup because then I have access to the (admittedly not brilliant) test records for hearts, eyes, hips, elbows and of course syringomyelia ? depending on the breed

 

[minesadouble]

Please always buy from a licensed breeder. The new legislation has really exposed the back yard breeders and if the public keeping buying non health checked puppies from non health checked parents all you are doing is fuelling puppy farming.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with this.
As I understand it a breeder only needs to be licensed if they are breeding 5 plus litters a year. To me that is pretty much puppy farming! I stand to be corrected on the number of litters But what I can say with certainty is that the only licensed breeder near me is an out and out puppy farmer!!

I bought my Vizsla from a lovely lady whose bitch lived as part of her family and she carefully researched a suitablle sire to breed a litter one of which she wanted to keep to train as a search and rescie dog (the breeder was a firefighter)
All health checks and KC registration in place.
Id way rather buy a pup from the kind of background my boy had than a licensed breeder with X number of breeding bitches living outside in a shed for the purpose of making money. .

 

[{97702}]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with this.
As I understand it a breeder only needs to be licensed if they are breeding 5 plus litters a year. To me that is pretty much puppy farming! I stand to be corrected on the number of litters But what I can say with certainty is that the only licensed breeder near me is an out and out puppy farmer!!

I bought my Vizsla from a lovely lady whose bitch lived as part of her family and she carefully researched a suitablle sire to breed a litter one of which she wanted to keep to train as a search and rescie dog (the breeder was a firefighter)
All health checks and KC registration in place.
Id way rather buy a pup from the kind of background my boy had than a licensed breeder with X number of breeding bitches living outside in a shed for the purpose of making money. .

Exactly this for me too ? (said in a sheeple like way!)

 

[MurphysMinder]

We used to give the option if someone wanted to register the pup we did if not we didnt all were eligible to be registered but many didnt want to bother but we havent bred dogs for more than 10 years so maybe the rules have changed. I have always bought kc dogs

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with this.
As I understand it a breeder only needs to be licensed if they are breeding 5 plus litters a year. To me that is pretty much puppy farming! I stand to be corrected on the number of litters But what I can say with certainty is that the only licensed breeder near me is an out and out puppy farmer!!

I bought my Vizsla from a lovely lady whose bitch lived as part of her family and she carefully researched a suitablle sire to breed a litter one of which she wanted to keep to train as a search and rescie dog (the breeder was a firefighter)
All health checks and KC registration in place.
Id way rather buy a pup from the kind of background my boy had than a licensed breeder with X number of breeding bitches living outside in a shed for the purpose of making money. .

Yes, licensing has not been the cure all some had hoped. It has maybe got rid of some puppy farms and byb but it has also meant that quite a few decent breeders who only bred the occasional litter have decided not to breed any more rather than jump through the hoops and ridiculous guidelines some councils require for licensing.

 

[AdorableAlice]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with this.
As I understand it a breeder only needs to be licensed if they are breeding 5 plus litters a year. To me that is pretty much puppy farming! I stand to be corrected on the number of litters But what I can say with certainty is that the only licensed breeder near me is an out and out puppy farmer!!

I bought my Vizsla from a lovely lady whose bitch lived as part of her family and she carefully researched a suitablle sire to breed a litter one of which she wanted to keep to train as a search and rescie dog (the breeder was a firefighter)
All health checks and KC registration in place.
Id way rather buy a pup from the kind of background my boy had than a licensed breeder with X number of breeding bitches living outside in a shed for the purpose of making money. .

A breeder with one bitch breeding one litter per year will need a licence if the puppies are high value and publicly advertised for sale. It it this commercial aspect that will bring them into licensing purposes.

The 5 litters per year you are referring to is old legislation that was replaced with the Animal Welfare (Activities involving Animals) regulation Act of 2018 which came into law in October 2018.

 

[AdorableAlice]

Yes, licensing has not been the cure all some had hoped. It has maybe got rid of some puppy farms and byb but it has also meant that quite a few decent breeders who only bred the occasional litter have decided not to breed any more rather than jump through the hoops and ridiculous guidelines some councils require for licensing.

Council's are unable to make their own rules and guidelines. The Act is law and the council's appointed vets and inspectors implement it.

It is very interesting to read the comments and evident that the new Act is not understood.

 

[blackcob]

And as I've said before, I've had people who have got dogs which have turned out to be extremely talented in certain disciplines, but their options are extremely limited because the breeder didn't bother registering them, or couldn't.

Yup, learn from my lesson, my dog originally obtained as a pet would have been European gold medallist for 2016 in women's elite bikejor, had he only been registered. It would have been a win by default as there were no others entered, but still. My other dog would have been a British champion the previous year too but for the same reason.

As I say, nothing to do with our talent but without the numbers there for the classes they can and will omit them for future competition which is a huge disappointment for those racing registered nordic breeds, it would have been nice for us to keep the numbers up a bit.

 

[{97702}]

Council's are unable to make their own rules and guidelines. The Act is law and the council's appointed vets and inspectors implement it.

It is very interesting to read the comments and evident that the new Act is not understood.

So bearing in mind we are all pretty experienced dog people, perhaps there needs to be better information and explanation available? Not aimed specifically at you of course AA, but this appears to be legislation that isn’t achieving its intended aim at all

 

[MurphysMinder]

Council's are unable to make their own rules and guidelines. The Act is law and the council's appointed vets and inspectors implement it.

It is very interesting to read the comments and evident that the new Act is not understood.

Okay perhaps I should say the way different councils implement it. I'm not sure if you are aware of the facebook group Animal Welfare Regulations but the disparity different people are reporting on there with licensing is just crazy.

 

[blackcob]

I remember the furore on the dog show groups on FB when it came in - at least for a time some councils absolutely were putting their own interpretation on things and misinforming breeders.

ETA: Crosspost with MM

 

[AdorableAlice]

So bearing in mind we are all pretty experienced dog people, perhaps there needs to be better information and explanation available? Not aimed specifically at you of course AA, but this appears to be legislation that isn’t achieving its intended aim at all

It is certainly achieving what DEFRA intended it to achieve. Further public education is needed to guide and advise against the purchasing of puppies bred by unlicensed breeders. Work is also ongoing with internet platforms such as Pets 4 homes, Gumtree etc to prevent advertising. Prosecutions are taking place and breach of legislation carries an unlimited fine and/or 12 months imprisonment.

The legislation is freely available on Gov.UK

 

[minesadouble]

Well I would say the legislation is pretty loose and very much open to interpretation:

"The biggest change to the regulations is the reduction of the litter threshold for which a dog breeding licence is required.

After the 1st October, anyone breeding three or more litters and selling at least one puppy in a 12 month period will require a dog breeding licence, this is a reduction from the previous litter test of five or more litters.
A breeder can breed as many puppies as they like without a licence “if the person carrying on the activity (breeding) provides documentary evidence that none of them have been sold (whether as puppies or as adult dogs)”.
For those breeding one or two litters in a twelve month period and selling puppies, a licence may be required if you are deemed to be “breeding dogs and advertising a business of selling dogs”. The Government has provided guidance on what local authority inspectors should consider when assessing whether a breeder meets the business test. These full guidelines can be found here.
There are certain factors that would trigger the need for a breeding licence such as “High volumes of animals sold or advertised for sale could indicate a business; and low volumes of animals sold or advertised could indicate a business where high sales prices or large profit margins are involved”.
Conversely “Breeders who breed a small number of puppies (i.e. fewer than three litters per year), and sell them without making a profit” are deemed to be out of the scope of licensing."

 

[AdorableAlice]

Okay perhaps I should say the way different councils implement it. I'm not sure if you are aware of the facebook group Animal Welfare Regulations but the disparity different people are reporting on there with licensing is just crazy.

There are many facebook pages for all aspects of businesses caught by the 2018 Act, together with PIF etc who all have differing opinions. All licence holders have the right to appeal any decision made by the licensing authority if they feel they have not been inspected and rated correctly. It is well worth business owners making an appeal,

 

[{97702}]

It is certainly achieving what DEFRA intended it to achieve. Further public education is needed to guide and advise against the purchasing of puppies bred by unlicensed breeders. Work is also ongoing with internet platforms such as Pets 4 homes, Gumtree etc to prevent advertising. Prosecutions are taking place and breach of legislation carries an unlimited fine and/or 12 months imprisonment.

The legislation is freely available on Gov.UK

None of those being places I would think of looking if I were intending to breed a litter/purchase a Puppy unfortunately.....

 

[Clodagh]

That's why I said DNA would improve things even more

Sorry I was meaning to agree with you, but to reiterate what a load of bollocks the whole thing is!

 

[AdorableAlice]

Well I would say the legislation is pretty loose and very much open to interpretation:

"The biggest change to the regulations is the reduction of the litter threshold for which a dog breeding licence is required.

After the 1st October, anyone breeding three or more litters and selling at least one puppy in a 12 month period will require a dog breeding licence, this is a reduction from the previous litter test of five or more litters.
A breeder can breed as many puppies as they like without a licence “if the person carrying on the activity (breeding) provides documentary evidence that none of them have been sold (whether as puppies or as adult dogs)”.
For those breeding one or two litters in a twelve month period and selling puppies, a licence may be required if you are deemed to be “breeding dogs and advertising a business of selling dogs”. The Government has provided guidance on what local authority inspectors should consider when assessing whether a breeder meets the business test. These full guidelines can be found here.
There are certain factors that would trigger the need for a breeding licence such as “High volumes of animals sold or advertised for sale could indicate a business; and low volumes of animals sold or advertised could indicate a business where high sales prices or large profit margins are involved”.
Conversely “Breeders who breed a small number of puppies (i.e. fewer than three litters per year), and sell them without making a profit” are deemed to be out of the scope of licensing."

I don't find that difficult to understand or loose. There is extensive advertising done by breeders and they are being caught daily by licensing officers and trading standards. The majority become compliant with the legislation.

 

[AdorableAlice]

None of those being places I would think of looking if I were intending to breed a litter/purchase a Puppy unfortunately.....

As I mentioned before, the public and back street/hobby breeders need educating.