Question

[saraquele]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

<snip>

the kennel club have a lot to answer for , they really dont care how many litters a bitch has or in what time scale , as long as they get there reg fees and transferr of ownerships they just let you get on with it :rant:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Kennel Club rule re Control of Registrations

"The General Committee will not accept an application to register a litter when -

(1) The dam has already whelped six litters, or

(2) The dam has already reached the age of 8 years at the time of whelping, or

(3) The dam was under one year old at the time of mating."

Of course there are ways of getting round this but if you have some kind of evidence that someone has broken the rule and write to the Information and Health Dept of the KC, they do follow it up. This is basically what the law says about breeding dogs (but there are different rules for licensed breeders and unlicensed breeders) and I suspect that if the Kennel Club were to change the rule to say, four litters max, it wouldn't be long before someone sued them for loss of earnings since it is legal to breed six litters from a bitch.

<snip>

Gay

www.moonlake.co.uk

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

i personally know of someone in a different breed who mated her bitch at 11 months , gave birth at 13 months and the KC didnt bat an eyelid , also this same bitch has had 5 litters in 3 years , again they dont care :- "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

They probably don't know! You should write to the Kennel Club quoting the relevant breed supplement where it is published and drawing their attention to it.

All records nowadays are done automatically by computers - nobody actually reads through them and says OMG that's not allowed. They depend on someone who cares picking up this kind of thing. If they spent the money on employing dog knowledgeable people to check their records, guess who'd be paying - us. I can't imagine what registrations would cost if they were monitored by humans and I don't want to find out

As for saying they should make the rule for fewer litters from older bitches, as I pointed out before, they can't do that if it is legal to do it - the law has to be changed first. The only thing we can do is make the rules more stringent for accredited breeders. If breed clubs write to the accredited breeders' scheme (not directly to the Kennel Club) and ask them to apply the clubs' code of ethics re ages of bitches and numbers of litters, I have been told they will probably do it. At least that would be a start.

There's no point in ranting about the Kennel Club - you have to make your opinions known *politely*. They can't guess what you think.

Gay

www.moonlake.co.uk

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

i hear what you are saying BUT the kennel club actually rang this breeder as she had made a mistake on the reg form so they phoned her to check the details , nothing was mentioned and this was the litter 10 months after the last one so not even 12 months had passed since her last litter was reg :blink:

 

the rules are there as a guideline , and if they are not adhered to then no one seems to worry about this :blink:

 

[moonlake]

<snip>

the kennel club have a lot to answer for , they really dont care how many litters a bitch has or in what time scale , as long as they get there reg fees and transferr of ownerships they just let you get on with it :rant:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Kennel Club rule re Control of Registrations

"The General Committee will not accept an application to register a litter when -

(1) The dam has already whelped six litters, or

(2) The dam has already reached the age of 8 years at the time of whelping, or

(3) The dam was under one year old at the time of mating."

Of course there are ways of getting round this but if you have some kind of evidence that someone has broken the rule and write to the Information and Health Dept of the KC, they do follow it up. This is basically what the law says about breeding dogs (but there are different rules for licensed breeders and unlicensed breeders) and I suspect that if the Kennel Club were to change the rule to say, four litters max, it wouldn't be long before someone sued them for loss of earnings since it is legal to breed six litters from a bitch.

<snip>

Gay

www.moonlake.co.uk

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

i personally know of someone in a different breed who mated her bitch at 11 months , gave birth at 13 months and the KC didnt bat an eyelid , also this same bitch has had 5 litters in 3 years , again they dont care :- "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

They probably don't know! You should write to the Kennel Club quoting the relevant breed supplement where it is published and drawing their attention to it.

All records nowadays are done automatically by computers - nobody actually reads through them and says OMG that's not allowed. They depend on someone who cares picking up this kind of thing. If they spent the money on employing dog knowledgeable people to check their records, guess who'd be paying - us. I can't imagine what registrations would cost if they were monitored by humans and I don't want to find out

As for saying they should make the rule for fewer litters from older bitches, as I pointed out before, they can't do that if it is legal to do it - the law has to be changed first. The only thing we can do is make the rules more stringent for accredited breeders. If breed clubs write to the accredited breeders' scheme (not directly to the Kennel Club) and ask them to apply the clubs' code of ethics re ages of bitches and numbers of litters, I have been told they will probably do it. At least that would be a start.

There's no point in ranting about the Kennel Club - you have to make your opinions known *politely*. They can't guess what you think.

Gay

www.moonlake.co.uk

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

i hear what you are saying BUT the kennel club actually rang this breeder as she had made a mistake on the reg form so they phoned her to check the details , nothing was mentioned and this was the litter 10 months after the last one so not even 12 months had passed since her last litter was reg :blink:

 

the rules are there as a guideline , and if they are not adhered to then no one seems to worry about this :blink:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I am truly shocked If you PM me the details I will write to them and ask for an explanation.

Gay

www.moonlake.co.uk

 

[kris]

<snip>

the kennel club have a lot to answer for , they really dont care how many litters a bitch has or in what time scale , as long as they get there reg fees and transferr of ownerships they just let you get on with it :rant:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Kennel Club rule re Control of Registrations

"The General Committee will not accept an application to register a litter when -

(1) The dam has already whelped six litters, or

(2) The dam has already reached the age of 8 years at the time of whelping, or

(3) The dam was under one year old at the time of mating."

i understand what you are saying about the fact that the kc wont pick up on how many litters a bitch has had but in their rules and regs it says they kc wont accept an application to register a litter.... if this means what i presume it means then they should be checking the litters and ages of bitches as if they do accept a litter registration and someone points out to them the bitch was too young/had too many litters etc then what would they do then?ask the breeder to send the papers back as they are in breach of rules?i think from legal standpoint theyd be on a bit of a sticky wicket here

Of course there are ways of getting round this but if you have some kind of evidence that someone has broken the rule and write to the Information and Health Dept of the KC, they do follow it up. This is basically what the law says about breeding dogs (but there are different rules for licensed breeders and unlicensed breeders) and I suspect that if the Kennel Club were to change the rule to say, four litters max, it wouldn't be long before someone sued them for loss of earnings since it is legal to breed six litters from a bitch.

when you say the law i assume you mean the kc rules?as far as i know there arent any laws regarding the breeding of dogs in the breeding of dogs act.(i might be wrong here as the legal cases ive been involved with only covered the wording of the act not the amount of breeding going on)its not something ive ever heard of anyway.what are the different rules for licensed and inlicensed breeders?is this in the kennel clubs rules or local authorities re the breeding of dogs act?if its legal to breed 6 litters from a bitch and i assume this is in the kc rules not the breeding of dogs act then the kc can change the goalposts and breeders have to abide by it as the kc is the licensing body and they can stipulate what rules have to be followed by breeders if they want to register their dogs with them.in that case anyone thinking of suing for loss of earnings wouldnt stand a chance cos they are registering their pups with the governing authority for pedigree dogs in the uk so have to abide by what the kc deems is right for dogs and breeders whom they have jurisdiction over.

Re definition of a puppy farmer - A puppy farmer is someone who breeds more litters than you do - whereas someone who breeds fewer litters than you do is inexperienced and not worth listening to

thought this was a good definition! :lol:

Gay

www.moonlake.co.uk

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

 

[wild whippies]

Maybe I'm a bit less tolerant but my opinion is anyone who fails to retain a puppy from a lined mating is a puppy farmer, otherwise, what was the purpose of the mating in the first place?

 

[05whippet]

Maybe I'm a bit less tolerant but my opinion is anyone who fails to retain a puppy from a lined mating is a puppy farmer, otherwise, what was the purpose of the mating in the first place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I agree...that was my point too!!!

 

[Scudder]

Maybe I'm a bit less tolerant but my opinion is anyone who fails to retain a puppy from a lined mating is a puppy farmer, otherwise, what was the purpose of the mating in the first place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Hmm...what if you only had a small litter and they weren't quality? My last litter only had 2 males and one had blue eyes, leaving me with one puppy to choose from. If that male puppy had retained a testicle, I would have placed him as well. In this case, he was fine and I've kept my little Bernie.

In my first litter I had 8 puppies, only ONE was show quality. It was a lovely mating on paper - a mess in real life as far as conformation is concerned (hocky rears). I did not keep the one that was show quality, I placed it as a pet because I wasn't going to go on from a dog who had 7 siblings that had a fault that I would not go on from. I also spayed the mother and did not breed her again.

I'm certainly not a puppy farmer. I learned from my mistakes and I've moved on. I have a limited amount of space and I can not be expected to keep a puppy from every litter if there is nothing of quality to compete or go on with.

Kristen

 

[rls22]

Agree 100% with Kristen's post :thumbsup:

 

[wild whippies]

Maybe I'm a bit less tolerant but my opinion is anyone who fails to retain a puppy from a lined mating is a puppy farmer, otherwise, what was the purpose of the mating in the first place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Hmm...what if you only had a small litter and they weren't quality? My last litter only had 2 males and one had blue eyes, leaving me with one puppy to choose from. If that male puppy had retained a testicle, I would have placed him as well. In this case, he was fine and I've kept my little Bernie.

In my first litter I had 8 puppies, only ONE was show quality. It was a lovely mating on paper - a mess in real life as far as conformation is concerned (hocky rears). I did not keep the one that was show quality, I placed it as a pet because I wasn't going to go on from a dog who had 7 siblings that had a fault that I would not go on from. I also spayed the mother and did not breed her again.

I'm certainly not a puppy farmer. I learned from my mistakes and I've moved on. I have a limited amount of space and I can not be expected to keep a puppy from every litter if there is nothing of quality to compete or go on with.

Kristen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The difference here though is you had every intention of retaining a pup. Furthermore you made vested efforts to end that lining as you recognised the faults within it. There isn't total immunity in those that do choose to retain a pup either as some may keep one for future breeding production. Genuine breeders do so for a purpose, that being to enhance their own particular line for their chosen field. As you've already stated you had a set agenda, ok it didn't work out which is a shame but at least the intention was there. :thumbsup:

 

[Seraphina]

Maybe I'm a bit less tolerant but my opinion is anyone who fails to retain a puppy from a lined mating is a puppy farmer, otherwise, what was the purpose of the mating in the first place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I would certainly rephrase that to "anyone who does not intend to keep a puppy". However, breeder should not keep pups if they are not as good as they hoped for. Some litters are disappointment and I would not keep pups unless they are improvement on their parents.

 

[05whippet]

Maybe I'm a bit less tolerant but my opinion is anyone who fails to retain a puppy from a lined mating is a puppy farmer, otherwise, what was the purpose of the mating in the first place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I would certainly rephrase that to "anyone who does not intend to keep a puppy". However, breeder should not keep pups if they are not as good as they hoped for. Some litters are disappointment and I would not keep pups unless they are improvement on their parents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I do agree with both Kristen's post and Seraphina's..I can see where you are coming from & it is a very valid point to make,however I am also assuming that neither of you breed constantly litter after litter and consistently have no "keepers"? If this was the case I would suggest you should rethink your breeding plans as something somewhere is definitely going wrong! :lol: :teehee: (w00t) ( that last remark is tongue in cheek btw...before I start WW3! :- " )

 

[Scudder]

If this was the case I would suggest you should rethink your breeding plans as something somewhere is definitely going wrong!  :lol:   :teehee:   (w00t)   ( that last remark is tongue in cheek btw...before I start WW3! :- " )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

<GASP> I am insulted.

Yes, in my VAST breeding experience of 3 litters :- " I didn't keep one out of my first litter (I should have listened a little better to my mentor), my second resulted in the lovely Inga and my third little racer Bernie who goes to his first show in 2 weeks!

Hopefully litter #4 produces a good 'un this winter...my hearing has improved dramatically over the last few years. LOL :lol:

Kristen

 

[seaspot_run]

Actually, here in the USA, I think it's more of a problem we have some breeders who just let dogs they can't do anything with and never could stack up like cord wood. If that breeder falls into health or financial difficulties, then rescue or the humane society has to step in....and try to rehome a lot of 6-14 year old dogs that are very hard to place!

It is obvious there are some litters that are good on paper which don't work out. There are litters bred in the hopes of getting a good bitch which only result in dogs. There are myriad reasons why a good breeder won't keep a puppy from a carefully-planned and lovingly raised litter.

The most important thing for any dog is that they wind up in a home where they are EXACTLY the dog that owner wanted. For a breeder to keep something they really don't think is what they wanted, just to stop people gossiping about them having placed a whole litter and kept nothing, is not the best interest of the puppies.

I am EXTREMELY dog-limited. There are some litters I breed where I know ahead of time that I will be co-owning the pick with a trusted friend who has a slot for it in their home, if that pick is nice and has the qualities I was hoping for from the breeding. Or, I may place a good male with a long term plan to use it later on one of the bitches I own in my home. This does not make me a puppy farmer. That puppy will be used in my breeding program at some future date when I am ready to take advantage of that pedigree.

Karen Lee

 

[Judy]

Of course keeping a puppy doesn't necessarily mean the person isn't a puppy farmer either. It could be they are just keeping dogs to breed from. The bitches they keep could be producing puppies (and money) for them next year and the dogs could be saving them stud fees.

I think that whatever the definition we all know that puppy farmers are the ones that are in it purely for money. Didn't the term come about because the government at one time (the 70's I think) encouraged farmers to diversify by breeding dogs? Even gave then grants to do it as I remember. Or am I wrong about that ? :unsure:

 

[JAX]

Maybe I'm a bit less tolerant but my opinion is anyone who fails to retain a puppy from a lined mating is a puppy farmer, otherwise, what was the purpose of the mating in the first place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Hmm...what if you only had a small litter and they weren't quality? My last litter only had 2 males and one had blue eyes, leaving me with one puppy to choose from. If that male puppy had retained a testicle, I would have placed him as well. In this case, he was fine and I've kept my little Bernie.

In my first litter I had 8 puppies, only ONE was show quality. It was a lovely mating on paper - a mess in real life as far as conformation is concerned (hocky rears). I did not keep the one that was show quality, I placed it as a pet because I wasn't going to go on from a dog who had 7 siblings that had a fault that I would not go on from. I also spayed the mother and did not breed her again.

I'm certainly not a puppy farmer. I learned from my mistakes and I've moved on. I have a limited amount of space and I can not be expected to keep a puppy from every litter if there is nothing of quality to compete or go on with.

Kristen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

But the differance is that you had PLANNED TO KEEP ONE ( or in Karens post , part own one :thumbsup: )

 

[aslan]

Maybe I'm a bit less tolerant but my opinion is anyone who fails to retain a puppy from a lined mating is a puppy farmer, otherwise, what was the purpose of the mating in the first place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I agree...that was my point too!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

That definition doesn't always work either. There have been/there are breeders who keep a pup from almost every litter they have ... this just results in way too many dogs of their own, as well as way too many litters bred.

Edit

Oops! Didn't read all the above posts before I posted - Judy has pretty much said the same thing.

 

[05whippet]

Maybe I'm a bit less tolerant but my opinion is anyone who fails to retain a puppy from a lined mating is a puppy farmer, otherwise, what was the purpose of the mating in the first place?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I agree...that was my point too!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

That definition doesn't always work either. There have been/there are breeders who keep a pup from almost every litter they have ... this just results in way too many dogs of their own, as well as way too many litters bred.

Edit

Oops! Didn't read all the above posts before I posted - Judy has pretty much said the same thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I understand...but what I think Wild Whippies was meaning and certainly what I am getting at is that breeding litter after litter and never having any intention of keeping a puppy from them and therefore the pups then become a commodity is only one contributing factor to help decipher the meaning of a puppy farmer. I know there are a lot of breeders who over burden themselves with dogs (and these too can include the PF who keeps his/her bitches to breed on from) and I think that everyone should know their limit,otherwise we end up in situations where we see people rehoming their older less useful adults who have maybe served their purpose to make room for younger more promising progeny (which is a whole different topic & an extremely emotive one I should think!) or situations exactly as Karen described above.

 

[kris]

Of course keeping a puppy doesn't necessarily mean the person isn't a puppy farmer either. It could be they are just keeping dogs to breed from. The bitches they keep could be producing puppies (and money) for them next year and the dogs could be saving them stud fees.
I think that whatever the definition we all know that puppy farmers are the ones that are in it purely for money.  Didn't the term come about because the government at one time (the 70's I think)  encouraged farmers to diversify by breeding dogs? Even gave then grants to do it as I remember. Or am I wrong  about that ? :unsure:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

yes they did,and as far as i know in ireland they still do.the governent is very pro puppy farming as it gets them off the hook with farmers who are complaining about the cheap imports ruining the farming industry!

 

[starswift]

Just my two penneth on epupz.I know of several excellent breeders who advertise their litters through epupz.  Just because they are advertising on there does not mean that they will not vet the homes any less thoroughly than those that don't. 

There are huge numbers of people out there who have no idea where to start when looking for a puppy and a lot of them will end up at epupz.  It doesn't mean that these are going to be bad owners; they will however be more likely to end up with a pup from a disreputable breeder.  There are as everyone has said good and bad everywhere. 

We have not needed to advertise our litter as they have all been spoken for before the mating.  However, it does not mean that I am completely anti epupz; I believe it to be a good source of locating pups given that the buyer does their research into the advertised litter.  And I'm sure that the good breeders who are advertising on there vet their prospective puppy buyers just as throughly as we do; in fact I know that they do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

WELL you are very lucky to have sold all yours, i had some bookings but when you phone to tell them the litter is born they have already got one elsewhere, never before have i had so many timewasters :rant: and still have three lovely 11 week olds available and am keeping the lovely lola and bobby

 

[kris]

Just my two penneth on epupz.I know of several excellent breeders who advertise their litters through epupz.  Just because they are advertising on there does not mean that they will not vet the homes any less thoroughly than those that don't. 

There are huge numbers of people out there who have no idea where to start when looking for a puppy and a lot of them will end up at epupz.  It doesn't mean that these are going to be bad owners; they will however be more likely to end up with a pup from a disreputable breeder.  There are as everyone has said good and bad everywhere. 

We have not needed to advertise our litter as they have all been spoken for before the mating.  However, it does not mean that I am completely anti epupz; I believe it to be a good source of locating pups given that the buyer does their research into the advertised litter.  And I'm sure that the good breeders who are advertising on there vet their prospective puppy buyers just as throughly as we do; in fact I know that they do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

WELL you are very lucky to have sold all yours, i had some bookings but when you phone to tell them the litter is born they have already got one elsewhere, never before have i had so many timewasters :rant: and still have three lovely 11 week olds available and am keeping the lovely lola and bobby

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

theyre called timewasters and i think most folk have had dealings with them from time to time.we get people asking us to get them a certain thing from our shops and we now always ask for a non refundable deposit.that sorts out the wheat from the chaff!

 

[Fleesh]

Have to admit, we bred a litter in 2005, we were going to keep one bitch but couldn't resist and ended up keeping two bitches :- " .

But in 2007 we produced a second litter, I was really looking forward to this mating and having a pup to keep and race. We ended up with a litter of four, all dogs. After umming and arring and a lot of discussion we decided that we did not feel we personally could mix dogs and bitches. Hence all four lovely boys went off to live the life of riley with three new lovely families. :wub:

We are planning a third and final litter in 2009 from the dam of the previous two litter and also a litter either late 2008 or also in 2009 (dependent on seasons) from out other elder bitch. We have brought two pups up together in the first litter and believe we have gained sufficient experience to do it again. We fully intend to keep a bitch puppy from each litter to bring up in our home. There is no reason that I can think of for not keeping a baby from a mating that we have put months (believe me months) into selecting a stud then, weeks of preparation and care of the dam followed by weeks of caring for a litter that we want to have the best of everything. :thumbsup: Unless of course they are all boys again (w00t) in which case we will want to know everything about prospective owners, what dogs they have/have had, what they do, and as my other half kindly puts in "all the ins and outs of a fart" .

Around breeding time (soooo glad it's only every two years :sweating: ) Mum always asks the same question, "What if nobody wants one" and she always gets the same reply "Then we'll keep the bloody lot !!!"