Accredited Breeder Scheme

This is a good idea it should have been included at the start. I joined it and was not going to renew but I`ll wait and see if I have a visit.Will post when I do.

In addition, the Kennel Club will reward those who are setting an exemplary benchmark for good breeding practice, within the scheme, by awarding Accredited Breeder of Excellence titles.

Oh for goodness sake. Surely being an Accredited Breeder should be all about this to begin with. Surely what they should do is take a breeder off their list if they aren't breeding to a high standard!!!

Where does it say they won't remove a breeder from the scheme? In fact I know they have removed the accredited breeder status from someone already.

No I am trying to point out that they shouldn't be dangling another carrot. The Accredited Breeder scheme should be about a certain standard  whereas they are trying to now put two different levels on it.

I would only see this as being a problem if the minimum standards that are eventually put in place are too low.

Exactly, there should be one standard only to be an Accredited Breeder. I have talked before about making the registrations into a two tiered level. One for people who carry out all the health checks relevant for their breed and perhaps call them 'a' class puppies and one for people who don't and say call them 'b' class puppies. But people answer 'that is what the Accredited Breeder scheme is all about'. But now, for me, they would be devaluing the Accredited breeder scheme if they then but a two tiered level on it. Until they come back with a proper scheme and one that I can respect, I do not want to join it.  I carry out all the health scheme relevant for my breed and have done for years, breed with temperament, and pedigrees in mind and cannot respect the Accredited breeder scheme in the format that it is in. Yes, they want to change it again but it should mean something and not be changed for a two tiered scheme.

Ditto

Well it is looking better to me. Perhaps I missed things the first time round.  I dont remember the bit about rehoming through out a dogs life, good news surely.  And other things have been added. It is a step forward.
IMO

Edited to say I can see how problems may come about when some folks get the smiley badge and others don't.

> there should be one standard only to be an Accredited Breeder.

I agree but unfortunately many breeders have pushed for more elitism.  We already have the showing, breed club and experience accolades I don't know why we need another one although, of course, we don't know what is intended for it yet.
I also hope the KC will not throw away the balance of encouraging new, inexperienced breeders and those that do not wish to be directly involved in showing or working from joining the scheme because they will breed anyway and this was the pitfall that the KC themselves pointed out to those who felt it was not stringent enough.

>I carry out all the health scheme relevant for my breed and have done for years, breed with temperament, and pedigrees in mind and cannot respect the Accredited breeder scheme in the format that it is in.

Which part of that do you think is not covered by the scheme at present?

I have been considering joining from the start but still don't find it strong enough to really show good breeders as being a cut above.

With my breed club breeding in line with it's code of ethics I find I am associating with those with the same ideals and minimum standards, but with the ABS I would be associated with those who only pay lip service or adhere to a bare minimum.

I think that breeders to be Accredited should have to adhere to breed clubs codes of ethics, and such codes should be compulsory with the KC's own being just the starting point.

Also what is this maximum litter size, I know there was talk about puppy farmers adding pups to litters but what about genuinely large litter.

I have averaged just under 6 pups in a litter usually 4 or 7, with just two litters bucking the trend with 3 and 9.  Litters of 13 and 14 have been known though.

> I think that breeders to be Accredited should have to adhere to breed clubs codes of ethics, and such codes should be compulsory with the KC's own being just the starting point.
>

The scheme does indicate who is breed club members but I think the point is the scheme is not about showing the breeders that are a cut above.  Really good breeders don't need this scheme they will have achieved their own reputation or will at least be club members and will be available to the public through that.  This scheme is about encouraging all breeders to maintain a minimum standard but achieving that through the scheme does require the good breeders to support it.

The thing is the scheme is still evolving and should always be as things can change drastically within a very short period of time, sicentific advancements and breakthroughs on health issues suddenly being made. As far as I can see these changes are going in the right direction. It doesnt stop the genuine novice breeder who wants to learn and do things right from doing so and it promotes the experienced knowledgeable breeder that has been breeding  to the highest standards anyway. They do appear to be listening and trying to work towards setting the starting bar higher while also trying not to aleinate people into looking at alternatives that wont in the end help the general dog population that much.

>not to aleinate people into looking at alternatives that wont in the end help the general dog population that much.

I hope so.  Only time will tell and, like you say, the scheme can be adjusted again if they find this did come about.

Also what is this maximum litter size, I know there was talk about puppy farmers adding pups to litters but what about genuinely large litter.

Exactly. To me it reads like the KC suddenly DO want people to cull pups after all. How else could you ensure litters did not go above a certain number???

Where are we seeing reference to a maximum litter size? Do you mean this?

>Follow Kennel Club policy regarding maximum age and number/frequency of litters

I took that to mean maximum number of litters not maximum number of puppies in a litter.

They've changed it! Already! There must have been complaints. THIS below is what it said in the original press release emailed to people:

Accredited Breeders have all agreed to sign up to Kennel Club standards for
responsible breeding, which include following guidelines about maximum
litter sizes,

I understand they are not saying you must not go above a certain number, just that if you do have a very large litter, they may want veterinary or photographic evidence of the true size.

>Where are we seeing reference to a maximum litter size?

No, this should explain it. I think, when a bitch has a litter of 15 or 16 (not unheard of in my breed) they'll want photographic evidence of the bitch with all the pups, and a letter from the vet saying that it's genuine.

The litter size thing is aimed at larger than normal litters in breeds which are known for puppy farming really - i.e. a breeder who tried to register 12 Westies would probably be asked to 'prove' that they were indeed one litter, but I'm sure someone with a less commercial breed like the Elkhound wouldn't.

It's a start, but unless DNA evidence is requested I don't think the measures they have suggested will make much difference.

M.

As far as I can see there is really no need for an Accredited Breeder Scheme.  The registration of dogs with the Kennel Club is  already subject to our agreement to the following

"All breeders who register their puppies with the Kennel Club accept the jurisdiction of the Kennel Club and undertake to abide by its General Code of Ethics"

All they really needed to do was add the requirements which they have put in the Accredited Breeder Scheme to their own General Code of Ethics or add a new requirement to accept the jurisdiction of the Kennel Club and to abide by both it's General code of Ethics and its Specific Code of Ethics

This would then mean that those breeders not complying with both codes of ethics (and this could be checked through the breed clubs or by a Kennel Club appointee) would not be able to register their pups.  Most responsible breeders would automatically be able to register their pups but irresponsible ones would have a bit of a problem

I'm still waiting for the Accredited Breeder Scheme to exclude those breeders breeding multiple litters regularly and from many different breeds with no regard to the breed standard, but there seems to be no sign of that

Am I missing something here, thought accredited breeders have to have their breeding animals dna ed If so why not use this to ensure a large litter is just that and not 2 or more smaller litters combined?
Angela

They can. That'd be accepted evidence.

> No, this should explain it. I think, when a bitch has a litter of 15 or 16 (not unheard of in my breed) they'll want photographic evidence of the bitch with all the pups, and a letter from the vet saying that it's genuine.

Ah, well that seems all very reasonable to me.

So many excuses available though, unless they insist on DNA. The breeders just won't submit registrations until pups have gone to new homes, so photographic evidence impossible.

M.

> The breeders just won't submit registrations until pups have gone to new homes, so photographic evidence impossible.
>

I would think the onus would be on the breeder to produce that evidence. 

>The breeders just won't submit registrations until pups have gone to new homes, so photographic evidence impossible.

They might find that registration is refused, in that case.

Let's hope so! Unfortunately, of course, it will be the poor puppy buyers that will suffer. However, don't get me wrong, I am all for an onus of proof.

M.

The scheme does indicate who is breed club members

yes but if you are a member of one breed club that is all that matters.

In my breed in particular which is a favorite for some breeders of larger dogs. You can be a member of the labrador club/Boxer club just as an example but be listed as an ACB in any other breed and it will show a breed club member sign.  To me that is a worse misleader.  It should ONLY have a breed club symbol IF you are a member of that breeds club.

There are loads listed on here that are breeder of some other breeds particularly small breeds but they do not show and are not members of the breed clubs.  How does the ACB scheme sort this out?

> In my breed in particular which is a favorite for some breeders of larger dogs. You can be a member of the labrador club/Boxer club just as an example but be listed as an ACB in any other breed and it will show a breed club member sign.  To me that is a worse misleader. 

It seems to me as long as they are member of any club there is scope for reporting them for any misconduct.

yes but do you not think it is terrible that as long as you are a member of one club you have the accolade against any amount of breeds you choose to breed.  I think it is really bad to be honest.

No I don't think it is terrible.  It does not necessarily follow that bad practices are pursued and if they are I would expect them to be reportable to the KC or their other breed club on that basis. 
I think we should bare in mind that breed club membership is just a nicety that achieves an accolade rather than a requirement it itself. 

I don't think it is a nicety at all.    It is an accolade and that accolade puts the breeder to the TOP of the list.  That is not just a nicety that wrongly implies something Isabel. 

Most of our breed clubs are very strict with it's membership and I think that the accolade is misleading to the public.

If someone is just for example a breeder of Labradors and is a member of the Labrador club but breeds a litter of Yorkies then the breed club accolade shows up against their name in the Yorkie directory,    Isabel they are NOT a member of the Yorkshire Terrier Breed club ,  I am sorry Isabel but that is not right.  I am suprised that you would consider it OK. 


The Joe public would see this and assume that person is a member of the breed club that they are searching for a puppy for plus they are at the top of the puppy list.  You can't honestly say that is not misleading to the layman on the street.

Nobody has mentioned this bit:

breed clubs will also be invited to nominate breed mentors, as expert advisors to educate both novice breeders and puppy buyers about their breed.

Now, I'm not a member of a breed club - but from what I have heard, that could open a whole can of worms.

Blue, have you pointed out your concerns regarding this point to the KC?  I really don't think it is terrible myself as it is not the accolades that put you to the top of the list but the fact that you are an accredited breeder and must comply with those requirements and that is what seems important to me.

> Now, I'm not a member of a breed club - but from what I have heard, that could open a whole can of worms.

Breed clubs are all democratic organisations so if members do not like the people appointed they have their vote on the committee to indicate it.

Blue, have you pointed out your concerns regarding this point to the KC?

Not personally but I am a member of a few good breed clubs who have.

Ticking the boxes is a step in the right direction for the welfare of the animals but that is not enough for me as far as I am concerned.  We seem to be getting head way one directions and two steps back with others.

This will be a bit pricey to do?

"As a result of this new policy, the Kennel Club strongly recommends that breeders with unusually large litters pre-empt any subsequent queries by DNA parentage testing the puppies concerned. Further details of parentage testing can be found at www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/463"

£15 a puppy does not seem terribly excessive given that they have been blessed with an unusually large litter.

You could also look at it that an exceptionally large litter will take a lot longer to home and be far more expensive to rear.

I know I would always rather have two smaller litters over a couple of years than a large litter over the same period.

I am still not going to join this scheme yet until I see before my eyes that people who are breeding from dogs who haven't had the health tests asked for by the Breed Clubs are removed.  Also it is not good enough that they've done the test without having the results back before breeding also.

I am doing what the breed club asks for and more but I just don't feel that I have the necessity to join this yet.

After the Pedigree Dogs Exposed programme, the Kennel Club said they would be bringing in a lot of changes which they had planned to do before Crufts next year, now they are bringing them in sooner. They will be making a lot of changes over the next few weeks and months. They do need support and even though the ABS is still not right, still not going far enough, I have decided to join, as I feel I would rather support what the KC has planned than sit back and do nothing.

I know what changes they have in the pipeline but they asked the press not to say too much at this point. One thing to look out for if visiting Discover Dogs are the health booklets they have been working on. They are planning another publication too, but I don't think this will be available at Discover Dogs.......

"Kennel Club Delivers Blow to Puppy Farmers"
If this proves to be true and it saves dog breeders from coming under the legal umbrella of DEFRA, then I will join.
Although selling a couple of puppies in 5 years hardly qualifies for any breeder accolades does it? Perhaps I'm relying on rarity value instead