Kennel Club? Discussions

Yay or nay?
I have two registered, though one of which's registration is a joke, and an xbred. Have had both reg/unreg dogs and coming from a very "worky" terrier/lurcher background I suppose I've never seen it as that important.
I think in the breed I keep of Rough Collies you only have to see that for the majority of the breed the KC has allowed, by hand of judges, the breed to fall to pieces. Only a small number breed "classic" collies yet most unregistered litters I see are the "classic" type. Would love to breed a working line of them in years to come, but would be pitted against for breeding from a non KC bitch.
Just been musing a lot lately, with types such as Hinks Bull Terriers and some of the working terrier breeds which all survive without the KC as to why do we exactly put so much value and importance too them.

I used to automatically register my dogs with the Kennel Club, though as I had no intention of showing or breeding I don't know why I bothered. I registered one of my Border Collies under the Obedience Register or whatever it was called. My crossbreed terrier and lurcher obviously weren't registered.

My cocker spaniel isn't registered because he came with no papers - his parents were both shown but the breeder gave him to me for nothing as he had an eye problem. My standard poodle isn't eligible to be registered as he is parti-coloured and the Kennel Club only recognize solid colours, and the Chihuahua I'm getting won't be eligible because the mother is a long-coat and the father is a smooth-coat.

Would love to see a working line Rough Collie.

I'm not even sure I fully understand what you're saying but there are plenty of cross breeds around that find good homes and there are plenty of non kc pedigrees around that find good homes too. As for breeding from a non kc bitch why would that be a problem ? as long as you're responsible and health test for all known issues and accept that the pups won't be registered why would anyone slate you? Ultimately it's your dog and what you do is up to you, You shouldn't care what anyone else thinks but you should care enough to carry out the full array of health tests.

This site is very interesting, http://www.oldtimefarmshepherd.org/...d-scotch-collie-breed-standard-working-draft/
if you click links R.H.S some interesting pics and info.

cant really give a yes or no about the kennel club as i think they good and some not so good. I can see them trying to change some of the not so good. Papers wouldnt enter my mind when looking for a dog as i dont care if the kc deem my dog acceptable or not, weather or not the parents have ever shown. Infact i wouldnt take much notice of a showdog in all honesty after the show bullmastiffs ive seen i cant see my seeking one out as they have gotten smaller with smushed up faces as thats what was winning in the ring. I dont like it as i like bullmastiffs like mine and wouldnt find a show breeder breeding ones like my phoebe anymore. I would look at weather a dog was breed responsibly.

(The breeding bit was hypothetical btw, even if i had the time and space I wouldn't as think there's enough pups of various breeds produced as it is. That's just a "thing" of mine though)
Really I was trying to determine how much importance we as your average joe dog owners actually place on the KC and the concept of KC registration. I guess it's always just struck me how breeds/types such as JRS, Patts, working BC etc all seem to go on for generation after generation without anything to do with the KC and are fine by it, and nobody bats an eyelid to the purchasing and breeding of them, yet with other breeds you'd be shot down in flames for buying an unregistered pup. Musings really, sorry if it wasn't clear!

I always registered my Griffon pups as people would only buy KC registered pups.

Very interesting site, thank you. I must say I do like the heads.

Georgina is registered with both the FCI and MEO (Hungarian Kennel Club). Her mother and half sister are Hungarian Champions. With a breed like Shar-Pei which has several hereditary health problems it's important to be able to trace the blood line back as many generations as possible,

My last Pei had no papers and I had no knowledge of her lineage which was always a source of worry for me. With Georgie, although its no guarantee she'll be 100% healthy at least its given me some peace of mind.

I`m not really sure that's true to be honest, I think a very large part of the public don`t care one way or the other where they dogs come from as long as they get them now and are cheap, and that goes for pedigrees too,

For me if i am buying a pedigree dog I want it KC registered as this is the only guarantee (in the UK ) that is going to ensure whats on the paper is true, and I can check health records to see what is being said it true.

As for working and show lines, well for the most part (not always) the show lines would be the way to go for me, because its those line that will have probably done the most health screening on their dogs.

As for the rough collie Luke, I would have thought again its the show people and show lines that are keeping the breed alive.

Interesting responses, was just curious really as how much importance we do infact base on the KC. It's just been running through my mind a lot since my sister n BIL began searching for a working line Lakeland a few weeks ago.
In regards to the RC comment, I would say granted the breed is being kept alive by show fraternity but in all honesty it's a tiny number keeping real RC going as opposed to the modern type. But that's a breed specific issue which this isn't, just used collies as one example.

KC registration is important to me for the same reasons Jackie gave, I want my dogs to look like the breed standard, after all it's what attracted me to them in the first place. KC registration alone isn't enough on it's own though as it seems to be for some. I will only buy from an ethical breeder who goes above and beyond the required health tests the kc and breed club stipulate. I want a breeder that is leading the way in improving the health of the dogs offspring. I want a breeder who is breeding fit for life, fit for purpose dogs. I want a breeder who is not just breeding for looks.and certainly would never entertain a breeder who was in it for the money, as in a commercial or uninformed breeder.
I have never had any intentions to breed any of my dogs but if I did I'd really only be interested in producing the healthiest pups humanly possible and the only way to do that is by carrying out all the available health tests. Where as you seem to be only concerned with looks and I didn't see any reference to health at all.

Well, of course I am concerned by health. I learnt the hard way the importance of health testing when losing two young dogs to what was quite clearly an inherent problems within their lines, both from the same "recommended" and accredited breeder. It was at such time I also learned a strong disregard for the accredited breeders scheme too.
Interesting that the health tests side of things influences our views on the KC a lot, I wonder; do people feel that health testin restrictions should be stricter and inforceable in regards to the results affecting the registration of a litter? Maybe a subject for a different thread, this was generally more whether we as dog owners are really motivated by KC registration when buying a pup when weighed up against a lot of the working lines or non reg breeds that are bought without. Hence why I didn't specifically mention anything about the health tests side of thing as, whilst for some people it will be a reason behind purchasing a KC Reg pup, for others it may not be. And I was genuinely curious as to what motivates us as dog buyers. I admit I'm habitual, barring rescues and working breeds every other family dog growing up was KC Registered, it's why hen buying a recognised breed I think I opt to do so more than anything, habit and also a curiosity as to why a litter isn't registered. Though, in not at all that motivated by showing in the confirmation ring. But that's horses for courses.
And purely for the record, looks come quite low on my list. Temperament and health are joint top, obviously. True to type comes latter, and by that comes not just in temperament but the looks side of thing too. And I'm not really a fan of a lot of "evolution" or exaggeration in certain lines of certain breeds. Maybe I should have been a bit clearer originally.
Me personally, a) wouldn't breed a litter as, previously stated, feel there's enoug pups out there from established quality and, in some cases, healthy lines but b) as others have said would, if ever, register a litter as if I was ever to breed it would be with the view of having a line of whatever that breed may be to go into the future with.
A question, a genuine one too, in non reg breeders for example some of the Inuit types, and varying terriers, would a breeder be able to test for what we consider te eh of the mill checks such as hip scoring, elbow scoring, potentially eyes etc or does a breed have to be recognised in order to have something to be measured against in te way of scores?

Well as far as I'm aware any dog can be hip scored as it's measured by the quality of the joints not measured against other dogs of the same breed. I know Tawneywolf on Dogsey breeds non a kc recognised breed Utonagans and she has her dogs hip scored, eye tested etc.
Why shouldn't the likes of jrt's be tested for luxating patella's for example. Plenty of jrt's are affected but it's considered "normal" by many.
I think the kc lags a long way behind ethical breeders where health tests are concerned and some breed clubs are just as bad (Pugs) with their heads buried in the sand, but it's a starting point and if you're obsessive enough you'll find the type of breeder you're searching for. Trouble is for most people it's easier to look in the free ad's and they have no clue about health tests so get fobbed off with KC registered as though it;s some kind of endorsement when it's no more significant than my birth certificate as to quality. They also get led to believe vet checked and fully health tested somehow mean the same thing when they clearly don't.

I would never buy an unregistered pedigree dog. I try very hard to convince others not to either.
Partly because I want to know the lineage of my dog, but very importantly to be sure the puppies have not been churned out litter after litter from some poor bitch being used as a money making machine.
In the popular breeds, chihuahuas for example, you can find hundreds for sale with nonsense excuses for the lack of registration.
"The parents are registered but we didn't bother with pups as we only want pet homes for them and it keeps the price down" is the usual bull trotted out.
Pups for sale at £800 registration costs £15.
But people fall for it. The truth is, the pups can't be registered because the bitch has had more than 4 litters or is over 8 years old.
For the sake of welfare of breeding bitches, if nothing else, I wouldn't touch unregistered pedigrees and beg other people not to.
As an aside, why would any self respecting breeder mate a smooth chihuahua to a long coat. Maybe because that's what they happen to have available and know the pups will earn them money regardless of registration.

The kennel club is not perfect by any means but they do at least try to stamp out the unscrupulous money orientated breeding that results in some horrific welfare cases of brood bitches and heartbreaking disappointment of naive buyers who's sickly puppy dies after they've paid hundreds for it.

Sorry to go on, but I feel really strongly about this and believe if every genuine breeder registered their puppies and the public understood the reasons for not buying unregistered there would be much less abusive breeding going on.

lve always had registered pups because i wanted to show, but
KC Registration is not an indicator of a reputable breeder, they will and do register any litter of pups which includes BYB ,Puppy Farms/Commercial breeders as long as the parents are registered and the rules are followed.I would certainly not depend on registration or the ABS scheme to get a healthy pup as Sadly, KC registration papers is no guarantee of fit healthy puppies bred with integrity

No, your right it is no guarantee. But it helps.
When you have picked up the pieces after relentless breeding of a bitch, left with no teeth and jaw bone beginning to disintegrate, you will take any help to stop it, however small.
KC reg doesn't guarantee healthy pups, but it does guarantee a bitch that hasn't been abused and overbred, and it does exposé any inbreeding and problematic bloodlines. Of course its possible for a determined breeder to fool the system, and until DNA testing is required to guarantee parentage (as in some horse breed societies) there is the risk of fraudulent registration, but that is beyond the capabilities or interest of most of the backyard breeders churning out puppies. They can sell them easily enough unreg.
Proffessional breeders are not neccesarily beyond reproach, I know that. Some of the top show kennels have a lot to answer for.
BUT if the public refused to buy unregistered puppies from ANYONE a huge part of the welfare problem within pedigree dog breeding would be dealt with.
The KC put the regulation in place, but without the support of those buying puppies the problem won't change, so insisting on other criteria before reg is allowed like health testing etc would be useless. While people buy and sell unreg pups, KC regulations can't help much.

Is that 4 litters in total or a year? I dont know much about registering pups. Although its not something i look for i would be more interested in health test and the feel i get from the breeder when i meet them than weather its registered.

It's 4 litters in total, and none after bitch is 8 years old.
In theory a bitch can have two litters a year until she dies. When you've seen the effect that has on a bitch, you would realise how important it is to buy only registered puppies.