stud dog

Sequeena

lostinrates wrote: »

Even before all of the above, which is all correct!, you need to check his offspring can be registered, which is not the same as him being KC registered, in my breed in any case, most pups are sold with endorsements to prevent back yard breeders with little knowledge making poor decisions and registering the results.

I love endorsements but people still get round them simply by not registering the resulting pups makes me sick :mad:

gettingready

Sorry but it is so clear to me that you have absolutely no idea..

Yes, I know the forums are meant for people to ask questions but in this case...

I often get stopped with my GS (not even pedigree) girl by guys asking me how old is she as they have a dog for her.

I normally asked them if they have a sister as I have a guy for her.

Dog breeding should be licensed and strictly for professional people ONLY.

KC registration is NOT enough for a dog to be "good enough to breed from".

Ah, I better stop here as this is one of my pet hates....

Please, get your dog neutered.

lostinrates

Sequeena wrote: »

I love endorsements but people still get round them simply by not registering the resulting pups makes me sick :mad:

Of course...but it means that the resulting of spring cannot claim similarly to be registered.

There are limits to what breeders and the KC can do to control things...despite being blmed for a lot of he welfare problems...this is within their ability and should be done as the norm, with a possibilty to remove endorsement with success..or breed judge evalution and medical tests. I am concerned to keep gene pool as varied as possible, and it would be good to have lots of good dogs breeding fewer litters from that sense, but as far as welfare of the existing dogs is concerned endorsements seem a good first measure.

I'd also like to see grading....and registration of outcrosses/cross breds and indeed, in some breeds includtion of permitted outcrosses though, so I'm a maverick:D

MissMoneypenny

lostinrates wrote: »

Of course...but it means that the resulting of spring cannot claim similarly to be registered.

Lots of pet people don't know about registration. Someone I know paid £850 for a yorkie that wasn't KC registered and had a badly undershot jaw, inherited from the mother. As the advert said "Yorkshire Terrier" she assumed the pup was KC registered. Even her vet was shocked at how bad the jaw was.

MissMoneypenny

lostinrates wrote: »

I'd also like to see grading....and registration of outcrosses/cross breds and indeed, in some breeds includtion of permitted outcrosses though, so I'm a maverick:D

The ISDS use to do that if a dog won sheepdog trials. Not sure if they still do as I am out of touch.

lostinrates

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Lots of pet people don't know about registration. Someone I know paid £850 for a yorkie that wasn't KC registered and had a badly undershot jaw, inherited from the mother. As the advert said "Yorkshire Terrier" she assumed the pup was KC registered. Even her vet was shocked at how bad the jaw was.

I accept this...but I don't see, what, bar more publisising, (which is also always tempered by adverse press bout breeders/pedigrees) about registration. If the same person bought a car with no MOT/registration we would think she was foolish and indeed negligent- for not finding out the requirements...I'm afraid I think the sam applies here. The very, very sad thing is that its not a lump of metal, its a living creature.

paddy's_mum

Has the OP been led up the garden path by the old wives' tale that it's good for the health of dogs to be allowed to have or sire a litter?

lostinrates

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The ISDS use to do that if a dog won sheepdog trials. Not sure if they still do as I am out of touch.

That is fantastic! I hope they still do.

Raksha

lostinrates wrote: »

I accept this...but I don't see, what, bar more publisising, (which is also always tempered by adverse press bout breeders/pedigrees) about registration. If the same person bought a car with no MOT/registration we would think she was foolish and indeed negligent- for not finding out the requirements...I'm afraid I think the sam applies here. The very, very sad thing is that its not a lump of metal, its a living creature.

If a dealer sold them a car, they could be prosecuted under Trades Descriptions or SOGA. Dog breeders should remember (and that's female dog as well as male stud dog owners) that if a pup has herediatory conditions which could have been predicted from that mating, they may be found liable for costs.

lostinrates

Raksha wrote: »

If a dealer sold them a car, they could be prosecuted under Trades Descriptions or SOGA. Dog breeders should remember (and that's female dog as well as male stud dog owners) that if a pup has herediatory conditions which could have been predicted from that mating, they may be found liable for costs.

I wonder...I'm not aware of any precedent for this...is there one??