Been reading on another forum some thoughts that have come about after the programme recently on bbc
It seems a great many of the GSD folk are pushing their breed council for compulsary assessment of breeding stock and not just from the health angle, also looking at suitability for purpose. This would entail temprement testing etc and breed dogs would have to obtain a recognised working qualification before being admitted to the breeding pool.
Lots of good comments and arguments going on but the betterment of the breed seems a common objective.
One thing that came up repeatedly was that responsible breeders can do everything possible to hopefully breed dogs that will make good pets, that are healthy and are capable of doing what a gsd should, but the people who buy puppies from them may still go off and breed their puppy to the dog down the road and there are no controls over this. Anything the Breed Council put up would be voluntary although a lot of breeders would comply within the GSD world.
The question is should they be entitled to put an endorsement on puppies they sell as pets. The endorsement stating that the puppy is pet and must not be bred with, also there is the question of whether this would stand legally, all these questions are being addressed to the breed council, but out of interest would you personally buy a pedigree puppy, registered with the KC with the understanding that it was a pet and you could not breed from it.

I personally think it is a good idea, but whether workable is another matter, plus would it drive pet owners to purchase from the BSB rather than a responsible breeder

It sounds a very good and positive step forward to me estweyn, I hope that others follow suit, maybe the program has done some good.

out of interest would you personally buy a pedigree puppy, registered with the KC with the understanding that it was a pet and you could not breed from it.

I think it's a great idea in principle, and i would buy a pup on that understanding, as I'd no intention of breeding Blade. However, I'm not sure it's enforceable. I know in the cat world, there are some vets who will perform "early neutering" meaning that breeders are able to spay / neuter the kittens BEFORE they are sold on to their new homes, thus removing the chance of them being bred from. I don't know if this is possible in dogs. Even if restrictions are placed on a dog / cat's papers, it does not mean they CAN'T breed from them, just that they can't be registered. After all, how would the breeder know their pup had been used for breeding? I bought my GSD with no papers, so i guess his parents could have had restrictions on them but I would not have known. Maybe that's why all the other GSD pups i looked at were in the region of £400, and mine was only £180

Shame most people would get a non kc pup :(

The question is should they be entitled to put an endorsement on puppies they sell as pets. The endorsement stating that the puppy is pet and must not be bred with, also there is the question of whether this would stand legally, all these questions are being addressed to the breed council, but out of interest would you personally buy a pedigree puppy, registered with the KC with the understanding that it was a pet and you could not breed from it.

I personally think it is a good idea, but whether workable is another matter, plus would it drive pet owners to purchase from the BSB rather than a responsible breederYes they should be able to place an endorsement, as they have worked hard to gain a reputation for their 'name', and how many people breeding unclassified dogs brag loudly about the 'lines' of their dog?

There was a rott on here with an undershot jaw for starters, and a Redwitch Akita put up for random breeding

The breeder of your dog is usually the best to consult on which lines your dog will cross with best, and those which are likely to result in unusual features

With a covenant, it doesn't prevent you from breeding, it just means you have to have permission from the breeder of your dog

I have a dog with a covenant, and I'm more than happy with that situation, as it all comes wrapped up in a policy for him to be returned 'home' if we are for some reason unable to keep him - so it works in more ways than one, and it's not all aimed at restricting the new owner

Have a rummage through Bluesntwos posts - where you'll find that she (or somebody she knows) successfully took somebody to court for breach of contract when they sold one of 'her' dogs on without permission

they successfully reposessed the dog, and didn't have to refund either - something which can carry weight - when she'd have happily part-refunded upon placing the dog in a new home


I wouldn't buy from a breeder who didn't have these stipulations in place. It's a demonstration that a breeder is in it for the breed, more than for the money

The issue of KC registering unauthorised pups is one the KC have to address

I know of one breeder who was spitting teeth over a bitch she sold who was 'defective', so sold as a farm dog with a breeding covenant, but the KC registered the pups anyway

Now if the KC are going to do that, thereby raising the price tag on the litter, what chance have the well intentioned breeders got, and why are the backyard breeders and the puppyfarmers being legitimised by them in this fashion? :rant:

Takara has endorsements on her and when I bought her, the breeder agreed that if she liked the way she turned out and she was suitable for breeding she may lift the endorsement (she was keeping two other pups but there was conflict as to whether she ought to keep T or not).

However, I had her spayed so this was never an issue.

The problem with endorsements is, it doesn't say you can't breed from the dog full stop. It says litters produced from this dog cannot be KC registered.
So you can still breed the dog to the bloke down the road - you can breed your dog to any dog and the only thing they have against you is you can't KC Register it.
Which is why so many people sell non KC litters and say 'parents KC registered' - because they never had permission to breed.

So, whilst I like the idea of endorsements for the breeders sake (you don't have your name cropping up on a bad example of a breed because they can't KC reg. it), I don't think they would stop Joe Bloggs down the street from mating his bitch to the dog down the pub.

now it might be worthwhile pursuing whether advertising a litter with 'your' kennel name on when the pups aren't KC registered would be in breach of any laws - as a breeder's name is effectively a seal of quality, but in the Rott case I've described above, there are now two very good breeders with their noses out of joint over this defective dog with the undershot jaw passing on the same defect to her pups - all with two exceptional names in the pedigrees

(actually, if the breeder hadn't registered the pup with the undershot jaw in the first place, could the problem ever have arisen? would the owner ever have been able to register the litter if mum wasn't registered? )

Surely if a new owner signs a contract (whatever that may consist of) they are 'in breach of contract' if they breed from that dog at all, if that's what's in the contract