|
Location: uk
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,283
|
|
Originally Posted by
cesky2000
Visits are made at random to new applicants.
In other words most are not visited. Most are accredited completely outside the review of the organisation that is accrediting them.
Anyone who has had a complaint against them
In waiting until
after a complaint is made before inspecting breeder standards makes the persuance of good standards a retroactive measure - an accredited until proven guilty scheme - which is not how most people would expect accreditation to work and is an invitation for bad breeders to try it on.
Speaking of how most people would expect accreditation to work - I think many would be surprised that the KC is perfectly happy to accredit someone who has never bred a litter in their life and, indeed, had never previously owned a dog!
If I employed an accredited gas-fitter I would expect (correctly) that that fitter has demonstrated his competency. If I employ an accredited lawyer, doctor or plumber I would expect the same. And I'd be right. But not with a KC accredited breeder. He doesn't have to prove his competency in any way at all beyond filling in the on-line form and sending the dosh.
or who registers more than five litters a year automatically gets a visit
Is that new? Because it was
10 litters (according to Dr. Samson) a few months back. It wasn't until the
eleventh litter that Mr. Lambert would pay a visit.
Edit to add: Of course there's no mechanism to prevent a breeder avoiding inspection by registering a set number of litters with the KC and registering others with Dog Lovers or just selling unregistered. The KC know and have publically acknowledged that there are puppy farmers operating within the accredited breeder scheme.
Is it any wonder that better breeders (whose standards greatly exceed this appalling scheme anyway) are reluctant to touch it with a bargepole.
An
accredited breeder.