But of course Crufts educates, if only because of the press coverage it gets...the tv shows about it educate, the whole responsible dog ownership thing educates....

It isn't up to the KC to ensure prosepctive puppy owners speak to the right people at the ring side......or at Discover Dogs. It is up to the prospective puppy buyer to ensure they speak to a wide variety of people in the breed.The KC at least sets up the opportunities for that....if the person you mention at Discover Dogs had gone on to speak to other people they would have known better places to go.

You could say that about anything though! However, no matter what we say the vast majority of the dog owning ublic aren't really that doggy and will seek out their new companion via free ads or websites etc and it is the responibility of the reputable amongst us to make sure that we are in those places so we can guide them to the better breeders.
Becky

[QUOTE=Ramble;1194117]I agree, I think it is vital that any dog bred should be entered on a central registry and microchipped or tatooed....a bit like a car registration, so the dog is always able to be traced back to owners or the breeder...health tests could also be put onto it.

As I say though I think it is beyond the KCs remit, it's a government issue...it would be a massive and expensive undertaking.


A well run breed club serves the same purpose, as the holder of the litter register would ensure health checks etc are done and would know all the current ethical breeders that breed within the societies breed standards....that's where puppy buyers should be directed, rather than to a list of names on the KC website surely? Perhaps the KC needs to look at ensuring Breed Socieites are well run and honest?[/QUOTE

But the government aren't responsible for registering the pups. And would it be that massive if broken down into breed clubs each having a central register. All you really need basically is a spreadsheet type document (I'm not aufait on computer programmes)and the breed clubs usually have a website anyway.

I agree they should go via breed clubs but people don't know this. Rightly or wrongly they assume KC registered means quality and until the KC tell the facts people will carry on believing it. And at Crufts, the highlight of the KC calendar this just shows the public and enforces the myth that pedigree KC registered dogs are the best, which in some cases just isn't so.

In your honest opinion do you think that if every breed had a central register that the KC would refuse to register any puppies whose parents are not on the list?

Here is a link to the page that I mentioned earlier, this is all that is basically needed but the KC would have to endorse it and promote it etc.
http://kerioak.dobermann.me.uk/

http://kerioak.dobermann.me.uk/

Sorry if my posts look a bit confusing, I can't get the hang of those boxey things and it won't let me write in the middle of the quote.

so if there is confusion regarding what KC Registered means then why dont they come clean and explain it on their web site. this gives people the chance to question the breeders more as to what ethical breeding they adhere too.

it is a huge failing of the KC not to explain this better as people assume that because the dogs registered then all health checks have been done and your getting a healthy dog.

the KC need more educating to be able to pass it on to the unsuspecting public.

my breed has their own stud book register, so why cant the KC have a general one as well? cost!! so they can have their fat cat pay packets.

270,000 pups reg with them last year @ £12 per reg

£3,240,000 in just puppy registration fees alone.

The Kennel club could do so much if only they chose to.

There you go again anne only mentioning income and none of the outgoings
Becky

couldnt have agreed more!

add to that the show fees and the tv rights and it could make a tidy sum.

if the KC did it for pleasure then there would be no profit, as it is staging shows, crufts included, would bring in plenty to gain a damn good profit alone.

The actual finances for last year are
income 11.8 m expenditure 11.3 m.
They do not take profit as they ar a not for profit company (as far as I can remember).
So they aren't looking at a massive "income".
Becky