Can someone help me with a question about KC registrations!?

[Loserinlove]

Is it the person who is kc registered or just the dog please?

I almost got a puppy but had to decline because it just wasn't the right time for me. I sometimes wonder how that dog would have grown up because he was lovely but I just hadn't got everything lined up because of my work. It was another 9 months or so when I found another suitable one at the right time.

I would keep looking and prepare myself that it might be next year rather than this year. Puppies are hard work and expensive so it's no good getting one that either isn't suitable or at the wrong time when you can't care for it.

I think the public outrage of Pedigrees exposed rather than any genuine motivation to change was behind the changes

I absolutely agree. The KC likes to make all the right noises without actually doing much that will make a difference.

A great example is when they announced they were stopping registering pups from very close matings. Sounds like a great move but ultimately pointless when they’re still happy to register dogs with an inbreeding coefficient as high (or even higher) than such a mating would produce.

It’s obvious where their motivation lies when you see which breeds they’ve focused on to try and improve. After (entirely justified) public outrage over the state of GSDs the KC made a real show of pushing for change. The extreme brachycephalic breeds are arguably in at least as much as mess as GSDs, if not more so, and yet the KC is doing very little to encourage breeding for more moderate phenotypes. I don’t think it’s coincidence that there’s been much less public outcry over the brachy breeds...

The problem is the very breeding model the KC stands for (completely distinct breeds with closed stud books) is inherently bad for dogs as a whole. There needs to be a huge shift in attitudes towards purity and breeding but the chances of it coming from the KC are minimal when the people they’re so keen to pander to still see purity as paramount.

There is actually a system whereby unregistered dogs can be added to the breed register if they’re deemed to have enough breed type by a panel of judges but it doesn’t seem to be widely known about and the KC certainly aren’t promoting it in any way. What they should be doing is encouraging breeders to utilise it for the regular outcrosses that will eventually be vital to stop all recognised breeds from ending up in the same mess the Dobermann is in.

Apologies for contributing to the detail Loserinlove

Don’t apologise whose too much infor is better than not enough!!

I’m just not convinced a KC is all it’s made out to be.... if the breeder has tested the parents.... really that’s all that matters to me. I just presumed kc was the be all and end all. Maybe not?

It isn’t all it’s made out to be, the problem as wolfiefan said is there are so few ‘good’ breeders out there compared to bad so its an absolute minefield out there.
There are so many things to look out for to try and secure a well bred puppy.

Excellent article, Whose, seems to be the science behind what I've thought.
Always wondered if breeds should be based more on what the dogs were like than who there parents were, ie if you managed to produce a dog that looked and acted like a Labrador, for example, it should be counted as one, rather than unless its mum and dad are Labradors, it can't be. IYSWIM. I guess that system would probably be as open to abuse as the current one though. But totally, the current system (together with the resistance to outcrossing) seems to be leading to a lack of genetic diversity. Not helped, I daresay, by breeding restrictions that breeders place on their dogs, most rescues routinely neutering dogs and the general public almost bullied into neutering their pets. Ok, some of this is not necessarily bad, just takes more dogs out the gene pool. TBH have had one that needed to be taken out the gene pool, but thats another story!!

Can anyone tell me what the difference is/what problems could arise is I got a puppy that I felt comfortable with the breeder, happy with conditions etc and the parents were both health tested etc V getting a puppy that is KC with both parents health tested?

OP I presume you are trying to minimise health issues given your responses earlier.

Even if you got a puppy from a great breeder it doesn't preclude every health condition so you may want to investigate insurance as it doesn't pay to ignore that especially as lots of things fall under the excess. I have claimed around £4500 for non breed specific illnesses in the first two years and spent a fortune on things that came under the £85 excess. I am mentioning this because you said you were having to save just to get the puppy etc.

To answer you last question personally I would be wondering why someone who had gone to all the trouble didn't want to register the pups with KC because then I would wonder why and whether they were hiding something in the pedigree linage. If I wanted a puppy of a specific pedigree rather than a cross/mixed breed then I want to know that is what I am getting.

KC registered breeders have very strict rules to follow about how many litters they are allowed to breed and how often and what age the dam can be.
The registration protects Dam more than the pups but it does mean that it isn't a puppy farm and pups come with insurance and food etc.
Make sure you see the pups with Mam in a clean home environment.

Iv already researched insurance and will get life time cover and will be paying for that monthly so Iv included that in my ‘outgoings’ for a dog each month.

I guess I’ll keep looking!

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by your question loser, KC Registration makes no difference to anything concerning the puppy’s health or anything.

It is simply a written record documenting who the pups parents, grandparents etc are.

It means you can participate in shows if that is something you would like to do and it means that if you breed your puppy you can register the pups with the kennel club as long as your dog wasn’t sold with an endorsement on its pedigree.

That’s it.

It doesn’t make the puppy any ‘better’ than anyone else’s and it is absolutely no guarantee of a good breeder.

As stated earlier, most puppy farm pups are KC registered.
Forget about KC registration and focus on everything else about the breeder like the surroundings, the condition of the mum, health and number of pups, how keen the breeder is to question you etc.

There are good, valid reasons why a breeder would choose not to register but ultimately the number of bad breeders far outweigh good ones, regardless of KC registration.

If the breeder appears good in all other ways and you feel happy with him/her then get the puppy regardless of KC registration.

With dachshunds, you should also be aware of the issues around double dapples too; not something that is tested for, but you need to know how to spot them - and avoid like the plague.

Didn't anyone else read Whose'e referenced article and wonder if one wouldn't be better off getting a Jack Russel? Its a similar type of dog, comes in a variety of colours and hairiness, also has ridiculously short legs. Loads around, and (according to article) have sufficient genetic diversity to give a high probability of good health without extensive testing, probably due to evading the KC. Thus won't have to worry about registration. Just find someone who cares enough to give them a good start in life.

Personally, sorry OP! I do disagree with the breeding of Dachshunds in their current form..

Although that said I don’t think they are in as much trouble as the brachy breeds like pugs and the like or cavaliers or Dobermanns or GSDs.

I would (as with SO many other breeds) like to see a return to the original Dachshund though personally.

I don’t know enough about Jacks or Dachshunds really to comment much on how similar they are in temperament.

1915 Dachshund pictured vs modern day.

Looking at the original dog, i would like to see them even shorter backed than that really.
Just a slightly lengthened back.

And sadly the KC have got their teeth into the jack now.

Previously they only recognised the ‘Parson jack russel terrier’
A lovely little dog bearing no resemblance to the dogs most people think of as a jack.

Then they recognised the jack russell terrier and wrote a breed standard for it that is basically a tiny Parson with short legs.

Again, lovely little dog but not what most people would think of as s Jack.

KC Jack and Parsons pictured.

I wish there was a body over and above the kennel club that controlled the breeding of dogs. Parsons are lovely. That KC version looks nothing like the jacks my grandad had (gamekeeper) when I was growing up.
I would like to see pugs etc be bred so the poor buggers can breathe. GSD without the sloping back. Some Dachshunds are almost a parody of the breed.
Dogs should be fit for purpose and be fit and able to do the job they were designed for. Too many pedigrees are like catwalk models. Not healthy.
It takes patience and a suspicious mind with a real desire to put animal welfare first to buy a puppy that has any chance of being fit and well. And that comes from a reputable breeder. By that I don’t mean a Crufts winner or someone “known”. I mean someone who really cares about improving the breed and not just making money or winning prizes.

Absolutely 100%

You gotta admit though, while the KC version of a jack looks nothing like what most people would associate as a Jack, it is utterly adorable!
🥰

Almost makes me want to come away from my beloved sheps and collies and become a terrier girl! Almost.

I wouldn't touch a puppy that wasn't:

KC Reg
Fully Endorsed
From parents that had BOTH been health tested with ALL the relavant breed tests
Wasnt from a breeder with no KC Affix
Wasn't from proven show or working parents
Couldn't be seen with the mother
Was from a household with more than two different breeds
Wasnt microchipped, flea treated and wormed

My apologies, I stand corrected re KC!! I knew about the Parsons, not the short legged one though. Well, there must still be thousands of non KC perfectly healthy ones around. Its not exactly a rare breed.

My JR (who to me looks typical of the breed) looks very like the 1915 Dachshund pictured, barring the colouring and ears - I obviously wont be winning Crufts with him!

I actually meant they were bred for similar purposes and thus extrapolated (possibly falsely) that they may have similar temperaments. I don't now any dachs with which to compare, but seems they are similarly independent, intelligent characters according to at least one breed description. If such things can be trusted. I know my JR is a hoot!

I have no intention to ‘show’ or ever breed. I will 100% have the best insurance that I can find and have already researched this, I just want to make sure I do my best at making sure it’s happy and healthy, that’s all.

It’s not just the pup though. If you buy a pup you need to consider the welfare of the parents too.

Oh and I won’t be getting a dapple or any description.

Yes of course and I wouldn’t part with any money without visiting and seeing the conditions etc

The trouble is that the puppy farmers don’t show you where pups were actually raised.