Why do puppy adverts say this? No KC registration/not for breeding

[Duckegg271]

I’d never had any intention of breeding from a puppy but I keep seeing this an I’m just interested in the reason behind it.

So KC registered parents but pup will not be KC registered. Pet only homes need apply, no breeders, only the best for our babies. That type of thing.

But these people are breeders themselves. Is it genuine that they don’t want their puppies sold for breeding or is it about the money-less competition in the future.

Just wondering if this is a red flag or a positive thing that they genuinely want puppies to go to a good home?

I have no intention of buying from an advert like this. If we eventually do decide to get a puppy we’ll be finding a reputable/responsible breeder not from an advert on pets for homes. I’d just like a better understanding of these adverts.

Many KC registered pups are sold with an endorsed pedigree, which means that their pups cannot be kc registered. They can only be registered if the original breeder lifts the endorsement, for example if the pup excels in the show ring.

The rationale behind this is that it allows the original breeder to ensure that only the best of their pubs are bred.

When you see KC parents but the litter won’t be it’s likely that the parents were pet dogs, the endorsement hasn’t been lifted, and so the litter can’t be registered.

Yes as pp to control the breeding from that line.

Other times I have seen it used is if it's a litter that wouldn't be allowed to be registered. For example, bitch to old, or bitch had to many previous litters.

It means the puppies can’t be KC registered, but they’re trying to make it sound like it’s not that...

If you buy a puppy from KC registered parents then the puppy should also be registered, with the relevant paperwork. If the breeder tells you excuses for why this is not the case, be very weary.

Preventing a puppy from being bred from is standard, good practice. Only selected puppies that conform to the breed standard and are worth breeding from should be bred. There are a number of ways for a breeder to try to prevent unwanted breedings, although not all are effective. The most effective is to block the registration of future litters. Labeling a puppy for a pet home means it is not meant for breeding.

All this goes out of the window with designer breeds where everyone does whatever pops into their heads and produces whatever puppies they think will sell for the most money to the uninformed.

It could be several reasons

• one or both parents aren't actually KC registered themselves
• the parents are KC registered, but they're endorsed so none of their offspring can be registered.
• the puppies are cross-breeds
• the bitch has had too many litters for this one to be KC registered.
• the bitch is too old for this litter to be KC registered.
• they want the bitch to have more litters than the KC allows, so get around it by having unregistered litters

Puppies from genuinely KC registered parents should always be KC registered. There's no good reason not to KC register a pedigree puppy but there are plenty of poor excuses.

our dog is from a KC registered parentage. He isn't registered. The breeder explained it that she only keeps the best from the litter and only allows the others to be pets.

As it is, he's ended up not show quality anyway (he's too big.. HUGE boy for the breed) so it was neither here nor there.

I can think of no genuine reason why a pedigree puppy would not be registered with the KC. I can think of several reasons for NOT registering them and all of those reasons would make me walk away.

I don't mind the contractual decision for not allowing you to breed from a puppy unless it was endorsed because I just wanted a pet and had no plans to breed from him.

If you're reading this in online ads the most likely reason is that they can't register the pups because the mum has already had too many litters, or is too old. It's also possible that the pups are not tge breed they claim they are.
There is literally no good reason not to register pups from registered parents.

He isn't registered. The breeder explained it that she only keeps the best from the litter and only allows the others to be pets.

Sounds like bullshit to me, sorry.

KC registration has nothing to do with dogs being pets or not!

Puppies can be registered but with an endorsement (progeny not eligible for registration) so there is absolutely no good reason for an eligible puppy not to be registered. Except that it isn't actually eligible.

Playing devils advocate, it's not always as simple as the breeder making an excuse.

My pup and her siblings are not registered because my DF (the breeder) was misadvised. We were told that as the holder of the bitch he could register them.
Turns out he would also need the signature of his ex as she was registered as co-owner (mating was before split), and she refused do so.
We ended up selling the pups for half their worth had they had papers (from excellent working lines) but some have gone on to be excellent working gundogs.

The first two litters from a kc registered bitch can also be registered as KC any litters after that cant be. Think its to do with overbreeding. And the more litters the bitch has the more health problems they can have

The KC rules

The Kennel Club rules for registration
Before thinking about breeding from your bitch, you
should acquaint yourself with the Kennel Club Rules
and Regulations on registering litters and the registration
system in general. You will need to remember that the
Kennel Club will not accept an application to register a
litter when:

1. The dam has already whelped four litters, save in

exceptional circumstances, and only provided the application is made prior to the mating and with veterinary evidence as to the suitability of the bitch involved in the proposed whelping and permission has been received, or

1. The dam has already reached the age of 8 years

at the date of whelping, save in exceptional circumstances, and only provided application is made prior to the mating, and the proposed dam has previously whelped at least one other registered litter and permission has been received. Any such application must be supported by veterinary evidence as to the suitability of the bitch involved in the proposed whelping, or

1. The dam was under one year old at the time of

mating, or

1. The offspring are the result of any mating between

father and daughter, mother and son or brother and sister, save in exceptional circumstances or for scientifically proven welfare reasons and permission has been received, or

1. The dam has already had two litters delivered by

caesarean section, save for scientifically proven welfare reasons, and this only provided the application is made prior to the mating. Provided that the General Committee reserves the right to refuse any application made under Regulation B22c (1), (2), (4) and (5)

www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/8261/breeding.pdf

nope.

We know our breed and we do our research, more than most. We see Dam and Sire (if both owned) we see all their pedigree papers and everything to do with the litter, all their medical too.

The breed also have a breeding protocol (king Charles cavs) because of issues with mitral valve disease, and personal experience with syringomyelia from a previous dog before the issue was well known.

Our breeder is signed up to it, the bitches are allowed less litters and there are strict medical requirements involved in them being allowed to breed for each litter so we can prove they're all above board and not illegal litters.. which we wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

The litter was registered and official, but the breeder made it clear we can't breed from him and we have no papers like one dog we had which came with full papers including a show name from her breeding line.

None of that makes any sense though GreenyEye...

Either the litter isn’t registered, or it is but she’s kept his pedigree and kept herself as his registered owner instead of transferring him to you.

There’s no logical reason to do that if the litter is registered because endorsing the pedigree does exactly the same thing, in that any future offspring couldn’t be registered, except you’d be his owner.

Sorry @GreenyEye but that makes no sense.

She could still KC register the litter and just put an endorsement on them so none of them could be bred from. There's absolutely no need for a well bred litter from KC registered parents not to be registered themselves. Nor is there any reason for that pedigree not to be passed on to the new owners.

I can think of no genuine reason why a pedigree puppy would not be registered with the KC. I can think of several reasons for NOT registering them and all of those reasons would make me walk away
That's my thinking. There may be a couple of good reasons based on specific circumstances and I would expect a competent and reputable breeder to explain fully.
Some of the reasons given to people on this thread would give me red flags.

It's common and so the puppies can't be bred from (or can but there would be no point without KC papers). Its keeps that particular breeders line pure and makes sure the breed standard isn't diluted. These breeders want their puppies to be family pets.

It is hypocritical but its good for the puppies.

@LochJessMonster why not just register the litter and put an endorsement on the puppies then? It achieves the same results.

I wouldn't buy a litter from a KC registered breeder who wasn't registering her puppies. Sounds to me like the litter was over the limit for the dam, the dam was too old or the dogs weren't the purebreeds she's claiming them be.

There is no good reason not to register a litter that's come from KC registered parents.