solving the "bad breeder" problem:


  • @tanza said in solving the "bad breeder" problem::

    Are you referring to Canadian Kennel club with showing CKC?

    In the US we have the AKC, in the UK/Canada they have the CKC(?). Is that correct?

    @tanza said in solving the "bad breeder" problem::

    AKC/CKC (from Canada) do not require health records to register

    Correct. But, couldn't we convince them to require health records?

    Breeders register their pups through these two organizations. If we could get them to require health records in the registration process, then it would (theoretically) weed out the problem.

    Example: A breeder registers their Basenji pups, but the parentage indicates that this mating could produce offspring with Fanconi syndrome. The AKC/CKC puts a hold on the registration until those pups can be properly tested. Pups that are then given a registration that includes code indicating the test results.

    Example: Pups without (breed specific) health testing are not registered until the proper health test documentation is received.

    I suppose it would be like having the AKC registration on hold without the related CHIC number. Kind of like combining Canine Health Information Center (CHIC), OFA and AKC records. All future AKC/CKC registered animals would have to have the related breed specific testing done before the registration could be finalized.

    Would something like that prevent "bad breeders" from selling sick dogs? Or, perhaps, not be able to sell them as registered? Or maybe encourage them to be better breeders?


  • @elbrant - AKC is a registration only for AKC dogs, not linked to health testing... that is up to the breeders... they register dogs, not health testing. Chances of them changing after over 100 years of maintaining the registration will not happen... so not even worth going there. And CKC is yes Canadian but the same CKC is also used by the off registration of the Continental Kennel Club (CKC)... and this is a off site that you can register anything....so to speak. And AKC/CKC have NO relationship to OFA - CHIC .... and I disagree that it would stop irresponsible breeders.... they go to off sites to register dogs that don't care about responsible breeding. Lay people and the general public have NO idea what any of this means... I would suggest that you go to AKC and read about what this site is about.... will give you a better idea. Many pet buyers do not "care" about registrations... which is why responsible breeders register the litters themselves... Many things to learn about breeders and breeding... and keeping our breed safe and healthy.


  • @tanza you misunderstood my comments...

    What if the AKC did link health testing to the registration process?
    Do you think that would inhibit the sales of unhealthy pure-bred dogs?
    Would that have an effect on the so-called "bad" and "back yard" breeders?


  • @elbrant - This is wishful thinking "what if"... it will NOT happen with AKC, again this is a registration site, NOT a health testing site... so you are "dreaming" that this would happen... and it does NOT solve the problem with irresponsible breeders... they DO NOT care about registrations.... they care about money. People need to learn how to learn about health testing and NOT rely on people selling pups for dollars. So there is no use to talk about it... it is educating the public about find good breeders and we as responsible breeders should be able to call out breeders that are irresponsible and alert the public...


  • @elbrant - And even (which will not happen).... people still need to be advise on NOT responsible breeders by name... period


  • @tanza said in solving the "bad breeder" problem::

    This is wishful thinking

    It's not wishful thinking, it's a question.

    The AKC Mission Statement includes, "... advance canine health and well-being, ... " and there is the sister organization Canine Health Foundation

    Clearly this demonstrates that they take owner responsibilities and the health of their canine companion seriously. So, yes, I think that the AKC would be responsive to the idea if we could gather enough support among breeders and owners.

    Thank you for taking the time to discuss it further.

    @tanza said in solving the "bad breeder" problem::

    as responsible breeders should be able to call out breeders that are irresponsible and alert the public... ... people still need to be advise on NOT responsible breeders by name... period

    Do what you want elsewhere, but the rules do not promote that type of activity on the Forum.


  • OK, I give up... you have your responses... but not what the public sees... so I am over it,.... you are really out of bounds...


  • @elbrant said in solving the "bad breeder" problem::

    @tanza you misunderstood my comments...
    What if the AKC did link health testing to the registration process?

    But it won't. And as registration itself is up to the breeder it would be academic anyway. Some irresponsible breeders do register their breeding stock with the AKC and some even do run health checks, but seldom on the entire litter. Maybe one of 6.

    Most puppy farmers (puppy-mills) don't bother to register any of their Basenjis. There is no way to make them do so and thus linking health testing would be irrelevant.

    Irresponsible breeding from bad breeders is going to continue - they are un-policeable. But newbies to the breed need to be warned to avoid them, not buy puppies from them, and if they do and get into trouble (puppy is incurably ill for example) they need support. Which they are unlikely to get from their breeder - hence the need for the Forum to give help where at all possible.

    I have never queried Forum Rules - I just feel there are some areas where a little latitude should be permitted.


  • @zande said in solving the "bad breeder" problem::

    Irresponsible breeding from bad breeders is going to continue - they are un-policeable. But newbies to the breed need to be warned to avoid them,

    I agree - - I was just trying to "think outside the box" to see if we could find a more "politically correct" way to 1) discourage bad breeding practices, and 2) educate people.

    @zande said in solving the "bad breeder" problem::

    I have never queried Forum Rules - I just feel there are some areas where a little latitude should be permitted.

    The problem is, sadly, that if you can "bad mouth" someone, everyone will jump in and we end up with a never ending flame war instead of productive solutions and a supportive community.

    Furthermore, singling out one individual at a time is not going to put a dent in the overall issue. Which is where my thoughts were heading.... what organization would be the best group to help solve the problem. The AKC/CKC seemed like the logical answer to that question. I still think there is merit to the idea, so I'm up for discussing it further.


  • @elbrant I don't know how to solve the bad breeder problem. It's complicated. Breeders are not required to register dogs/pups nor health test them. And even if they were... there's no way to enforce that they do. There are no enforceable consequences. I suppose AKC or it's Canadian and European equivalents could ban future membership, but bad breeders are more than likely not members and couldn't care less if they were refused membership.

    The other issue is that inexperienced adopters/buyers don't know about registration/health testing and how important it is to preserve and protect any purebred breed. It's just not important to them. It wasn't to us when I got Jengo. We just wanted a pet. Any consideration of a registered dog lasted about two milliseconds back then.

    So, it becomes a vicious cycle. With uneducated/uninterested buyers, bad breeders who have no consequences continue to churn out puppies knowing they have a steady supply of buyers who carry wallets.


  • @jengosmonkey - Note that there is NO membership in AKC, only clubs (all breed clubs and specialty clubs) are members as a club, not individuals.
    And you are totally correct, many times I would get puppy requests that the person says "not interested in a show dog, only a pet. Papers are not important".....
    Many years ago a person that breeds had a Brindle dog that sire some of their litters. In looking at the pedigree for that dog there was NO brindles in that pedigree at all, so NO way did that pedigree match the dog.
    And there are people selling puppies with a price of X with papers or a lower price without papers.... and what do they do with the puppy papers not used? Attach to another puppy... no way to track health testing in those cases.
    AKC did put in a rule that if you had a dog that sire more than x amount of litters, that dog had to be DNA'ed with AKC, that is the only rule... and again, who is to say that is the DNA from that dog? And when that happened is when you saw these "pop-up" places to "register" puppies...
    So there are ways to "beat the system".... AKC takes people at their word that what they are registering the sire/dam is the correct ones.


  • I knew a breeder (of another breed) who was sinking into Alzheimer's as she aged, and I think the last few years when she was still breeding it's quite likely that many of the pups she sold did not have the correct parents indicated on the registration papers. She was often confused and wasn't sure which male had serviced which bitch. Just to say, sometimes it isn't deliberate deceit. If you actually visit the breeder you may have a better idea of how organized (or not) they are....


  • @eeeefarm - I agree there are situations like this... but then they really should not be breeding... not to say it was "planned".... or deceit... however these days it is not easy to visit the breeder...


  • @tanza Yeah, yer right. AKC isn't a club per say. It's the governing body for registering and showing. It never dawned on me that people would fake a pedigree, or mix up dogs, or sell a pup with a mismatched pedigree. Unreal.

    Clubs could ban or deny membership/s. When I was on the board of directors with my astronomy club we passed a bylaw that allowed us to ban/ deny membership. We've only used it once.

    To beat a dead horse... wouldn't matter. The worst of the bad breeders I've heard of never show their dogs, so no need for AKC registration. Club membership? Why waste money on that? That money can be used for chains to keep the dogs in the yard. I'm tempted to use a middle finger emoji, but I won't.

    I recognize the need to take this discussion in much more positive direction and outline HOW to identify responsible breeders, how to talk to them, what questions to ask and what to look for. That's going to take some time...


  • The phrase one most dreads is 'papers are not important' - because they ARE, even if you only want a pet and never intend to show or breed. But I have seen (scans from US) so-called Bills of Sale with a couple of call names scribbled on as parents. That is not ethical ! Purchasers should be given the registered names of parents so they can make a check that both are health tested. But therein lies another rub. Often the parents are neither registered nor health tested.

    Over here the Kennel Club requires the breeder to register the entire litter, not sell pups and let new owners register (or not). But particularly since covid and the soaring demand for puppies, some people have bred litters with no intention of registering them. And no thought for health or compatibility of blood lines. Its all very worrying.


  • It's the law in Canada that no dog may be sold as purebred without being registered. "Any breeder selling a dog as purebred must register the dog and provide the new owner with the registration certificate within six months of the date of sale – this is the law, as required under the Animal Pedigree Act. " Of course, having a law and enforcing it are two different things....


  • @eeeefarm said in solving the "bad breeder" problem::

    It's the law in Canada that no dog may be sold as purebred without being registered

    I didn't know about that, but it is closely related to my concept of finding some "governing" body that would be able to regulate pure-bred animals in some fashion.

    @eeeefarm said in solving the "bad breeder" problem::

    having a law and enforcing it are two different things....

    Exactly! Which was another point I was trying to make. We all need to understand that, regardless of our efforts, there will always be people who are "bad breeders". It's the whole ying & yang of the universe. There is always an "equal and opposite action".


  • @elbrant said in solving the "bad breeder" problem::

    We all need to understand that, regardless of our efforts, there will always be people who are "bad breeders". It's the whole ying & yang of the universe. There is always an "equal and opposite action"

    Which makes it all the more important that people be made aware of who is who, and who to avoid when making such an important purchase as a Basenji. No-one is seeking to change the status quo. We recognise it can't happen. But we do seek to let folks know more about the pitfalls and dangers.


  • @zande - Totally agree. Keep in mind that at least in the US, responsible breeders all KNOW each other.... when ones pop up or that been known as irresponsible breeders they need to be called out.


  • @zande, @tanza Well, if anyone has an idea of how we can educate potential puppy owners without saying "this person" or "that person" is a "bad breeder".... I'm all ears.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 3
  • 12
  • 23
  • 20
  • 13