On reading previous posts I have had my views on endorsements changed to some degree.
But firstly I must challenge the post that stated that responsible breeders put endorsements on all their pups. This appears to make the assertion that those breeders who don't are not responsible breeders.
If you are referring to my first post on here, then I can only apologise for any misunderstanding it may have caused. Absolutely in no way, shape or form was I inferring that just because a breeder does not impose endorsements, then that breeder is irresponsible. My post was not meant to infer that at all. All three of my cockers had no endorsements placed and they were from responsible, caring breeders. As Sharon has said a few posts up, the endorsement she imposed prevented a potential buyer (who obviously lied to her by saying the puppy was for pet only) from probably using the dog as a breeding machine, so in my opinion, thank Heaven for that endorsement and the fact that Sharon refused to lift it. My personal opinion only and in no way meant as any disrespect to breeders who don't impose endorsements.
Just as a little aside, my daughter bought a puppy (irish setter) from an Accredited Breeder who had imposed endorsements. My daugher had no problem as Ruby was purely for a pet only. However, upon Ruby's health check up from the vet, it was discovered that she had a hernia. OK, so no real problem BUT the breeder told my daughter that she was sorry she had not pointed this out to her and that she should have done. Point I am making here is, I guess, even those who are Accredited breeders/impose endorsements can be a bit naughty!!!