AKC Limited Registration

[mnaj_springer]

I've thinking about this a little bit lately and I want to hear from some folks on here, and hopefully some breeders...

First of all, I understand that breeders may want to protect their lines, and the practice of limited registration may reduce the temptation for "backyard breeders." That all makes sense to me.

My questions are:
1. What are other people's thoughts on this practice?
2. Breeders, if you generally sell puppies with a limited registration, what do you do, or how do you handle it, when a buyer requests full registration?

Thanks

[gonehuntin']

I despise the idea and would NEVER buy a pup with limited registration. If I'm paying $1200.00 for a pup I'll do whatever I want with it.

[art hubbard]

I'm thinking this is a rip off, just like selling a pup for x amount money and have to pay extra for the papers. Just my opinion...

[shags]

If a breeder is producing puppies that are not good enough for full registration, why would anyone buy one fron him/her?
I think limited registration is a rip-off. Why even bother?

[ezzy333]

I agree with all of the above and several other points too.

Ezzy

[CDN_Cocker]

I wouldn't buy a dog on limited registration. I find it offensive. It is someone just trying to make money by breeding puppies and then holding a monopoly over their chosen breed in their area so they don't end up with competition. I never plan on breeding, but I also never plan on allowing someone to tell me I'm not.

[Spy Car]

I see it in a somewhat different perspective. The OP is correct that outstanding ethical breeders who have invested time, money, and expertise into their lines, often importing dogs from afar, and always doing the expensive medical testing to minimize chances of passing genetic problems, have reputations and lines to protect.

There are unfortunately many back-yard breeders who will throw any two dogs together with no expertise, care, or regard for negative genetics. Those dogs carry a kennels name in the pedigree and the price of dogs that are not mated used high ethical standards does undermine those who do things the right way.

And breeds are diminished by poorly bred dogs that carry papers.

So there is another side to the story.

I do get where it rankles. Especially when people who wish to participate in competitions that require full registration, and have zero intention of breeding their dogs, get caught up in the limits of limited registration. Responsible people pay the price for the actions of those who act irresponsibly, and that sucks.

The imperfect mechanism that many breeders use is to enter into "co-ownership" arrangements, where the pet buyer owns the dog (for all practical purposes) but the breeder retains veto power over any breeding. Not a perfect situation, but having people irresponsibly breeding gundogs with no ethical standards to sell on Craigslist is not a good solution either.

It is a conundrum.

Bill

[gonehuntin']

I see it as a total detriment to the decelopment of quality dogs. Under limited registration now no dual champions can be made. It also assumes that a breeder knows what the heck they're doing and that many times is simply not the case. Our great dogs today are the result of being able to breed great dogs and then to compete with those dogs. Breeders are NOT as knowledgable in many cases about dogs as the trainers and competetors are; those are the people that KNOW what they want in a dog and how individual dog's train. It was another of AKC's huge blunders and I don't think any sensible person can justify it. I also most strongly feel that no person should buy from a breeder that follows those practices.

[RayGubernat]

A dog with a limited registration cannot be entered in a dog show. If it is bred, the litter cannot be registered in AKC.

It can be entered in hunt tests or field trials, but if it cannot be bred...what would be the point to that?

I have the sense that the AKC limited registration thing is a defense mechanism by show breeders and show fanciers to minimize the competition, to artificially inflate the value of their kennel's puppy production and to marginalize and inhibit new folks from coming in and stepping on their toes.

This is not very much different, in reality, from what goes on at the highest levels of field trialing. The very best of dogs and their progeny are typically spoken for, well before they are born. The folks that have spoken for them are usually dedicated trailers who have the means and willingness to develop and campaign these dogs and who very often have handshake type reciprocal relationships with the breeder of the litter in question as well as others.
A kennel which focuses on breeding a large number of high quality dogs simply cannot identify, develop and campaign all of the outstanding dogs that they will produce. Even if the breeder has enough money to hire out the training and development, the costs of campaigning dogs is steep and if you are campaigning multiple dogs from similar breeding... the question becomes...WHY?

By spreading those top prospects around among a circle of like minded folks a far, far greater numbers of the very best of prospects will get a chance to reach for the brass ring, and in the process bring credit to their owners, handlers and their breeders. This is especially true if the dogs end up being campaigned by different handlers in different parts of the country. But is certainly can make it difficult for someone who is not in that circle, to get some of that blood. Different scenario, but similar result.

But back to the topic....FWIW, I believe a dog that has an AKC limited registration can be cross registered in the FDSB, and thus , when bred, the pups will be pedigreed.
They will be FDSB pedigreed, but pedigreed nonetheless.

Since the AKC has a reciprocal arrangement with FDSB, I suspect that, through a vehicle like Open Registration it will be quite possible to register individuals from a litter with AKC using the FDSB registration information for the dog with the AKC Limited registration. It would be highly unlikely that the AKC would pick up on the fact that the dog was both FDSB and AKC registered, especially if the dog's name were to be changed on the FDSB paperwork.

RayG

[Spy Car]

I see it as a total detriment to the decelopment of quality dogs. Under limited registration now no dual champions can be made. It also assumes that a breeder knows what the heck they're doing and that many times is simply not the case. Our great dogs today are the result of being able to breed great dogs and then to compete with those dogs. Breeders are NOT as knowledgable in many cases about dogs as the trainers and competetors are; those are the people that KNOW what they want in a dog and how individual dog's train. It was another of AKC's huge blunders and I don't think any sensible person can justify it. I also most strongly feel that no person should buy from a breeder that follows those practices.

But do you believe knowledgable trainers and competitors really purchase dogs from unknowledgeable breeders?

All the competitors and trainers I know have deep relationships with the best breeders around. Or will go out of state or even internationally to find a great prospect. They are not the people buying dogs off Craigslist or from other backyard breeders.

Bill

[Spy Car]

A dog with a limited registration cannot be entered in a dog show. If it is bred, the litter cannot be registered in AKC.

It can be entered in hunt tests or field trials, but if it cannot be bred...what would be the point to that?

I have the sense that the AKC limited registration thing is a defense mechanism by show breeders and show fanciers to minimize the competition, to artificially inflate the value of their kennel's puppy production and to marginalize and inhibit new folks from coming in and stepping on their toes.

This is not very much different, in reality, from what goes on at the highest levels of field trialing. The very best of dogs and their progeny are typically spoken for, well before they are born. The folks that have spoken for them are usually dedicated trailers who have the means and willingness to develop and campaign these dogs and who very often have handshake type reciprocal relationships with the breeder of the litter in question as well as others.
A kennel which focuses on breeding a large number of high quality dogs simply cannot identify, develop and campaign all of the outstanding dogs that they will produce. Even if the breeder has enough money to hire out the training and development, the costs of campaigning dogs is steep and if you are campaigning multiple dogs from similar breeding... the question becomes...WHY?

By spreading those top prospects around among a circle of like minded folks a far, far greater numbers of the very best of prospects will get a chance to reach for the brass ring, and in the process bring credit to their owners, handlers and their breeders. This is especially true if the dogs end up being campaigned by different handlers in different parts of the country. But is certainly can make it difficult for someone who is not in that circle, to get some of that blood. Different scenario, but similar result.

But back to the topic....FWIW, I believe a dog that has an AKC limited registration can be cross registered in the FDSB, and thus , when bred, the pups will be pedigreed.
They will be FDSB pedigreed, but pedigreed nonetheless.

Since the AKC has a reciprocal arrangement with FDSB, I suspect that, through a vehicle like Open Registration it will be quite possible to register individuals from a litter with AKC using the FDSB registration information for the dog with the AKC Limited registration. It would be highly unlikely that the AKC would pick up on the fact that the dog was both FDSB and AKC registered, especially if the dog's name were to be changed on the FDSB paperwork.

RayG

Usually when dogs are sold with Limited AKC registration there is also a clause in the purchase contract that limits breeding rights. If one cross registered a dog with such a contract and bred the dog, one could potentially find oneself in a lawsuit.

Bill

[gonehuntin']

But do you believe knowledgable trainers and competitors really purchase dogs from unknowledgeable breeders?

All the competitors and trainers I know have deep relationships with the best breeders around. Or will go out of state or even internationally to find a great prospect. They are not the people buying dogs off Craigslist or from other backyard breeders.

Bill

Trainers and competetors don't buy dog's from Craigslist and many times they don't buy them from known breeders either. When picking a breeding for themselves or a client they may buy from a breeder if they like the dire and dam or they may dugout to the backyard breeder if the guys has a competitive female that has been bred to a proven sire. Why would any breeder in their right mind want limited registration? One of the most valued dogs is the dual champion and with limited registration there is no chance of that.

There are FAR to many breeders that breed dogs with great bloodlines that have never been in competetion. Trainers and competetors look at how dogs train and compete as well as the bloodlines. How many great dogs have there been that could not reproduce themselves? Many. The bloodlines are only a portion of it; an important portion but a portion.

[Spy Car]

Trainers and competetors don't buy dog's from Craigslist and many times they don't buy them from known breeders either. When picking a breeding for themselves or a client they may buy from a breeder if they like the dire and dam or they may dugout to the backyard breeder if the guys has a competitive female that has been bred to a proven sire. Why would any breeder in their right mind want limited registration? One of the most valued dogs is the dual champion and with limited registration there is no chance of that.

There are FAR to many breeders that breed dogs with great bloodlines that have never been in competetion. Trainers and competetors look at how dogs train and compete as well as the bloodlines. How many great dogs have there been that could not reproduce themselves? Many. The bloodlines are only a portion of it; an important portion but a portion.

I don't believe any breeder would want a dog with a Limited Reg. Nor do I think an ethical breeder or serious competitor who would purchase a dog that didn't have medical clearances (and great scores) on both sire and dam. I don't know any so-called backyard breeders that pay for medical screenings. Serious people I know would not purchase such dogs.

I'm sure there are cases of good dogs coming out of haphazard breedings, and not-so-great dogs from pairs that look great on paper, but....

When more people who never compete with their dogs and don't follow the ethical standards of national breed clubs have access to AKC registered breeding stock, and call themselves "breeders," it undermines the breed. That's why the Limited Reg exists in the first place. To limit unknologable people from selling AKC dogs. The situation is imperfect.

Bill

[gonehuntin']

I didn't say they were haphazard breeding so. I stated it was a competetion proven female bred to a proven sire. There have been great dogs produced from breeding so like this. Such a person might only breed a female once every few years.

I would never buy a pup where the female was not proven in competetion and the dire was not an FC OR NFC.

[cjhills]

The more I do this ,the more convinced I become that it is way to much of a crap shoot to pay somebody extra for breeding rights on a young puppy. I guess if the breeder wants to charge a little more for breeding rights and is up front about it so be it. he just wants to make a little money on his dogs. If he does not feel the dog is a breeding prospect he should sell it with limited or no registration. However if he says it is for my protection as well as his, I have a problem with it. Very few , maybe none, of us have such a wonderful line that every puppy is going to be a super star. If you believe that you probably have not been doing it long enough. Some really good dogs produce really crappy puppies. In the big breeding programs there are a lot of surprises if you peek under the rug. If you think every puppy you breed is great you are fooling yourself, poop happens. I would not by a puppy with breeding restrictions or pay more for breeding rights........Cj

[cjhills]

Trainers and competetors don't buy dog's from Craigslist and many times they don't buy them from known breeders either. When picking a breeding for themselves or a client they may buy from a breeder if they like the dire and dam or they may dugout to the backyard breeder if the guys has a competitive female that has been bred to a proven sire. Why would any breeder in their right mind want limited registration? One of the most valued dogs is the dual champion and with limited registration there is no chance of that.

There are FAR to many breeders that breed dogs with great bloodlines that have never been in competetion. Trainers and competetors look at how dogs train and compete as well as the bloodlines. How many great dogs have there been that could not reproduce themselves? Many. The bloodlines are only a portion of it; an important portion but a portion.

I don't believe any breeder would want a dog with a Limited Reg. Nor do I think an ethical breeder or serious competitor who would purchase a dog that didn't have medical clearances (and great scores) on both sire and dam. I don't know any so-called backyard breeders that pay for medical screenings. Serious people I know would not purchase such dogs.

I'm sure there are cases of good dogs coming out of haphazard breedings, and not-so-great dogs from pairs that look great on paper, but....

When more people who never compete with their dogs and don't follow the ethical standards of national breed clubs have access to AKC registered breeding stock, and call themselves "breeders," it undermines the breed. That's why the Limited Reg exists in the first place. To limit unknologable people from selling AKC dogs. The situation is imperfect.

Bill

there is nothing in any of the National breed clubs ethical standards that have anything to do with producing better dogs....Cj

[Spy Car]

I didn't say they were haphazard breeding so. I stated it was a competetion proven female bred to a proven sire. There have been great dogs produced from breeding so like this. Such a person might only breed a female once every few years.

I would never buy a pup where the female was not proven in competetion and the dire was not an FC OR NFC.

So we don't disagree. No Craigslist-type backyard breeder has FC or NFC dogs. What the Limited Reg is designed to do is limit people who somehow get ahold of first or second generation offspring of titled dogs (but are know-nothings) from capitalizing on the work of others. It is not an easy problem.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Trainers and competetors don't buy dog's from Craigslist and many times they don't buy them from known breeders either. When picking a breeding for themselves or a client they may buy from a breeder if they like the dire and dam or they may dugout to the backyard breeder if the guys has a competitive female that has been bred to a proven sire. Why would any breeder in their right mind want limited registration? One of the most valued dogs is the dual champion and with limited registration there is no chance of that.

There are FAR to many breeders that breed dogs with great bloodlines that have never been in competetion. Trainers and competetors look at how dogs train and compete as well as the bloodlines. How many great dogs have there been that could not reproduce themselves? Many. The bloodlines are only a portion of it; an important portion but a portion.

I don't believe any breeder would want a dog with a Limited Reg. Nor do I think an ethical breeder or serious competitor who would purchase a dog that didn't have medical clearances (and great scores) on both sire and dam. I don't know any so-called backyard breeders that pay for medical screenings. Serious people I know would not purchase such dogs.

I'm sure there are cases of good dogs coming out of haphazard breedings, and not-so-great dogs from pairs that look great on paper, but....

When more people who never compete with their dogs and don't follow the ethical standards of national breed clubs have access to AKC registered breeding stock, and call themselves "breeders," it undermines the breed. That's why the Limited Reg exists in the first place. To limit unknologable people from selling AKC dogs. The situation is imperfect.

Bill

there is nothing in any of the National breed clubs ethical standards that have anything to do with producing better dogs....Cj

That's patently untrue.

Bill

[shags]

What is the difference between a subpar limited registered puppy and a fully registrable one from a puppy mill or one from a fully registered backyard craigslist breeding?

Uninformed people can buy a pup from a "great" breeding that didn't quite produce, and have bragging rights to an AKC kinda-sorta registered dog. The breeders cover their butts and that is the point. Breeders are protected and buyers are $crewed. AKC rakes in revenue from the registration regardless, plus those dogs' part of event fees if the owner competes later on.

What breeder can predict which eight week old puppy is going to grow into a good performance dog? Or not? Gimme a break - if that was something we could tell at eight weeks these boards would be empty except for the Brags section. About the only thing anyone can predict with baby pups is what color they probably will be. And if a breed has color disqualification, pups carrying it should be sold or given away without papers. If breeders want control over which get is bred in the future, they can hang onto pups until they're grown and neuter the culls; if they don't want their names attached to poor quality pups, well sorry, that's the chance you take when you breed.

[cjhills]

What is the difference between a subpar limited registered puppy and a fully registrable one from a puppy mill or one from a fully registered backyard craigslist breeding?

Uninformed people can buy a pup from a "great" breeding that didn't quite produce, and have bragging rights to an AKC kinda-sorta registered dog. The breeders cover their butts and that is the point. Breeders are protected and buyers are $crewed. AKC rakes in revenue from the registration regardless, plus those dogs' part of event fees if the owner competes later on.

What breeder can predict which eight week old puppy is going to grow into a good performance dog? Or not? Gimme a break - if that was something we could tell at eight weeks these boards would be empty except for the Brags section. About the only thing anyone can predict with baby pups is what color they probably will be. And if a breed has color disqualification, pups carrying it should be sold or given away without papers. If breeders want control over which get is bred in the future, they can hang onto pups until they're grown and neuter the culls; if they don't want their names attached to poor quality pups, well sorry, that's the chance you take when you breed.

This is exactly right.
Spy Car: AKC and the breed clubs ethical breeding standards have absolutely nothing to do with improving breeds. As the name implies, they are about ethical treatment of animals. As you probably know AKC will give you papers on anything with registered parents. no restrictions. You need to look at the real world.....................CJ

[SwitchGrassWPG]

Could an AKC Limited Registration could be compared to dogs deemed "non-breedable" by the parent organizations who limit the dogs eligible to breed and the resulting pups being registered with the organization? Instead of being done at the breeder level, it is being done at the top.

To me it seems like the same concept, but the breeder has the control of the future of their lines/breed.

Jay

[mnaj_springer]

Could an AKC Limited Registration could be compared to dogs deemed "non-breedable" by the parent organizations who limit the dogs eligible to breed and the resulting pups being registered with the organization? Instead of being done at the breeder level, it is being done at the top.

To me it seems like the same concept, but the breeder has the control of the future of their lines/breed.

Jay

Jay, I think the difference may be that AKC limited registration can be placed on any litter or pup. So it seems the limited registration can be used beyond the scope of "what's best for the breed."

[Spy Car]

What is the difference between a subpar limited registered puppy and a fully registrable one from a puppy mill or one from a fully registered backyard craigslist breeding?

Uninformed people can buy a pup from a "great" breeding that didn't quite produce, and have bragging rights to an AKC kinda-sorta registered dog. The breeders cover their butts and that is the point. Breeders are protected and buyers are $crewed. AKC rakes in revenue from the registration regardless, plus those dogs' part of event fees if the owner competes later on.

What breeder can predict which eight week old puppy is going to grow into a good performance dog? Or not? Gimme a break - if that was something we could tell at eight weeks these boards would be empty except for the Brags section. About the only thing anyone can predict with baby pups is what color they probably will be. And if a breed has color disqualification, pups carrying it should be sold or given away without papers. If breeders want control over which get is bred in the future, they can hang onto pups until they're grown and neuter the culls; if they don't want their names attached to poor quality pups, well sorry, that's the chance you take when you breed.

The difference is the Limited Reg dogs are effectively "culled" from the breeding-pool (without actually killing the dog). Limited Reg puppies are usually sold with "no breeding contracts" and registration helps as a monitoring device. Since neutering young puppies is vey damaging to the developmental health of those animals (while effectively ending their breeding potential) having other means to control breeding is more humane.

I realize it isn't a perfect system.

Bill

[Spy Car]

This is exactly right.
Spy Car: AKC and the breed clubs ethical breeding standards have absolutely nothing to do with improving breeds. As the name implies, they are about ethical treatment of animals. As you probably know AKC will give you papers on anything with registered parents. no restrictions. You need to look at the real world.....................CJ

I'm sorry, but you are misinformed. Included in most codes of ethics are requirements to screen for genetic diseases, to select for temperament and hunting ability, and to improve the breed.

Here is the Vizsla Club of America subsection:

VCA members shall breed only with the intention of improving the breed by breeding only those Vizslas who conform to the standard as recognized by the American Kennel Club and who exhibit soundness, stable temperament and natural hunting ability. Further, VCA members shall breed only those dogs who have a DNA number (a DNA Number is not required for dogs who passed away prior to 2007) and are free of serious hereditary defects (including epilepsy, progressive retinal atrophy, Von Willebrands, entropian and cranial muscular atrophy), and are over two years of age and have been x-rayed and OFA-certified as free from hip dysplasia.

Unethical backyard breeders and puppy mills don't follow breed club codes of ethics. They are not screening for diseases or x-rayinghips. Dogs from these operations can (under the current system) get full AKC registration if sire and dam are registered. Having such operators acquire more puppies with full registrations just feeds unethical breeders. Limited Reg is designed to minimize puppy mill type breedings and haphazard backyard breeding.

What is a better alternative?

Bill

[shags]

Codes of Ethics don't make one ethical.

I don't reckon the VCA guidelines are far off from other breeds'. But how many 'ethical' breeders come up with epilepsy or other health issues in puppies and quietly scoot them under the rug, or claim some ancestor 4 generations back in the pedigree is responsible? On the other hand, health issues arise given the best of breedings and conscientious testing protocols; still some breeders are reluctant to admit these faults in their line because of repercussions from others in their breed. Breeders have been known to get around the testing requirements, too. How easy it too take A in for xrays, and tell the vet that it's B? Some will 'fess up and be open about problems, but many aren't willing.

What breeder of any sort will admit to breeding for anything other tham improving the breed, say for the money? Or in hopes of producing a dog just like a beloved past dog? IME they *all* hold the opinion that any particular breeding they do will improve the breed in some way.

A breeder could as easily sell or give away poor quality pups with contracts and without any papers, and there is no need for limited papers. Except maybe for money. Because if puppies normally go for say $1200, why would anyone give away or sell without papers for $300, when they can issue limited registration and charge $900 for those culls? And the registry supports them, because they also benefit by charging for those registrations that would otherwise have been lost.

Maybe an argument to limited registration is that the new owners can enter the dog in performance events and have some fun with it. But does that not still link that dog to the reluctant breeder? If the breeder desires anonymity it is better assured by the culls obtaining ILP numbers.

If breeders want to be responsible, instead of burdening new owners with contracts re neutering, they should take care of it themselves. That doesn't mean neutering too early, it means hanging on to the get until the appropriate age. Can't do that? No room for that many dogs? Can't afford them? Then be responsible and do not breed. *Every* breeding is a crapshoot and breeders should be ready to bear the repercussions of breedings gone awry.

[mnaj_springer]

This has been a good discussion, but I'm curious if anyone can address my second question as well, other than "I wouldn't deal with them." My initial thought is that a portion of breeding is a business, which means it's just a negotiation of terms after that... Any other thoughts?

[Spy Car]

Codes of Ethics don't make one ethical.

I don't reckon the VCA guidelines are far off from other breeds'. But how many 'ethical' breeders come up with epilepsy or other health issues in puppies and quietly scoot them under the rug, or claim some ancestor 4 generations back in the pedigree is responsible? On the other hand, health issues arise given the best of breedings and conscientious testing protocols; still some breeders are reluctant to admit these faults in their line because of repercussions from others in their breed. Breeders have been known to get around the testing requirements, too. How easy it too take A in for xrays, and tell the vet that it's B? Some will 'fess up and be open about problems, but many aren't willing.

What breeder of any sort will admit to breeding for anything other tham improving the breed, say for the money? Or in hopes of producing a dog just like a beloved past dog? IME they *all* hold the opinion that any particular breeding they do will improve the breed in some way.

A breeder could as easily sell or give away poor quality pups with contracts and without any papers, and there is no need for limited papers. Except maybe for money. Because if puppies normally go for say $1200, why would anyone give away or sell without papers for $300, when they can issue limited registration and charge $900 for those culls? And the registry supports them, because they also benefit by charging for those registrations that would otherwise have been lost.

Maybe an argument to limited registration is that the new owners can enter the dog in performance events and have some fun with it. But does that not still link that dog to the reluctant breeder? If the breeder desires anonymity it is better assured by the culls obtaining ILP numbers.

If breeders want to be responsible, instead of burdening new owners with contracts re neutering, they should take care of it themselves. That doesn't mean neutering too early, it means hanging on to the get until the appropriate age. Can't do that? No room for that many dogs? Can't afford them? Then be responsible and do not breed. *Every* breeding is a crapshoot and breeders should be ready to bear the repercussions of breedings gone awry.

Sure, the mere existence of a code of ethics doesn't make one ethical, but following a code of ethics matters. When a breeder takes temperament and ability seriously, strives to improve the breed, and screens for health problems, that breeder is acting ethically. People who ignore those things are not breeding ethically.

No breeder can hang on to all dogs for 2 or 3 years to see if dogs should be neutered. The economics of that would kill any kennel. I don't much care for neutering contracts, as the health consequences of neutering are well established and dire.

Ethical breeders do take dogs with problems back. This requirements in another section of the code of ethics. Breeding can go wrong, no argument there. But the odds are much higher when breeders are contentious. People who cheat are not acting ethically.

Not all Limited Reg dogs are "culls." Ethical breeders use this mechanism (along with no breed contracts) to limit individuals who have no backgrounds and expertise with a breed, know nothing of genetics and good practices, have no history of competition, etc. from taking dogs and setting up a backyard breeding program.

The Limited Reg isn't perfect, but way better than mandatory neutering contracts that negatively impacts the health of dogs.

Bill

[Spy Car]

d/p

[Spy Car]

This has been a good discussion, but I'm curious if anyone can address my second question as well, other than "I wouldn't deal with them." My initial thought is that a portion of breeding is a business, which means it's just a negotiation of terms after that... Any other thoughts?

The way most ethical breeders I know handle requests for a full registration (if they have positive feelings for the purchaser and confidence said person will put efforts into training and campaigning a dog that will at least not embarrass the kennel, and at best advance the reputation of the breeder) is that they will enter into a "co-ownership" arrangement that (in conjunction with a contract) gives the breeder veto power over any breeding, but gives the purchaser the opportunity to compete in confirmation events. Some contracts include a termination of the co-ownership arrangement if the purchaser (or a handler working for the purchaser) earn a championship with the dog.

The AKC frowns on such co-ownership arrangements for being messy, but has not come up with a better solution. A better solution is needed, but his is where we're at at the moment when breeders want to keep some control over breeding rights.

Bill

[gonehuntin']

You keep stating "Ethical Breeders" but I strongly suspect, depending on breed, there are as many "non-ethical" breeders as there are ethical.

[Spy Car]

You keep stating "Ethical Breeders" but I strongly suspect, depending on breed, there are as many "non-ethical" breeders as there are ethical.

Which is why I'm attempting to differentiate between the two.

Bill

[shags]

Not all Limited Reg dogs are "culls." Ethical breeders use this mechanism (along with no breed contracts) to limit individuals who have no backgrounds and expertise with a breed, know nothing of genetics and good practices, have no history of competition, etc. from taking dogs and setting up a backyard breeding program.

The Limited Reg isn't perfect, but way better than mandatory neutering contracts that negatively impacts the health of dogs. Bill

Yeah. They are culls. Because the breeder doesn't want them and they can't be bred because of their lack of quality. If they were 'good enough' then they'd go with full registration. But it's more lucrative and easier on the conscience to sell with limited registration rather withholding papers or dunking them.

The preventing back yard breeding argument does not make sense. You don't want a buyer to breed the pup, then withhold papers. What is the point of registration with limits? Someone determined to make a few bucks on backyard breeding is going to do it regardless...no papers, no problem...Labradoodles! Shih-poos! Chugs!

And why would a breeder vet a buyer, find him/her inadequate, and still sell him/her a puppy? Not mention the arrogance! "You are too ignorant and probably too stupid to learn anything, so no breeding for you. I'm not willing to take a chance and mentor you, but I'll happily exchange this puppy for your money. Buh-bye! "

[Spy Car]

Not all Limited Reg dogs are "culls." Ethical breeders use this mechanism (along with no breed contracts) to limit individuals who have no backgrounds and expertise with a breed, know nothing of genetics and good practices, have no history of competition, etc. from taking dogs and setting up a backyard breeding program.

The Limited Reg isn't perfect, but way better than mandatory neutering contracts that negatively impacts the health of dogs. Bill

Yeah. They are culls. Because the breeder doesn't want them and they can't be bred because of their lack of quality. If they were 'good enough' then they'd go with full registration. But it's more lucrative and easier on the conscience to sell with limited registration rather withholding papers or dunking them.

The preventing back yard breeding argument does not make sense. You don't want a buyer to breed the pup, then withhold papers. What is the point of registration with limits? Someone determined to make a few bucks on backyard breeding is going to do it regardless...no papers, no problem...Labradoodles! Shih-poos! Chugs!

And why would a breeder vet a buyer, find him/her inadequate, and still sell him/her a puppy? Not mention the arrogance! "You are too ignorant and probably too stupid to learn anything, so no breeding for you. I'm not willing to take a chance and mentor you, but I'll happily exchange this puppy for your money. Buh-bye! "

It is not necessarily true that Limited dogs are "not good enough." Breeders can be reluctant to let potentially excellent breeding stock go when they are concerned their dogs might be used in unethical breedings. With a full reg this is impossible to control after-the-fact, and ethical breeders who have been burned once don't forget it. Unfortunately Limited reg usually impacts purchasers who are innocent of designs to open a backyard breeding operation. But it only takes one to cause a problem.

I'll grant you that the Limited Reg is a limited solution to the problem of unethical breeding, in part that's why all Limited Reg situations I'm aware of also include a "no breed" clause in the contract. People can violate those, but are then subject to civil lawsuits.

The Limited reg doesn't mean breeders won't mentor a purchaser or isn't willing (upon demonstration of seriousness) to change the registration. Ethical breeders can (and do) change the registration status of dogs when owners prove their commitment to competition and the dog is worthy. They often insist on a co-ownership arrangement on breeding rights, but a Limited can be changed at any time at a breeder's discretion.

Bill

[ezzy333]

This whole argument sounds a lot like the gun control debate. I really think if we want to get to the root of the problem is the definition many people put on backyard breeders, which is seldom true. Most of us are backyard breeders and most of our dogs came from backyard breeders. It is where most of the good dogs come from and where they remain simply because we have other jobs that support our passion with our dogs. It's what you do when you love the dog and the sport.

And to answer the other question, I too will not deal with it. There are way too many places to get a dog that comes with an unwritten contract that says you bought it, take care of it but if you can't let me know, and enjoy.

[Spy Car]

This whole argument sounds a lot like the gun control debate. I really think if we want to get to the root of the problem is the definition many people put on backyard breeders, which is seldom true. Most of us are backyard breeders and most of our dogs came from backyard breeders. It is where most of the good dogs come from and where they remain simply because we have other jobs that support our passion with our dogs. It's what you do when you love the dog and the sport.

And to answer the other question, I too will not deal with it. There are way too many places to get a dog that comes with an unwritten contract that says you bought it, take care of it but if you can't let me know, and enjoy.

A "backyard breeder" isn't someone who happens to breed dogs in their backyard Ezzy. It is a term used to describe those who breed whatever dogs they happen to have around without regard to the health or genetics of those dog, who do not do medical clearances, who probably don't know what COI stand for, who do not belong to bred clubs, who do not compete, who do not follow codes of ethics, and who don't advance breeds—but rather diminish them.

There are many ethical breeders who are small scale, serious, and who breed out of their homes. But these are not "backyard breeders."

Bill

[gonehuntin']

That's YOUR narrow interpretation and definition of a backyard breeder. Most people consider "Backyard Breeders" to be ANYONE txt breeds out of their home and doesn't own a kennel. As Ezzy said, that's where MANY of the great dog's have come from and how great lines have been developed.

There are a lot more thieves and liars around than Bob Whele's, Evan's and Ferrel Miller's.

I believe limited registration is an abominable practice that results in far fewer quality dog's and lines being developed than more quality dog's.

[Brazosvalleyvizslas]

That's YOUR narrow interpretation and definition of a backyard breeder. Most people consider "Backyard Breeders" to be ANYONE txt breeds out of their home and doesn't own a kennel. As Ezzy said, that's where MANY of the great dog's have come from and how great lines have been developed.

There are a lot more thieves and liars around than Bob Whele's, Evan's and Ferrel Miller's.

I believe limited registration is an abominable practice that results in far fewer quality dog's and lines being developed than more quality dog's.

Some might call those puppy mills. Some of the best dogs come from your so called "backyard" breeders because they can go through all of the health checks and stand behind their Get.

[DonF]

Well this is certainly an easy fix. Don't buy AKC registered dog's, go to FDSB. You can complain about this all you want but I believe the AKC parent club has a lot to do with this stuff. I believe most the parent club's are controlled by bench people. As for back yard breeder's, my first pointing dog, Hannah was a backyard bred dog. She exceded everything i could hope for. I'd look at a backyard bred dog again in a heart beat. Nothing say's you'd have to buy from them. I also believe that these "ethical" breeder's are the reason prices on pup's are so high. They have to many dog's, run in to many events and need to recover money.

[mnaj_springer]

Well this is certainly an easy fix. Don't buy AKC registered dog's, go to FDSB. You can complain about this all you want but I believe the AKC parent club has a lot to do with this stuff. I believe most the parent club's are controlled by bench people. As for back yard breeder's, my first pointing dog, Hannah was a backyard bred dog. She exceded everything i could hope for. I'd look at a backyard bred dog again in a heart beat. Nothing say's you'd have to buy from them. I also believe that these "ethical" breeder's are the reason prices on pup's are so high. They have to many dog's, run in to many events and need to recover money.

Are spaniels registered in FDSB?

[ezzy333]

This whole argument sounds a lot like the gun control debate. I really think if we want to get to the root of the problem is the definition many people put on backyard breeders, which is seldom true. Most of us are backyard breeders and most of our dogs came from backyard breeders. It is where most of the good dogs come from and where they remain simply because we have other jobs that support our passion with our dogs. It's what you do when you love the dog and the sport.

And to answer the other question, I too will not deal with it. There are way too many places to get a dog that comes with an unwritten contract that says you bought it, take care of it but if you can't let me know, and enjoy.

A "backyard breeder" isn't someone who happens to breed dogs in their backyard Ezzy. It is a term used to describe those who breed whatever dogs they happen to have around without regard to the health or genetics of those dog, who do not do medical clearances, who probably don't know what COI stand for, who do not belong to bred clubs, who do not compete, who do not follow codes of ethics, and who don't advance breeds—but rather diminish them.

There are many ethical breeders who are small scale, serious, and who breed out of their homes. But these are not "backyard breeders."

I was going to make a comment but I see others have done it for me and there is no point in piling on so I will just say they have expressed my experience very well.

Ezzy

Bill

[Spy Car]

Some might call those puppy mills. Some of the best dogs come from your so called "backyard" breeders because they can go through all of the health checks and stand behind their Get.

Small scale breeders who are serious, ethical, do health checks, stand behind their dogs, and advance the breed are not "backyard breeders." That is not how this term is used. "Backyard breeders" refers to people who do none of those things. Just as a larger scale kennel can follow ethical practices (ethical breeder) or it can be a "puppy mill" (non-ethical large scale breeder).

I attempted to use "ethical breeder" (large or small) as a way to distinguish the two, and got complaints, but...

Many great dogs come from small scale ethical breeders who have a passion for their breeds, and are serious about their breeding programs (however small).

The scale is less important than knowledge and following good practices.

Conflating established terminology just muddies the discussion.

Bill

[Brazosvalleyvizslas]

Gotcha Spy.

[ezzy333]

Some might call those puppy mills. Some of the best dogs come from your so called "backyard" breeders because they can go through all of the health checks and stand behind their Get.

Small scale breeders who are serious, ethical, do health checks, stand behind their dogs, and advance the breed are not "backyard breeders." That is not how this term is used. "Backyard breeders" refers to people who do none of those things. Just as a larger scale kennel can follow ethical practices (ethical breeder) or it can be a "puppy mill" (non-ethical large scale breeder).

I attempted to use "ethical breeder" (large or small) as a way to distinguish the two, and got complaints, but...

Many great dogs come from small scale ethical breeders who have a passion for their breeds, and are serious about their breeding programs (however small).

The scale is less important than knowledge and following good practices.

Conflating established terminology just muddies the discussion.

Bill

Once again 10 of us are wrong and one of us is right.

[Spy Car]

Some might call those puppy mills. Some of the best dogs come from your so called "backyard" breeders because they can go through all of the health checks and stand behind their Get.

Small scale breeders who are serious, ethical, do health checks, stand behind their dogs, and advance the breed are not "backyard breeders." That is not how this term is used. "Backyard breeders" refers to people who do none of those things. Just as a larger scale kennel can follow ethical practices (ethical breeder) or it can be a "puppy mill" (non-ethical large scale breeder).

I attempted to use "ethical breeder" (large or small) as a way to distinguish the two, and got complaints, but...

Many great dogs come from small scale ethical breeders who have a passion for their breeds, and are serious about their breeding programs (however small).

The scale is less important than knowledge and following good practices.

Conflating established terminology just muddies the discussion.

Bill

Once again 10 of us are wrong and one of us is right.

No. It is just that people need to agree on terms before a discussion is possible. If one is discussing guns, for example, then the term "responsible gun owners" doesn't refer to criminals.

"Backyard breeds" is a term widely used to refer to people who haphazardly breed Craigslist-type dogs using no expertise, and following none of the established ethical practices. Not serious small scale breeders. You all want to pick different terms? Fine. I'l follow whatever you pick. But mixing up small scale ethical breeders with small scale unethical breeders, or large scale ethical breeders with large scale unethical breeders, just makes a discussion difficult as we're talking past one another.

Bill

[gonehuntin']

Yes but the problem is, nine of us agree on what the term means and one doesn't and he wants to be right. :roll:

[Spy Car]

Yes but the problem is, nine of us agree on what the term means and one doesn't and he wants to be right. :roll:

You tell me what terms you all want to use for small scale ethical breeders, small scale unethical or haphazard breeders, large scale ethical breeders, and large scale unethical breeders, and I will conform to the terms you choose. OK?

Bill

[Brazosvalleyvizslas]

Yes but the problem is, nine of us agree on what the term means and one doesn't and he wants to be right. :roll:

I hope you aren't pointing at me.

[Spy Car]

Yes but the problem is, nine of us agree on what the term means and one doesn't and he wants to be right. :roll:

I hope you aren't pointing at me.

I'm pretty sure you're cool.

Bill

[Bacon1676]

Guess I will throw my two cents in the ring. In response to limited breedings rights I feel it is pointless. If you need to put a limited breeding clause on your litter you might want to rethink your breeding program. If they're holding on to the idea of wanting to control who breeds to who, you have too much time on your hands and you need to get a wife or start paying attention to the one you have. When I looked at litters I looked at confirmation and lineages i.e. I DID MY HOMEWORK!!!! If you go with what is convent you get what you get. I live in Kentucky and travelled to Michigan to get my dog. heck I drove 12 hours in the same day just to see the female work (I know I'm an idiot, but you work within the time you have), and once I was able to meet the breeder and see his dogs work I was good to go. Let people do what they want. If they want to spend $1,000 on a puppy you should do what you want with it. Diligent breeds are out there and good puppies will always be available you just have to get off your butt and find them or in this day of age sit on it and look through the Internet. If a backyard breeder is wanting to make his breeding program better than I would be honored if he chose my dog to make it better. Helping each other out is what makes a breed stronger. If someone disagrees with the way things are done let them, they will weed themselves out. The market will dictate the flow of commerce.

[mnaj_springer]

Bacon, I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure? Your post was incoherent at times. I also wonder why you brought up doing homework, driving to see a dog, etc... Seems out of context with the discussion so far. What I'm trying to get at is... I don't know what your point is...