[BamaFan121s]

ILOVEYORKIES2 --

In general, this is a subject that there are a wide variety of opinions on. NO existing registy has the ability to ensure that EVERY SINGLE breeder using their services runs their breeding program in an ethical manner--AKC is not immune to this. They are not the only registry that conducts inspections of facilities--HOWEVER, IMO their stringency in carrying them out makes their procedure in the area the best by comparison. And most (I can't say all) alternative registries keep records of complaints against breeders, which are not indicative by even AKC's 'suspension list', as well as records of those who have lost their right to breed under the organization.--it's really as simple as contacting them and inquiring, which everyone should do anyway. In addition, the breed standard set by YTCA is the same one responsible breeders strive for regardless to what registry they choose to use and their standpoint on many issues is valued and adapted into many programs--again, not just limited to AKC.

I'm not arguing that AKC is the premier regsitry--they set an example that other registries try to mirror. However, determining the quality of dogs and the morals of a breeder goes far beyond what registry they use. In the end, it's up to everyone as an individual to take the information, opinions and experiences shared on all sides and determine for themselves which path they want to take and which decision best suits their needs.

In short, labeling every breeder that breeds under another registry as "bad" and their dogs are "lesser" would be as nonsensical as labeling every AKC breeder as "ethical" with "perfect" quality dogs. It's just not the case.