Quote:
Originally Posted by RustysMom  Ok, here is my personal thoughts on the paper issue... Hope no one gets offended.... I prefer AKC registered dogs and the reason why is that I am into genealogy and AKC registered dogs do have a verified family history that usually goes back to England around 1870. While papers may not mean anything to many people, it means alot to me. Sure, I have my problems with AKC and I do not approve of every rule they make, they are the best out there with the DNA and unannounced kennel visits. With AKC I can order pedigrees from my home if I want to research the parentage of my dog. I can do this online and have the pedigrees in minutes. For instance I wondered who imported a Yorkie from England and when, and I found I have 1969 as the oldest date in Rusty's pedigree so far. That is thrilling to me. ( I know, I'm strange) But to each his own they say.  |
Oh, I totally support the AKC too, mainly because they are the only registries that do routine unannounced inspections and DNA testing. It's just that I don't think one could say that and unregistered or registered dog would be any better or smaller, which the OP wanted to know. When choosing a breeder, the first step was an AKC breeder, but not all of them are great, and some even sell dogs from mixed registries, so you know it's not about improving the breed for them.
I think the pedigree research is pretty interesting too, and I don't think your strange.
