Quote:
Originally Posted by Mardelin  It bothered me when the friction was amongst those of the same train of thought and passion for the breed. Just my opinion, but at times we all get a bit upset and caught up in the moment. |
Really sorry for my part in thread getting side tracked here and hearing it was upsetting to others too.
Moving on, enjoy reading your posts-really informative, I continue to read this forum to hear everyone's points of view.
Kind of let down feeling that the AKC doesn't have more influence over even their own AKC registered kennel and such.
My Yorkie Elvis is AKC registered-not sure how all this works though considering he's Parti (and his registration never showed up with him so he's not registered with me and I've never had the paperwork in my hands) he was bred by someone whom has a reputation for having bred genetically ill dogs continually, Elvis came to me from a secondary party whom had initially adopted him from the breeder and then needed to re-home him, unfortunately she too turned out to breed quite unethically (wish I'd known all this before but then again I wouldn't have my Evlie-roo)-what a disaster though he has seizures, joint issues, bad teeth, and both these breeders are AKC certified and seem to really rely on the ability to hide their ways behind their AKC certification front.
Unfortunately it seems you don't realize a lot of things until after the fact in cases like this. I assumed initially that getting a dog from an AKC registered breeder meant more in the standards departments and was told there were certain guarantees and warranties...well there are but having these and having the ability to enforce them is another issue. Personally I still believe in the AKC ideal though, their standards and support their efforts-wish there was a way to give them more power, authority, and control over enforcement and such. Is there a way that's possible? Or even when it comes to AKC breeders is it still really "buyer beware"?