A break in the lines would be if an AKC registerable dog mated with a non-AkC registerable dog or a dog of another breed.

If any dog in the lineage, for example, had a canceled AKC registration or limited AKC registration.

There probably are loop-holes in the system, but the intent is to bring breeders back from the other registries - like those who were sweet-talked by the ACA and switched their entire kennel and then a few generations later decide they want to go back to the AKC.

This mostly applies to pet breeders, obviously. But, the AKC has lost a lot of income to these small registries like the CKC, ACA, and NPRI. The AKC lost something like over a million dollars last year in registrations compared to previous years, and this year looks worse. The AKC needs the income to survive and to continue to fund research and programs. So, I completely see where they are coming from.

A breeder i know.....
 

A breeder friend of mine has AKC dogs, but she registered all of her dogs with CKC (continental) because she can register the liters at NO COST since she sells her puppies as pets only, she figures the registration doesn't matter, BUT if someone wants AKC she will register the puppy AKC if the buyer pays the fee. I think AKC needs to reduce the cost of registering a liter not increase it like they have done. years ago it was $10.00 per liter . Now it's over $20.00 plus $2.00 per puppy, so that's like getting paid 3 times for the same puppy!!! 1. the cost of the liter registeration 2. charging $2.00 per puppy 3. cost to the new owner to register the puppy in thier name. that is just crazy. 1 puppy = 3 fees. :eek:

My dogs are all AKC registered and my litters have been also and I find the cost minimal compared to all the other expenses of owning dogs and raising puppies. CKC should be at no cost, since the papers from them really don't mean much anyway. JMO

The same could be said for AKC papers if you have the unfortunate experience of dealing with a dishonest breeder. :rolleyes:

You have a point there, I have to admit one of my AKC dogs came from a bad breeder. She is way over standard in size and has terrible seizures, yet was sold to me as a good breeding prospect. :( I still prefer AKC and would never pay for a dog that wasn't, although I'm sure many dogs that aren't are lovely, wonderful pets, I just wouldn't want to buy a dog that wasn't AKC. I am probably done buying dogs anyway, my next pet dog will probably come from a shelter or rescue:)

I think some breeders may have changed to save on fees because CKC is cheaper then AKC being that AKC is the best I don't have a problem paying the fee that I did because it is a lifetime and AKC now has sooo much information and things on their website now it's definitely worth it.

You would presume so, wouldn't you? The lady I bought my dog from got her from her Aunt and when her Aunt bought the dog, the breeder wanted $200 more for the AKC papers. The Aunt didn't want to pay the extra $200 and registered the dog with CKC. The female, as far as I know, was not marked with limited registration.

I double registered my AKC male so I could paper the puppies with the CKC. When I asked the question you posed above to the AKC, they said that if the female could be proven to come from AKC stock and the father is AKC, then yes, the puppies could be papered AKC. For as far back as I have bred her to my AKC male. They made no stipulation about limited or unlimited registration.

Now, as I have been reading up on this, I have thought of a couple of questions. HOW did the Aunt get the information on the parents of the dog, so she could register the her with the CKC? I got a pedigree from CKC and it shows information on both parents.

I think that maybe the Aunt asked if the breeder would take less for the dog if she didn't get the AKC papers and the breeder agreed to it. I have no proof but I think, as a breeder myself, that the Aunt, being the customer, might have brought it up.

My ex-mentor told me that the papers go with the dog, no matter what the price. I stick to that unless the people don't want the papers at all. I don't lower the price and keep the papers. After all, what use are they to me once the puppy is gone? Sylvia

What little paper? Does it come with the litter papers?

Is it the form for listing the buyers of our puppies? I didn't know I was supposed to send a copy of it in. No one has said anything to me about it. Thanks, Sylvia

Oh, hey! Have I got it wrong? I don't know who told me, I suppose it was when I was a teen and my mother was raising Poodles but I thought that if you limited the registration that you could hold the papers until you got proof that the dog had been altered? I thought that the dog couldn't be registered with any registry without proving that the parents were papered? Sylvia

confused here...
 

Maybe I am not following this, but how does the AKC know whether a particular puppy that was intended as a limited registration, but winds up registered with CKC or other non AKC registry, should have been limited. When I submitted my registration for my pet yorkie puppy, the application had a blacked out box. If I chose not to register with AKC and went to CKC and bred to another AKC that did the same - how can they follow that? I am not advocating this just trying to understand the reliability of the system?:animal-pa

Well, put the shoe on the other foot. Pretend you are the AKC. The present owner of the dog in question should have sent you documentation from the other registry. The names of the parents of the dog should be listed in their registry for at least 3 generations and in their files the breeders should be listed too.

What sensible steps can you take to make things right? First of all, wouldn't you search in your records for the names of the parents of the dog in question? Second, when (if) you find them, wouldn't you check to see if the names of the breeders are the same as the breeders for the parents of the dog in question? Third, when that is done, if they match, wouldn't you contact the breeder to see if he/she knows what is going on? Find out if the dog is supposed to be limited registration?

What I wonder is if the 3rd generation back when there are 8 great-grandparents, what happens if only one set can be found to be AKC? Is the AKC going to paper a 1/8th AKC dog to the AKC registry?

I'm not sure I would have a problem with this if the dog is out of champions from another registry. But I tell you something, until a few days ago, I didn't know there were so many registries out there.

As to the AKC not knowing that you signed up with another registry and then bred your dog to another dog whose owners did the same, well I thought that breeders held onto the registration papers until proof that the dog has been altered were provided. That puts the situation in the breeder's hands. That would work especially well when the vets don't like to spay/neuter puppies under 4 months. Sylvia

exactly... Is the AKC relying on the documentation from these other registries? Are they reliable? Are they up to the same standards? And as for AKC breeders holding back registration papers... it doesn't matter to the other registries. If I buy a dog on a limited AKC registration, I think you can register it without AKC papers to another registry and breed with out anything more than a pedigree document.:aimeeyork

I had my AKC inspection a few months ago. I asked him about the Litter Records and if we needed to be faxing those in. He said no. Maybe it's because I keep all of my records online and they already have the info though.

Also, you have to keep in mind that AKC only cares about the dogs. Regardless of wether we state full or limited, if there are puppies born and they are eligible for AKC they will register them because they are in fact, AKC.

Also, if you do the online record keeping, you can go in and lock the record for each puppy. Meaning, you can put in full or limited registration and regardless of what the new puppy owner tries to register it will be what you put it as unless you change it.

That doesn't stop them from going with another registry though. It also won't stop AKC from registering any puppies born from the dog if it is bred to another AKC dog.

What?!! :2omg: That doesn't make any sense! Is the AKC that desperate for money, that rather than punnish the breeder they reward him/her? Unfair to the puppies, I know but where is it fair to the original breeder? She/he must have had a good reason for limiting registration.

But if the look at the breeder records and find that it was limited than why would they allow the puppies to be registered.

What good is it to put limited if the AKC won't honor it.

I think their thinking is: "The father is not limited and the mother is AKC, so we will register the puppies."

My problem is this: if I limit the male or female and the owner breeds the dog behind my back, why should he/she get papers on the puppies. I have a good reason for limiting the registration and I will have given that reason to the new owner.

I agree that it's not right. If I want a dog to be limited, then it should be limited regardless of anything else. I'm not necessarily defending AKC, I'm just looking at it from their point of view. They are a registry. If the dogs are AKC, then they are.... regardless of anything else.

I'm not sure how we can get them to stop doing this. As a breeder, you have to be an advocate for your puppies. That's why I spay and neuter those going to pet homes before they leave. If it means holding on to them for longer, then so be it.

So then regardless to if you place your dogs with limited or full registration, it doesn't even matter? :confused: AKC will register litters born of them anyway?

It's all about the $$$$...:(

Their track record says yes.

Shoot, I saw on someone's website not long ago that they had a female registered with another registery. Explained that she had a different registry because she was sold to them with limited registration. And this was a breeder that people on here were recommending.

Nice...well, that certainly does take away some of the AKC flouted credibility with me then. :thumbdown

In regards to the breeder you mentioned, it's a very underhanded thing that person did, but as for that person being recommended here...that in itself doesn't shock me. I stopped questioning things like that long ago. Sadly it seems that there are a lot of 'shady ethics' people are willing to overlook if you are a 'nice enough, likeable' member. :rolleyes:

Yes, but considering the other alternatives for registries, I will stick with AKC. I think that we, as breeders and dog owners, need to step up to the plate and find a way to get AKC to be more credible. I think they've come a long way in the past few years since most of those articles were written. They've still got a long way to go though.

Agreed fannie...it just shows that they too, are not without flaw.

I agree but I think it is important for people to understand what is really going on so AKC can be held accountable. I believe they would have done more with the Hunte Corporation and had agreed too until the reputable breeders cried "FOUL" and AKC backed off. I think to many people want to believe the good in everything...from our government to our churches and we have all learned the hard way that greed is all consuming in our country right now. We must continue to get the truth out or more animals will suffer. I do want to believe in AKC but I have learned I have to believe in the breeder first.

Registration
 

I think it goes to show all registries are really in it for the money. I think letting people do that goes against why we like AKC so much. I guess there is politics in everything.

Thanks for sharing such great info. There should be more YT members like you! God bless.