Sire's Papers?
 

I don't know where to post this question but I need help...

My little lady just had four awesome,precious little boys on Sunday. I mated her with the neighbor's stud. He is a full bread male. She is a certified pedigree female. I really didn't insist on papers-as my initial desire was just to have a few babies that I could keep for pets. No intention of breeding them again. I just love the breed and want them all around me.

The owner of the stud was, of course, offered a puppy and he is joyously awaiting his puppy. I also have a brother-in-law who wants a puppy. The only reimbursement I have asked is to cover medical bills. I never intended to sell puppies for a profit.

Anyways, I will have one extra puppy that I would like to home and it would be nice to offer them registration papers for the babies. The owner of the stud is trying to get the registration papers for his dog.

Here is his story: he was adopted by our neighbor. The first owner was moving and relocating and couldn't keep him. They gave up ownership of the dog, as is. My neighbor did some research and found the original owners of this dog. Apparently, when he was purchased the buyer was given an option of two prices: one price with and one price without papers. She purchased the dog without papers. When my neighbor contacted him to find out the registration information, the breeder informed him he would be more than happy to furnish the papers and registration information for $200! Is that normal???? He wouldn't give us any other information (AKC or CKC or names of the original dam and sire).

If in fact it is customary to charge that kind of money for registration information, then so be it, I will accept it. But if this breeder is being a jerk, I want to know. All we really want to do is to register this sire....and the owner of the sire is willing to pay those fees.

Please don't bash me for not getting this information forthright. I never really wanted to pursue this information. Now that I have reconsidered, I find this has become a sticky situation. If I am being unreasonable and expecting something I don't deserve, then I will accept that.

I'd ask the sire's owner to pay for it....its his dog. I dont think its unreasonable for the sire's breeder to request the money--he sold the dog without papers and it will probably cost him time and money to get them.

It is not unreasonable. The sire was sold as "pet price" Not meant to be breed.

What registry are you talking about? If it's not AKC and is one of the many alternative "paper" registries, it's not worth anyone's time, effort and money to try to get papers. They won't be worth anything.

If it doesn't cost the breeder anything for this information, I don't think it is right for him to charge anything for it.
I live in Canada and it is actually illegal to call a dog purebred unless it is registered with the Canadian Kennel Club. The breeder has to provide papers, at no cost to the buyer, pay for all the costs associated with registration including either a tattoo or a microchip. It usually costs me about $100 per puppy for this.

She's in florida not Canada. The dog has changed ownership and they have no contract with the original breeder stating they have breeding rights as the 1st owner purchased it at a lower cost as pet only. The sire's breeder has every right to ask for the extra money. He has no obligation to change the registration to full.

I am aware that she lives in Florida. I was simply pointing out the difference in the registration procedure where I live.

Yes it is ok for the breeder to charge for the papers, The original owner got the dog for less money without papers. That was the deal. It would probably cost you more to get him registered with AKC than what the pup is worth because of all the late fees AKC would charge plus the 200 for the papers. BTW you can get the pups registered ckc with out the paperwork.

If I were the sire's breeder and someone called me and said one of my past puppies sired a litter, but they arent who I sold the dog to and the terms of the sale was the dog was not to be bred....I wouldnt fork over a copy of a pedigree either. I'd be very suspicious.

Also-just be careful. If the original owner had a contract with the breeder, it may have stated that if he couldnt keep the dog that it had to be returned to the breeder. You could be opening a can of worms.

Good point Ladymom! :thumbup:

You're right Cares4Dogs - not to mention that if the dog was sold as a "pet" then it should not have been bred and I'm surprised that the breeder is willing to go back and get the paperwork done. They must need some $$$

Was your female sold on an open registration?

Wow
 

My female was sold with an open registration. I am learning quickly here....you guys amaze me! I am hearing that it is reasonable for the breeder to get money for the papers. Is that right? I just thought that $200 was a lot of money! I certainly do not want to open any can of worms here. I was intending on having my little lady spayed after this litter, with the intent of training her as a therapy dog. She is so gentle and I know she would be a fantastic dog in the arms of the hurting and elderly. The registrations would be strictly for the benefit of future owners of the pups. I am intending to keep one of the puppies and have not decided if using him as a stud is in his best interest yet. I think they are a wonderful line of pups, but is it worth it? I just love having them as pets.

I personally think that for AKC it's ridiculous to sell a dog without papers. When you register the litter it costs an extra $2 for each puppy, and the total for the whole registration process is only $20-$30 depending of the number of pups. If I don't want a dog to be bred and he/she is being sold as a pet only (which is 99.9% of my puppies), they go with limited AKC registration and a strict spay/neuter contract. If they go with breeding rights then they get full registration and no spay/neuter contract. I do check up on my puppies and keep in contact with anyone who has bought a puppy from me, so I know whether they have been altered at the appropriate age.

I don't understand why you would sell a dog with no papers unless it is not AKC registered (CKC, APRI, etc. do not have a "limited registration" option)...if you don't want the dog bred then do limited and obviously the price will be less for a pet only.

Now, that being said, for my Biewer puppies it's a different story. They are registered IBC and IBC does not have a limited registration option. So if the puppy is sold as a pet only they go for a lower price and on the same strict spay/neuter contract, and I HOLD the papers until I have proof of the alteration from the Buyer's vet (in the form of an invoice, and a letter from the vet on letterhead). However, I don't charge more for the papers. The only thing I charge more for is full registration versus limited or pet only versus breeding dog.

If I buy a dog, whether I buy it for breeding/show or as a pet only, I still want the registration papers so that I know what I'm paying for is a purebred dog and I know the bloodline, etc, even if they are only limited registration papers. It sounds like the stud may have been originally purchased as a pet only and was used for breeding anyways. His original breeder may not care very much, but that is another story. I know if somebody that I sold a pet only to contacted me a year later and said, "I bred the dog can I get the full registration papers?" I would be marching over there to get my dog back. Of course that is why I have a contract.

If you are just going to sell him for the cost of medical bills (rather an adoption fee instead of selling him), then I would not worry about the papers. It's really up to you though, if the dog was originally sold without papers then that was the original buyer and the breeder's choice in a transaction, and whether the breeder wants to charge $200 for papers is his business. It's not unreasonable, no, but just seems strange to me. In the future though, if you do breed another female, make sure the stud has registration papers and see them before you do the breeding. ;)

I disagree..the AKC disagrees. Charging MORE LATER for full regs smells of unethical breeders. DO it right from the start..the pup is either full or limited..

:thumbup:

Limited it is then....

I personally think its unethical for someone to breed a dog with limited registration when they had no right to and then expect the breeder to change them free of charge to someone other than the person he sold the dog to.

Limited means...any pups from that sire or dam will not be eligable for AKC regs. It does not mean the buyer can not breed the dog. IF the breeder sells with no attached contract stating no breeding and pup will be spayed..then the buyer has the right to breed with full knowledge they are not breeding registered dogs.
If the breeder does not want their dogs bred, they must put this in writing or they must S/N before sale, sell with contract to S/N..simply letting a pup go with Limited regs insures nothing to the breeder, except any pups will not be registered from that particular dog.

The dog was originally placed on limited registration, without papers, as a pet, regardless of the reasons why. The dog should have never been bred. Period. If this is something that you and the stud's owner didn't know about until after the fact, then the blame is yours for not researching and understanding the situation in advance. (Honestly, it kind of baffles me that two people would breed to begin with when they don't even understand the ins and outs of registering the dogs.)

Furthermore, you say you have a dog that from this litter that you are considering using as a stud in the future. IMO, from a moral standpoint, that option shouldn't even be up for consideration. The sire of the litter should have never been used for breeding, per the original sales agreement...therefore, neither should any offspring he's produced.

This is a prime example of why more and more RESPONSIBLE breeders are having their pups altered before placing them in their new homes.

so if they AREN'T reg with AKC they are worth squat? They means half the yorkies in the world are worthless?

I don't think that's what she's saying at all. I don't think she's implying that the dogs wouldn't be worth anything...just that the papers wouldn't be worth anything. And in this specific case, she's right.

And i understand that to a degree, but it has come up more than once that if a person wants a yorkie they ONLY want AKC. I just find it discriminating to the poor pups. And a lot of people find no value in a certain breed without these "quality papers". I don't find papers the most important thing if only looking for a family pet. Hell shelters don't adopt you out pets with papers now do they..lol:rolleyes::p

Now with the whole being sold on "limited reg" aspect i agree with....the dogs should not have been bred

For the record, I don't think that is the most important factor either. ;) There are good and bad breeders in ANY registry. I don't see it as 'discrimination', just a personal preference, and everyone is entitled to their opinions on it, IMO.

Understood:thumbup:No arguement here. On my end i could care less about papers. Even though my girl was papered her pups will not be.

AKC Registration does not gurantee you a quality dog.....or that your dog has come from a Reputable Breeder.

But, it is the Registry most desired......it does give you a bit more leverage should there be any dispute over the parentage of a dog and/or if there is question of the dogs pure bred status.....

Let me add, that anyone knowingly breeding a dog on limited registration, in my opinion has put themselves in the category of a BYBer.

My pups are placed with limited registration with a spay/nueter contract. Within that contract should an unauthorized breeding take place, I have the right to confiscate the litter and the dog.

However, everyone knows a contract is only as good as the two people signing it......But, reputable breeders are adding a $5,000 breech of contract fee in their contracts and it is holding up.

IMHO wouldn't it just be easier to have the litter S/N before selling and placing in homes? Then you would never have to question whether or not those people are holding up there end of the deal.:confused:

It seems like that may be easier, but with puppies being homed at 12 weeks thats a little young/small to be having the surgery and add a whole litter to that-thats a HUGE commitment that the breeder may not be able to handle doing it solo. A spay/neuter contract is more logical.

Breeders already do so much for though i.e, dew claws, tail dockings, immunizations, vet checks, microchips, etc. there has to be an end to it somewhere. I do however agree though that the one way to ensure a limited reg dog doesnt have pups is to spay before hand or enforce breech of contract.

True it must all end somewhere but people got into breeding somehow knowing the expenses that may occur. And i would just assume the best thing would be to have it done before hand, even if that means holding onto them a little while longer, but it can also be placed in the price. I like the breech of contract thing too but how legit is it? And how would you ever know that was your dog you sold? And yes we (people who have dogs who have had litters) have incurred a lot of expenses but do you really think people care how much we've spent on these things? NO. I see so many people and talk to a bunch of people who want a pure-bred, papered, cute little fuffy dog that has all vaccines, dew claws done, tails docked, S/N, potty trained with accessories for 50 bucks. People are greedy, face it, the world has gone down the drain:rolleyes:

Oh and i might add, they say it was our fault to breed them and all the expenses were on us and that was our responsibility so why should they have to pay??

I think this is just looking too deep into it. I think responsible placement of puppies goes a long way and it would not happen more often that it does. I dont think I've ever heard anyone say that the breeder is responsible for paying for spay/neutering of their pets and feel they shouldnt have to pay that expense.

Anyone who is gonna argue with a breeder over spaying/neutering should be told a big fat NO. I know people want something for nothing and should be told that if they cant afford the basic expenses of dog ownership to consider adopting a hamster (just one so they cant breed it and wont eat that much).

A valid point and many are doing just that. However, that would mean keeping the pups until they are a year, as studies have found that spay/nueter should not be done until the growth platelets are closed. Having the spay/nueter prior to this interrupts the growth pattern of the pup.

It is better that the breeder know and trust the families they are placing their pups with and conduct a thorough vetting process. Establish a good relationship with families. The transition of a pup into a new home shouldn't stop when that pup goes out the door with their new family.

Yes, there are people that want everything for little money.......but, bottom line it is up to the breeder as to how to weed out those people. I have a lot of calls that begin with how much are your dogs? My response is to those people is: "You can't afford them" Rude? yes. But, these people are bargin shopping. If someone is more concerned with the cost of a puppy, more than their health and welfare, I don't want my pup in that home.