Aca
 

What is the ACA? I see that some puppies are registered as ACA. Just curious if anyone knows about their standards and such. Thanks!

Kitty is registered ACA. It stands for American Canine Association. Kitty's parents were AKC registered but I don't care for AKC so the breeder registered her with ACA and gave me those papers. (Parents are also registered ACA.)

you don't care for the AKC? Do mind if I ask why? I'm just curious because I've been told that I should only look for puppies that are AKC registered and that the other clubs aren't as reputable...but now I don't know
:confused:

I don't like AKC because they think they are the only ones out there. The people are stuck up and rude when you have questions or need something done. I have had AKC lose my paperwork and I've had problems with other things like ordering a pedigree and not ever getting it. Then them say that I didn't pay for one. Or make the appropiate box for one. When in fact I have. I just don't like AKC. If you are purchasing a puppy for a pet then registry shouldn't matter that much. I register my pups APRI because I find them very helpful and nice. All of my dogs are dual registered APRI except Kitty and I'm working on that one too.

I stick to AKC only. I have never had any problems getting papers or pedigrees that I have sent in for. AKC is more stringent with their requirements. If you have an AKC and an ACA or APRI mate, AKC will not recognize their puppies -- where other registries will.

One reason I stick to AKC is that many reputable breeders will sell their puppies with a spay/neuter agreement. The people can only get a limited AKC registration or no registration until proof of spay/neuter is offered. Some will just go get affidavits from vets that their dogs are purebred and then register them with ACA, APRI, CKC, etc.... Some may be just fine but others may have been sold on a spay/neuter agreement because of known health issues.

Some breeders are getting aggravated with the AKC because they now require DNA for stud dogs that produce so many litters. So they turn to less restrictive registeries. Puppymills often use other than AKC registeries. AKC and UKC do a lot to promote and educate about the breeds. I think some of the other registeries (not all) are just out for the money.

But -- registration with any of the registeries does not guarantee any better dog than another. Checking out the breeder will probably tell you more about the puppy potential than the papers.

I totally agree with you on this!!! :thumbup:

Thanks so much for your input!! I really appreciate the feed back!!:D

This statement makes no sense.:confused: Whether or not a breeder sells on a s/n agreement depends on the breeder, not the registry used.
That's kind of like saying, "The reason I prefer to drive a Ford is because some cars have 4 doors."

(I understand your overall points, just not this one.):)

You sort of took that one sentence out of context and I probably should have used semi-colons instead of ending the sentence there. You have to read it all together:
"One reason I stick to AKC is that many reputable breeders will sell their puppies with a spay/neuter agreement. The people can only get a limited AKC registration or no registration until proof of spay/neuter is offered. Some will just go get affidavits from vets that their dogs are purebred and then register them with ACA, APRI, CKC, etc.... Some may be just fine but others may have been sold on a spay/neuter agreement because of known health issues."
I definately could have worded it better, but basically I am saying one reason I stick to AKC is to avoid getting puppies from parents who were supposed to have originally been spayed or neutered as required by their purchase contract.

Gotcha!:thumbup:

I'm not arguing that registering them with another registry won't happen--I realize it does. Do you think the breeders who sold should take part of the blame for this--for not enforcing the s/n agreement, or making sure that the dog was s/n before leaving, etc etc?

(And BTW, CKC is about to end their open registry period, just FYI.:cool: )

I think if there is any thought that there might be health issues that should not be passed on, yes, the breeder should s/n before allowing the puppy to leave. If it is just a matter of the breeder not yet determining if the puppy is of show/breeding quality .... well, then I think the limited registrations are the way to go. That way the owner can always go back to the breeder and ask them to reconsider opening the registrations to full. The breeder would probably decide based on the dog's qualities and the new owner's knowledge, ethics and attitude.

So, I guess I would answer your question with "no" I would not blame the breeder, unless the pup had a physical reason for needing s/n.

I asked that question based on situations where dogs are sold on s/n agreements, not dogs that may be show quality and must remain intact.

I would also think (or hope rather) that the dogs produced by a breedings WITH health issues would be few and far between...meaning that only those...a few....would be sent under the impression that they will be altered, all others are just let go?

What I mean I suppose is, if the breeder lets all dogs that may have the potential to show go w/out an s/n agreement, and ONLY requires one for dogs w/ health issues, how can you place the blame for what happens down the road completely on the registry?:confused: