Is it worth it to you? That is all that matters. What the harm of registering him anyway if it makes YOU happy? :) Your dog is not lesser a great Yorkie because of his registry. But I bet you already knew that.;)

My male (Tigger) was AKC reg. and my female (Precious Baby Bella) was ACA. I dual registered them with APRI. I chose to do so because APRI has excellent Customer Service, among other things! APRI REQUIRES a 3 generation pedigree in order to register your dogs & if you are coming from another registry, you must be in good standing with them. APRI also holds Dog Shows & is growing by leaps & bounds.

APRI has another registry (AKR), but it is totally separate. I would strongly suggest you check out their website http://aprpets.org and make up your own mind. You don't even have to register your puppy thru ACA 1st, just send them your paperwork & fees. Then if you do decide to breed, your pups can be registered thru them too. Good luck & don't ever think your yorkie is not purebred just because of who it's registered thru! Precious has way more AKC ancestors than she does ACA ancestors:)

APRI WILL register mixed breeds. I have done it when I was doing the yorkiepoos. Yorkie registered with APRI (dual registered) and poodle with APRI (dual registered) = APRI registered Yorkiepoo. Does not mean they were purebreed, just that they had pedigrees on both sides. AKC has been around a lot longer than APRI.

Registration or lack of registration does not make a pet any better or worse. The love it gives to its owner is the real value of a pet. No paper can make it worth any more or less to its adoring owner.

There is always going to be people that breed just to reproduce and make money whether the dogs are AKC registered or APRI (ACA, CKC, or whatever registery is convenient) What the breeder needs to be thinking of though is does the pairing try to create a puppy that fits the standard of that breed or just any "purebred" puppy regardless of what the standard says?

True that! But then you have the breeders who breed "Teacup Yorkies" making a killing off of them because of their tiny size. The Breed standards are 3 - 7 lbs, and they're breeding one & two pounders & selling them for up to $10,000! You can't tell me they are only doing this for the better of their breed (speaking in general, not at you) because they are not thinking about the health of these tiny puppies....their most likely thinking about their checkbooks.

I don't breed for the money, I breed because I love my yorkies so much and want others to enjoy them too

People that breed tinies are NOT breeding to standard. They don't seem to care for the health and well being of the tiny moms. I think you will see in an earlier post of mine that I am against breeding females less than 5 pounds. Breeding to standard though is MORE than just size. It is the whole picture. Does the dog meet the standards of the breed with no or very few faults. (hopefully the faults are ones that can be corrected when bred to the right dog)

At the YT meet-up I was surprised by all of the tiny dogs. There were standard size yorkies and a couple of larger ones, but the majority were (or appeared to be) below standard size. They made my Murphy look huge. He is my smallest dog at 4.5 pounds. All of my girls are in the 5-8 pound range. My other male is 5 pounds. I have sold girls that were either imported or ones I wanted to keep as breeders because they were not going to "make weight."

Do all of the puppies I produce have the qualities to make them breeders...NO. Very few do, in fact. Most puppies are sold as pets and must be spayed/neutered. I do not want every dog being bred, as I want my name to be associated with quality dogs. That cannot be done if all dogs are sold with full breeding rights. I have had people that did not understand this and were going to do as they liked after they got my puppy. . . . They did not get my puppy. I realize that I cannot have 100% control, as many people lie to breeders about their intent.

Back to the topic.... AKC has limited papers which should help the uncontrolled breeding problem, but some of these other registeries will allow "limited AKC" dogs to be registered with no regard to breeding intent. These people will then breed these dogs that were not to be bred using these other registries. The dishonest people find a way to use these other registries to benefit their purposes, no matter how dishonest.

That's exactly my point. Their parents may have been AKC registered, but these puppy's' offspring are not eligible so they go to one these alternative registries. Why would an ethical breeder do business with an unethical company? Speaks volumes about the breeder.


It bothers me that good breeders often have to take such drastic measures as neutering the dogs before they leave, to avoid this problem.

Been there. The IBC (in Germany) has a place on the papers where you can say that they are not to be bred and why, but when a person goes to register a litter they don't have to send a copy of that part of the book in. I have written in German "Not for Breeding" on the signature line where I am to sign the papers. I don't know if that even helps. We just try our best to keep puppies out of the hands of people that will breed them, when they said they just wanted a pet.

WOW...that is an unfair statement if I ever heard one, IMO.
That would be like condeming breeders who participate in AKC/Eukanuba sponsored events because of the allegations made against Eukanuba regarding animal testing. Just because you are still involved with a flawed company does not automatically "speak volumes" about you.
It's one thing to state your displeasure w/ a company but to insult those who don't share that opinion and unfairly assume they are all the same is just wrong, IMO. If you don't agree with alternative registries, sobeit, don't use them, respectfully state your reasons, but don't continue to insult those who do all because you judged the company for face value and assumed the worst about those who feel differently.

On second thought, I think I'll withdraw myself from this discussion and find one a little more open minded--better to keep my cool and keep from becoming insulting myself. :p Besides, from what I've seen these arguments rarely yield anything positive...:(

I am entitled to my opinion and I'm entitled to share it, in a respectful way. I think I did that. To me, registering a dog that never was purchased with breeding rights is the same as stealing and that is one huge "flaw". Obviously those breeders doing business with these other registries are going to think that's unfair of me. If you sold an AKC dog with no breeding rights and someone bred them anyway, and registered them with another registry would you think they were being "unfair"? I'm going one step further and saying that's unethical, and I would not do business with a company that I believed to be unethical, unfair is a different matter, and it difficult to appear fair to all those concerned.

I agree, nothing was aimed at any one person. An opinion was given, you gave yours also.
I have had people buy dogs without breeding rights and turn around and register them with "another" registry. This is very unethical. The association that registered the dog falsely would not do anything about it when I contacted them. Thank goodness I got the dog back, did not want or even ask the other person for these "falsified" papers. They are worthless to me, as I had the dog's original registration. I was holding it until she was spayed, but that did not matter to this other registry.

OK :rolleyes:

Furthermore, regarding "animal testing" and people throwing around this word, we should be against inhumane animal testing, not just animal testing. Animal testing is extreemly important, how will we know if products are safe? Too many companies have stopped animal testing because of so much misinformation, and don't want to be labeled as "one of the companies that do animal testing," so our pets become the guinea pigs.

It is very unfortunate that you had to deal w/ that situation. I would have been furious--as I'm sure you probably were. I do NOT agree whatsoever with registries allowing dogs to be registered with them in this manner for this reason. This is NOT a practice that I agree with and I think it is dishonest and deceitful. My point was, it's not correct to assume that EVERY individual involved with these registries is doing this. In addition, 'doing business' can include a wide variety of things...breeding under them, paying to register a purchased pup, supporting them by attending hosted events--all are considered "doing business" with them...

Yes, that's an obvous. I was merely using that as an example to illustrate my point.