I'll address 3 parts of your posts:

(1) No registration really ensures health or responsibly bred dogs. It does show that the breeder has certified these are the parents and the AKC keeps a record of the breeding. The health and breeding responsibility needs to be determined by getting to know the breeder and hopefully some vet record verification. Limited registration does not always refer to a difference in quality -- many times it is just to prevent breeding the dog. Even a well-conformed dog with a great history needs protection from being bred by an inexperienced breeder or worse later coming into the hands of a mill.

(2) Of course we have heard of petstores & mills offering papers -- all the time. That is how we got all of the non-AKC registries in the first place. Many still use AKC. Plenty of YT members have AKC registered dogs that came from pet stores and puppymills. But most seem to wind up with ACA, APRI, CKC, etc... Millers started those registries.

(3) I am sorry if that was strongly worded. I am all for alternative opinions and giving ideas -- but after 4 of your posts trying to convince her to change her mind with her saying each time, no thank you, to a decision that should be her choice, that is going beyond helpful suggestions IMO. I can come on too strong too at times and need to reel back in. Fine to give opinions, not fine to badger someone to change their mind.

Good point for the justification of purebred in want for getting papers.

I agree with you and futhermore would not want to buy from any breeder who did not encourage me to register the dog in my name. If a breeder doesn't encourage this, I'm guessing they are having more litters than they are reporting. It's up to all of us to help keep breeders honest.

I didn't realize that registering litter also keeps track of how many litters someone is having...so simple and obvious but I never considered it to also be a kind of census...that's a really good point.

Writing for clarification only -- I know you know this, Nancy! :)

The litters are registered by the breeder and based on however many puppies the breeder reports were in the litter -- that is how many registration applications come to the breeder to be delivered to the buyer (if pups are sold). So, the litter would already be registered, regardless of whether or not the individual owners sent in their registration application. So, I don't think it would matter if the breeder encouraged registration or not. I don't see how it would relate to a breeder having more litters than reporting. She is still only going to have so many registration applications. She either gives each buyer one with their pup or doesn't.

I see that the thread was started to question about a breeder selling a purebred puppy without registration at all. I do not see any benefit in them doing that. If the dog is a purebred, I too, think it should come with papers. If it does not come with papers, I have to assume there is a reason -- unknown parentage or something like that. But I can't see that they could use this to hide having additional litters. I suppose they could hold on to registration applications and then use them on a non-reported litter. But it would be easier to just say there were more pups in a litter than there were and get additional applications if they wanted to be crooked, low-down, rotten breeders. I just can't see selling a purebred puppy without a registration application for any reason other than there is something wrong with the breeding itself. But maybe my imagination is not working well enough tonight. What other reason would their be?

I understand what you're saying, but there is the possibility with some breeders not offering AKC papers, because the litter itself wasn't registered.

FYI and not for you Debra. When a litter is registered with AKC, AKC returns papers on individual pups with the registration # and a number following it, i.e. TR123456/01, TR123456/02, etc.

Now I've also heard of unscrupulous breeders having a couple of litters one not AKC and the other is....and registering the non AKC pups with the AKC pups.......So, if there is a pup in question, an owner can always go back to AKC and file a complaint.....DNA will be run on the litter.

I guess there are always some who will circumvent the system regardless. I don't understand why they would even want to risk these antics. When you look at the overall cost of breeding, cutting cost by breeding a non-AKC dog along with AKC dogs just is not smart! Saving an initial cost of buying that non-AKC dog, instead of another AKC registered dam can't save much in the long run. But maybe in addition to being without scruples and morals they are also without brains to think it through. One DNA test comes back showing them falsifying records, and they wind up losing all credibility, all AKC rights, and all good name which is bound to cost them more $$ in the long run than they ever saved by cheating.

And yours make me mad!

All she was doing was trying to join in the conversation. Yes she was making suggestions - but they were nice - unlike your comment! Last I checked - newbies were allowed to post - did that change?

And she was not bullying - one of your first posts stated that you were "undecided" and she was just trying to make suggestions.

Good grief! :mad::thumbdown

Hmm.... so my post and my feelings are less valid than hers? She has a right to post whatever she feels, and so do I.

Thank you, it's nice to hear that what I wrote was interpreted the way it was meant-it is very appreciated. Unfortunately sometimes with internet postings people can read something and take it with a different meaning or "tone" it's unfortunate, but it happens.:thumbs up

Wow -- really? Just because she wrote that someone else's posts made her not want to do something, it made you MAD? You must have a time of it on here then, with all of the things that get posted over the course of a day or two.

As I tried to tell concrete girl (who has been a member since 8/09 -- not really a newbie!) -- it wasn't that she was making suggestions, it was that she just kept coming back at her time after time (4 times). That sort of goes a little beyond normal friendly suggestions. I know they tell used car salesmen to take 7 no's but that doesn't work on a Yorkie forum. :)

Then there was the part about framing "papers" for a schorkie? (If a mixed breed is registered, then it is from a non-AKC registry which is not worth the paper it is written on. Registries that register mixed breeds are for profit and that is the root of their existance, plus they were started by puppymills and breeders that had been ousted from AKC. If I had a non-AKC registered dog, then I would not send in for the papers at all as I would think it much worse to contribute money to them than to be without the papers.) That can make some not want to continue a discussion right there.

I think she was nice about it, she only said the other person's posts were making her not want to do it. That is nothing to get mad about for anyone.

Now it would be good to get back to the subject the OP has tried to discuss.

1. This is my last post to FlDebra & DvlshAngel985 in any regard I'm not here for off topic drama. I'm here for the positive sharing of information.
2. My SchNorkie isn't AKC registered(that's crazy!)-some registries are being created in Canada for "designer breeds"(showing the parents are purebred-but I'm not really into it just putting it out there for people's information). Scoob my Schnorkie, he's a rescue from a puppy mill dumping...his DNA papers are actually in a frame with his adoption papers, the pics of me picking him up as a puppy-my Miniature Schnauzer's papers (AKC) are framed in the pic of her with the breeding kennel and the pics of both her parents and their full AKC names etc (it's so cute)...I also have papers for my (AKC) dogs past...you seem to read a lot of my posts that aren't there.
3. I posted to her twice, I never 'kept coming back at her',(as you do me) I actually took the time to apologized to her after your post that I was bullying her and again after she commented that reading all my posts made her not want to register her dogs(which was just rude). I said I was sorry she took it the way she did (thinking I meant she couldn't afford it or whatever) and clarified how I meant my comment in which I quoted her and made a suggestion...
4. You, on the other hand, have actually posted directly to me on 4 different forums several times in each one pretty much just disagreeing with whatever I said-I'm not here to deal with arguing or conflict if you don't like what I say then that's your prerogative. Please quit attacking my posts, I'm not asking you to like me or agree with me, but the forums aren't for contradicting each other or other nonsense.
5.This forum is about registering dogs not your opinion of me, as with the training forum, and the dog rules forum and the other one you feel the need to reply to my posts on...let's all just get along and post relevant comments about the topic of the forum. Please stop posting about my comments going back and forth off the topic it's getting silly now.
6. Hope you have a happy holidays season, and we can all talk about the actual topics...oh I am "kinda" a new member I have been a member a short while but I haven't posted much until recently...hopefully this will be the last of any non-relevant or unfriendly communications :friendsh:

Look I took your post for what it was. It was informational, and your opinion and that was fine. I didn't read anything into it at all. It did however make me realize I'd never see that AKC paper the same way you do, rendering it absolutely pointless to get unless it became useful (like for agility trials or something). I won't frame it as you have, I don't have anywhere to put it. I don't want to get it if it'll just sit in Kaji's file piled away somewhere and forgotten, especially if there is an extra $50-$60 fee attached to it (that's just insane, for a simple piece of paper too). You might have read something more into my post of not wanting to get the papers, and that's fine.

If CJ25 took offense to that post, that's fine too. She just read more into it than was there. AKC papers are only as good as the breeder that stands behind them and their dogs. I simply don't value it at this point after all that has happened with my pup.

Nope - just read what was there.



Wow -- really? Just because she wrote that someone else's posts made her not want to do something, it made you MAD? You must have a time of it on here then, with all of the things that get posted over the course of a day or two.

No Debra - not anymore. :woohoo:



Sorry Lorraine - I'm in total agreement with you. :thumbup:

I just want to remind people that if you register you pup within the first year, it only costs $20.00, and that seems like a bargain to me. Lets not forget the AKC sponsors many good things, and it's the only American registry that does routine unannounced inspections of kennels. These inspections are costly, and the USDA says if a kennel is AKC registered, they basically drop all inspections, so it's left to the AKC to monitor some of these bigger kennels. I also would like to see more pet owners get involved with the AKC because pet owners, not just breeders, should have input into this organization. I know many people complain that they don't like some of its policies, but if pet owners were more involved, perhaps, they would have more of a voice. There are more pet owners than breeders and collectively they could have a very large voice. I believe that pet owners and good breeders want basically the same things.