Are Registration papers necessary when buying a pet?

[Mardelin]

I'm rather confused as to why this thread has turned into a battle of wits, amongst a group that has the best interest of the dogs.

Bottom, line is we share opinions, do what is best for our dog, based on our immediate circumstances, as long as the dog's health isn't jeopardized.

If one chooses not to register a dog, because it is later found out the breeder was of a questionable reputation, I understand. However, look at it from another aspect, unless you do register a dog, and something out of the ordinary turns up, you have no course of action.

[Elle]

There is a misconception that there is value is akc stock. While that may be true years ago this is no longer the case. One can have purebred akc pets with the registration papers yet still have a yorkshire that looks like a different breed. Look for the right pedigree, its more important than the rest. How can you do this without trusting the breeder?

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by concretegurl

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 :frien[/SIZE]dsh:

#1 -- I can only hope so.
#2 -- Wasn't sure you understood registration. Talking about your mixed breed dog Scoobers, you said you wished he had his registration and then in another post said that you had framed his papers framed on the wall. I simply said what I felt about non-AKC papers (if that was what you were contemplating).
#3 -- False -- I am sure others can count here too.
#4 -- False -- You have got to be kidding! This is so not true!! You mentioned in another thread of being the type of person who always wants to be in control -- but you cannot twist facts to gain control. See this post http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/3342326-post49.html for an example of just the opposite of what you describe. You argued with my posts over whether the back of a pickup was cargo area; you argued over how many states had no restrictions on riding in the back of a pickup; you even argued over who posted a link for goodness sake. I only answered when you challenged my words. I have no idea what other forums you are talking about. I just spent way too long going back through all of my posts and I only found those 2 threads of any contention with you.
#5 -- False -- I have given no opinion of you in any forum.
#6 -- I never thought of anyone that had been a member for over a year as new or only here a short while. If your greeting is sincere, I appreciate it and wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I did ask to get this thread back to the topic, but then you posted new acusations that needed addressed. I have a proposal -- if you want to accuse me of anything further or if you wish to continue "not arguing" pls do so in a PM so we will not continue to disrupt this thread. I contemplated walking away from these ridiculous acusations, but felt I was almost honor-bound to answer.
-----------------------------------------------
I apologize to Lorraine for answering these latest accusations in this thread. It pains me to have made a travesty of your thread.

I would like to continue the topic you started. I still cannot imagine any ethical reason for a breeder to withhold registration applications IF she had registered a litter. I now see that there is the possibility that either one litter or another, may not have been registered. I cannot imagine why a breeder would risk her reputation and future with the AKC by falsifying records. The profit margin increase has to be minimal for doing it wrong over doing it right. So why not take the high road and just follow the rules? I would NOT pay purebred price without a registration application to serve as what little verification there is that they are indeed the progeny of parents listed. I think there were several issues at hand in the For Sale ad that prompted this thread. I was surprised, especially for a YTCA member. But just because the Code of Ethics are there, I suppose does not mean that all actually adhere to them. Wish it were so.

For people who already have bought their dog, whether they send in the application to get the registration is up to them. I do like having mine. I like having a record of ownership and history. I like supporting the AKC. Even though I think the AKC has not been as selective in bonds they have made with other organizations and businesses, I think they are the best we have. So, we need to support them, and work to get them to keep improving. They did bow to membership pressure and cancel their contract with Petland (which is supplied by the Hunte corporation -- the largest comglomeration of puppymills!). But this is just my opinion and doesn't mean others should all do the same as me.

I hope we can all have a wonderful holiday season. We are having quite a storm front coming through (lots of tornados) and I have been watching it all night (no sleep again). I am glad I procrastinated in putting the outside decorations up. At least they are not getting blown away. But I hope this tempest can also symbolize blowing away all the ill wind here and starting anew.

[Mardelin]

In agreement with Deb. If one is purchasing a purebred dog, one should expect the paper work confirming the validity of said dog. Keeping in mind that this doesn't guarantee quality of the dog or the integrity of the breeder.

I don't know how many times I've received phone calls asking about such and such breeder that advertises in the AKC classifieds.....They under the misconception that all breeders that are AKC are reputable, most of them are, but some aren't. Again, it boils down to one doing their homework.

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by Elle

There is a misconception that there is value is akc stock. While that may be true years ago this is no longer the case. One can have purebred akc pets with the registration papers yet still have a yorkshire that looks like a different breed. Look for the right pedigree, its more important than the rest. How can you do this without trusting the breeder?

Elle -- you make such an excellent point and I am afraid I have had personal experience with that. My first yorkie, Maggie, was AKC registered but she was so far from standard! The more she grew the more off-standard she was. I was so excited to finally be getting a yorkie and she was such a cute puppy, I did not use my common sense. My heart ruled the moment and home I came with a very sweet funny-looking yorkie. I would not even have minded if that was all there was, unfortunately she also had health problems. She was just poorly bred from a local breeder that I later found out raised the dogs in a concrete building without AC in FL! I got her second hand, from a lady that said her health made it imposible to care for Maggie, but later I wondered if she was trying to get out from under a dog that looked nowhere near what she wanted. I learned though and got much more particular next go around. Since then, I think I have gotten some very good pups that do look like the Yorkshire Terrier I spent so many years waiting to get!

Just looking on our own YT -- there are every imaginable variation of yorkies! Some fox-like, some teddybears, some without proper colors, some with curly hair, some with coarse hair. My Maggie was short, squat, curly, narrow set eyes, and a smooshed-in face. All cute and lovable but some so far from what a yorkie should look like. Some have strayed a very long way from the genetic pool established long ago.

I think purposely mixing breeds is one of the big culprits too! Mixed litters usually have one or two that look pretty much like a yorkie. I wonder how many of those wind up getting papers from the non-AKC registries and then someone breeds them. The puppies from those matings may look like yorkies but straying even further from the standard. I wonder too how many litters are born of multiple sires or at least the wrong sire and then the puppies, if they look enough like a yorkie, are registered. Sometimes when too many off colors show up, I think some are trying to pass them off as Parti-colors. I have seen such a huge variation n the quality of Parti-Color yorkies. Some do look yorkie in all respects but color, but others look like someone got in the woodpile!! I have seen on this forum someone with a limited registration saying they had bred their dog! If someone admits that here, how many are doing it!???? Some of those were put on Limited registration to prevent them from passing on undesireable looks or traits. But people will screw with the system and there goes the standard. I just do not understand. I think sometimes people will do it illegally even when it may be harder that way!

I do not know what the answer is other than to require more DNA testing. But that too needs to be improvd so that the results are more reliable and tell more details.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by Elle

There is a misconception that there is value is akc stock. While that may be true years ago this is no longer the case. One can have purebred akc pets with the registration papers yet still have a yorkshire that looks like a different breed. Look for the right pedigree, its more important than the rest. How can you do this without trusting the breeder?

I hope you don't mind me expanding on your statement.....look for the right pedigree. There are so many breeders that are pedigree hunters....go via the backdoor to obtain their dogs. In other words they don't go to the kennel owner of the dogs that are on the pedigree, since they know that breeder would never trust them. However, somewhere in the past they trusted someone else with their line, that someone proved to be unworthy and is breeding willy nilly and capitilizing on the pedigree. Again, do your research...

[Elle]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

I'm rather confused as to why this thread has turned into a battle of wits, amongst a group that has the best interest of the dogs.

Bottom, line is we share opinions, do what is best for our dog, based on our immediate circumstances, as long as the dog's health isn't jeopardized.

If one chooses not to register a dog, because it is later found out the breeder was of a questionable reputation, I understand. However, look at it from another aspect, unless you do register a dog, and something out of the ordinary turns up, you have no course of action.

I replied without reading the posts. I thought there was friction, I assumed I misunderstood. I still haven't read them all.

Puppy prospects should seek a yorkie that will look like one. You aren't going to get that or a healthy dog just because you have akc registration. AKC is the only registration to consider in the US.
It's important for reputable breeders to keep up with liters. Limited registration does not stop people from breeding. It should, but there are many should's here.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by Elle

I replied without reading the posts. I thought there was friction, I assumed I misunderstood. I still haven't read them all.

Puppy prospects should seek a yorkie that will look like one. You aren't going to get that or a healthy dog just because you have akc registration. AKC is the only registration to consider in the US.
It's important for reputable breeders to keep up with liters. Limited registration does not stop people from breeding. It should, but there are many should's here.

It bothered me when the friction was amongst those of the same train of thought and passion for the breed. Just my opinion, but at times we all get a bit upset and caught up in the moment.

[concretegurl]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

It bothered me when the friction was amongst those of the same train of thought and passion for the breed. Just my opinion, but at times we all get a bit upset and caught up in the moment.

Really sorry for my part in thread getting side tracked here and hearing it was upsetting to others too.
Moving on, enjoy reading your posts-really informative, I continue to read this forum to hear everyone's points of view.
Kind of let down feeling that the AKC doesn't have more influence over even their own AKC registered kennel and such.
My Yorkie Elvis is AKC registered-not sure how all this works though considering he's Parti (and his registration never showed up with him so he's not registered with me and I've never had the paperwork in my hands) he was bred by someone whom has a reputation for having bred genetically ill dogs continually, Elvis came to me from a secondary party whom had initially adopted him from the breeder and then needed to re-home him, unfortunately she too turned out to breed quite unethically (wish I'd known all this before but then again I wouldn't have my Evlie-roo)-what a disaster though he has seizures, joint issues, bad teeth, and both these breeders are AKC certified and seem to really rely on the ability to hide their ways behind their AKC certification front.
Unfortunately it seems you don't realize a lot of things until after the fact in cases like this. I assumed initially that getting a dog from an AKC registered breeder meant more in the standards departments and was told there were certain guarantees and warranties...well there are but having these and having the ability to enforce them is another issue. Personally I still believe in the AKC ideal though, their standards and support their efforts-wish there was a way to give them more power, authority, and control over enforcement and such. Is there a way that's possible? Or even when it comes to AKC breeders is it still really "buyer beware"?

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by concretegurl

Really sorry for my part in thread getting side tracked here and hearing it was upsetting to others too.
Moving on, enjoy reading your posts-really informative, I continue to read this forum to hear everyone's points of view.
Kind of let down feeling that the AKC doesn't have more influence over even their own AKC registered kennel and such.
My Yorkie Elvis is AKC registered-not sure how all this works though considering he's Parti (and his registration never showed up with him so he's not registered with me and I've never had the paperwork in my hands) he was bred by someone whom has a reputation for having bred genetically ill dogs continually, Elvis came to me from a secondary party whom had initially adopted him from the breeder and then needed to re-home him, unfortunately she too turned out to breed quite unethically (wish I'd known all this before but then again I wouldn't have my Evlie-roo)-what a disaster though he has seizures, joint issues, bad teeth, and both these breeders are AKC certified and seem to really rely on the ability to hide their ways behind their AKC certification front.
Unfortunately it seems you don't realize a lot of things until after the fact in cases like this. I assumed initially that getting a dog from an AKC registered breeder meant more in the standards departments and was told there were certain guarantees and warranties...well there are but having these and having the ability to enforce them is another issue. Personally I still believe in the AKC ideal though, their standards and support their efforts-wish there was a way to give them more power, authority, and control over enforcement and such. Is there a way that's possible? Or even when it comes to AKC breeders is it still really "buyer beware"?

AKC is a Registry of purebreds. It does attempt to monitor their AKC members...but, with a limited number of Field Reps, it's a bit of an impossibility. AKC has made some questionable decisions, but it doesn't outweight what they contribute to the dog world.....The # of events that are held throughout the country, meet the breeds, promoting responsible pet ownership, the numerous judges that they certify, judges training, seminars...It is amazing.......

It is sad that it is buyer beware, I'm not sure that will every correct itself, our world is an imperfect world, and the root of all evil is money.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by concretegurl

Really sorry for my part in thread getting side tracked here and hearing it was upsetting to others too.
Moving on, enjoy reading your posts-really informative, I continue to read this forum to hear everyone's points of view.
Kind of let down feeling that the AKC doesn't have more influence over even their own AKC registered kennel and such.
My Yorkie Elvis is AKC registered-not sure how all this works though considering he's Parti (and his registration never showed up with him so he's not registered with me and I've never had the paperwork in my hands) he was bred by someone whom has a reputation for having bred genetically ill dogs continually, Elvis came to me from a secondary party whom had initially adopted him from the breeder and then needed to re-home him, unfortunately she too turned out to breed quite unethically (wish I'd known all this before but then again I wouldn't have my Evlie-roo)-what a disaster though he has seizures, joint issues, bad teeth, and both these breeders are AKC certified and seem to really rely on the ability to hide their ways behind their AKC certification front.
Unfortunately it seems you don't realize a lot of things until after the fact in cases like this. I assumed initially that getting a dog from an AKC registered breeder meant more in the standards departments and was told there were certain guarantees and warranties...well there are but having these and having the ability to enforce them is another issue. Personally I still believe in the AKC ideal though, their standards and support their efforts-wish there was a way to give them more power, authority, and control over enforcement and such. Is there a way that's possible? Or even when it comes to AKC breeders is it still really "buyer beware"?

I think many people are like you, in that they thought if a breeder had breeding rights with the AKC they must be a good breeder. I had to learn the hard way too. The AKC isn't involved in whether or not the breeders breed to standard or they breed healthy dogs. They can't even do much about the kennel conditions, and can only close a kennel that is breaking some state or national law. The thing of it is the AKC is funded by breeders, and those breeders don't want to give the AKC more authority. Since most of us will have our pets longer than we will have our cars and even homes, it seems like we should take the time and find someone we are sure is breeding for the right reasons, and that always be to preserve and improve the breed. If there is any hint that they are breeding for the wrong reasons, i.e. they need a little extra spending money, look elsewhere.

[Poshible]

I did buy Selphie's Pedigree, and it only cost me $34.00 for registration in my name and for the 5 generation pedigree...where did the $80 come from? The late fee is only $35, so it would go up to $69 if you wanted the pedigree; but you do not have to to get that. If you do not want the pedigree it would cost you $55.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Poshible

I did buy Selphie's Pedigree, and it only cost me $34.00 for registration in my name and for the 5 generation pedigree...where did the $80 come from? The late fee is only $35, so it would go up to $69 if you wanted the pedigree; but you do not have to to get that. If you do not want the pedigree it would cost you $55.

I think she said the $80.00 was with all the bells and whistles after 1 year. Here's the fee schedule, if you wait over two years it's $85.00 for just registration. https://www.akc.org/reg/fee_schedule.cfm