Wow, I didn't mean to start all of the controversy. I appreciate all of your feedback because I honestly didn't know the difference between the two. I am not looking to show the dog. I haven't really narrowed down the type of dog that I want. I just want acompanionship. I appreciate this site and the feedback that I have received because all of you are right, there are tons of puppy breeders and unethical breeders out there. Thanks again for your feedback.
we have akc min sch that we bought from a breeder in oklahoma did not know she was breeder at the time the dog was over breed and had a hugh tumor under her side she just weened her puppies so we thought she was just sagging from the puppies. but when we took her to the vet tumor had to been there over 6 months to get that big the vet said and her nails were broken of from the cages she was kept in most of her teeth was rotten due lack of care.I contacted akc and was told as long as she paid her fee for her papers they really dont care about the health of the dog So watch out for akc doesnt mean good health.
ncraven - if you aren't going to show, any dog represented by the AKC, CKC, or one of the many other registries will serve your purpose just fine.
No registry is fool proof and I wouldn't let the registry be the deciding factor on which dog I bought. Pure breds are great dogs - but both the AKC and the ContKC can both provide you with quality pure breds. Forget you ever started this thread and go with what your heart tells you to.
I am not sure if "oh, please" or "you wish" is the appropriate response to the last post. Dogs that have not been registered w/ AKC are not purebred, even if you are starting your own little bloodline. This is a US standard. If you want a pet, it should not matter. Don't come crying years later, when breeding/showing is not an option, that is not what you bought the dog for, live w/ it.
~~Dogs that have not been registered w/ AKC are not purebred, even if you are starting your own little bloodline. This is a US standard. ~~
Could you point me in the direction of where you got that info? I'd like to read more about it. There are over 500 known breeds that breed true (pure breeds). I don't think there is any standard that says what the AKC says is 'law'. It's absurd to think there are only 153 pure bred dogs in the world! (the number of breeds recognized by the AKC). They are nothing more than a registry body who chooses it's breeds - just as any other registry.
If I am not mistaken, the AKC does not register Pitt Bulls. Are you telling me they are not pure bred? So if someone buys a pup from a person with AKC registered dogs and then does not register that pup - is it no longer a pure breed since it's not AKC registered?
The Glen of Imaal Terrier was just inducted into the AKC in October. Was it not a pure breed before they inducted it? Or did it just magically become pure overnight once they decided to accept it?
Please - BY ALL MEANS - share your source of information with us! I could use another laugh!
I am deeply disappointed in AKC. Reason being, I allowed a gal (foolish on my part) to breed her Lab to my stud (first and last time). I didn't have her sign a contract and after the pups were born, 63 days after the mating, this gal refused to pay for the stud services. She claimed that she didn't breed her bitch to my dog, and bred it to someone else's stud dog. (Imagine that!, I was shocked, since I witnessed the mating.)
I contacted AKC, since my dog is DNA certified, asking them to have this gals puppies DNA tested. They dragged their feet and in the end refused to grant my request and registered those puppies using another dog as the stud.
I was under the assumption that multiple sired litters needed to be DNA certified to be registered in AKC. Evidently I am mistaken or perhaps AKC simply is collecting money from backyard breeders, and doesn't give a hoot as to the pups real parentage.
Anyway this was a lesson learned for me and another black mark in my book about the validity of AKC registration.
Kitty - you could always answer my other questions and not comment on the pitt bulls. Like - your sources for your information regarding the US standard that says a dog is not pure bred unless it is AKC?
Bassett_Lover, I think the rule with studs are that they have to be DNA tested if they sire more that three litters in a years time. I am not sure your beef should be with the AKC. If the breeder followed the rules, as far as the information she gave them, how could they know that what you were claiming is true I have no reason to doubt you, but I think you really should go after the breeder.
I am wondering if she means by international standards. If your dog isn't registered with an accepted international registry like the Canadian Kennel Club, or the Kennel Club of england.. no registry in the united states other than the AKC is accepted internationally and by the FCI. Ifyour dog is UKC registered (and don't get me wrong, I love the UKC) and your breed can be registered with both the AKC and the Canadian Kennel Club, you wouldnt be able to register your dog with either. The Canadian Kennel Club only recognizes the AKC as the US domestic dog registry. That's because in nearly every foreign country (except for germany, but let's not go there) there is just one accepted domestic registry. Those domestic registries only recognize dogs from other domestic registries. The US's is the AKC.
Does this mean that dogs in other registries in the US aren't purebred? Of course not. It matters in the 'international' sense, but not really in any other sense. After all, it's not the owner of the Sloughi who is at fault because they own a breed that is thousands of years old but not yet AKC accepted.
The wonderful thing about rare breeds, however- is that they can form their OWN registries. Individual breed registries tend to be VERY well done (tho there are exceptions, of course). Once those registries are established- it's THEIR decision to make... on whether or not they want to lobby for AKC recogniztion. The AKC doesn't simply go out looking for new breeds. AKC membership doesn't ruin a breed- greedy, irresponsible people do.
There's simply no need for ANYONE to register their dogs with the ContKC- it's a waste of money on something that provides NO service.
The Canadian Kennel Club had to SUE the Continental Kennel Club to change their old logo- which interestingly enough... looked similar enough to theirs that they won. Is it coincidental that they chose the same initials and a logo that so closely resembled a well known and trusted registry? Nah.
It's better to NOT BOTHER registering a litter, sell them on spay/neuter contracts (and follow up) than to put money towards a FOR PROFIT group who does NOTHING but stamp a piece of paper for you.
A ContKC registration is simply scratchy toilet paper. It means NOTHING. Of COURSE the AKC has mistakes- it's a huge organization and perfection can never be achieved with human error.
LongDogs, You certainly do like to bash people don't you? I have told you before that my dogs are registered with the ContKC. I am sure you missed the post I put on here about how I "prove" my dogs without showing them. You are a very rude person who honestly does not know what they are talking about. Congratulations on knowing a few things about Doxies, but it does not give you the right to bash another registry when you do not know anything about the breeders on it. AKC is full of crappy breeders and more and more I am hearing worse and worse things about them. I am positive that the ContKC is full of crappy breeders as well, but NOT ALL of them are. I am a very good breeder of my dogs. You are a class A typical AKC snob.
Kitty mom, I think that was just a ignorant statement on your part. If you meant something else you should have said something else. To say that a dog not registered with AKC is not purebred, that just shows ignorance.
This is exactly why, I am happier with my registry than with AKC, I do not have to deal with freaking stupid snobs who think their dogs are better then everyone elses. Until someone finds out my dogs are not AKC, no one can tell. And yet, I find it is only the AKC people who will snub my dogs when they find out. (With exception to a few friends of mine who have AKC pomeranians)
On the contrary, Katz- I replied to the post you addressed to ME.
And I'd be HAPPY to hear about WHY you choose to register with the Continental Kennel Club? What have they done for you? Do you really have ANY faith in a registry started just 15 years ago, who accepts registrations based on photos and word of mouth? A registration who does NO charity work- has NO functions- does NOTHING except issue certificates of registration?
I'll say it until I'm blue in the face- I am WELL aware that there are many times more bad AKC breeders than good ones. I DO recognize that there are many flaws with the organization. But you need to explain HOW the ContKC is even on PARR with the AKC... even with it's flaws.
WHY DO YOU REGISTER YOUR PUPS WITH THE CONTINENTAL KENNEL CLUB, Katz? What do you- or your puppies purchasers- get out of it- besides the misguided SNOBBY feeling that a dog with ANY kind of registry claim is better than one without?
AKC snob... heehee. The two pups I bought from breeders are both AKC registerable- the responsible bred one with a limited registration, and the BYB one with a full (great, huh?). But I didn't register them. They're my pets- they're neutered- if I want to compete with them eventually, I'll get an ILP. The only one of my three with an AKC registration is the girl I adopted after a BYB surrendered her to a rescue group- she CAME with it.
So... feel free to enlighten me about the benefits of choosing to use ContKC. I'm waiting... *snicker*
Basset, did you get in touch with the case management dept of AKC. i needed to straighted out a problem and within 2 weeks i had recieved a letter from them stating what they had done to correct the problem. sorryy you had trouble with them. I will say again that the registries could learn alot from the horse registries as far as registies and stud books and guidelines. they are much toughere than the dog registries.
What Minneyar said+ this. I give people a limited registation. This means they cannot produce AKC pups, w/o my permission. Reversal of the reg would cost them nothing, merely they must show that the animal is over 2 yrs. of age and has an OFA cert. on it's hips. Bare minimum certs for me but in the main, more than most people that PMill dogs are willing to do. Flames me that the sneaky dolts can go out and BUY a worthless reg. cert. from something like ContKC and proceed puppymilling anyway, preying on the general ignorance of the public. If they had done the testing on the dog it would be less likely to be bred w/ defects. Cheap, defective pups are what I was trying to avoid them producing.
Okay--so if KittysMom sold me a lab on limited registration, and I bred that lab to an AKC lab (with either full or limited registration), I would not be able to register the puppies, right? But the labs would still be purebred, correct? Afterall, registration doesn't change their genes. So, it is possible to have purebreds that are not AKC registered. Those pups may or may not have health problems that could've been prevented by OFA testing, but nevertheless, the pups would be purebred.
Don't worry everyone; I'm just using myself as an example. I will never have an unspayed/unneutered pet.