In all of this talk about pure breeds and mixes, I see alot of talk about "only reputable registries would recognize this or that". What makes one more reputable than the other?
Not jsut for dogs, but for any animal (cats, cows, birds, goats, horses, etc) which use a registry for the pedigree and lineage tracking of their animals.
I would think a reputable registry would be defined by the person who is looking for a certain animal. Certain registries cater to certain animals better than others. A registry doesn't really mean anything. Its just an agency who tracks the lineage of an animal and since that is ALL that they do, why are some deemed more reputable than others? They all do the same thing...lol
Some will say the AKC, but I tell people who inquire about a puppy that they should look at the registries restration requirements and how they feel about them. As a breeder you want to be honest about the differences, as a consumer it is important to know as well. But, yes, they are a lineage tracing organization. This is a hot topic!
Really though, i didn't mean for this to be that way, was just wondering. To me, even if you look at the registries standards, where does that get you? It is the buyers responsibility to check out the pedigree before buying and a great pedigree can come from any registry (just like a bad one can). So since they are all doing the same job, and its the buyers responsibility to research the pedigree before buying, I just don't get where all of this talk comes from.
It's like saying that McDonalds is superior to Wendy's. Both provide the service of hamburgers but just because McDonalds has more customers does that make Wendy's less reputable? McDonalds would be reputable for those looking for a Big Mac and Wendy's would be reputable for those looking for a Triple Classic. See? It's all opinions that we make to look like a fact...lol.
Its like comparing a five star resteraunt to wendys. If you want cheap and not much service youll get it(no real shows,mixed registers),or you can go to the better registery that at least strives for better even though there are still bad people there,they do try.
Yeah- it really is a matter of opinions-personally, I love Wendy's burgers vrs McDonalds! LOL
Many registries have shows now and champion their own dogs, just like the AKC. So different types of titles are showing up on different registries pedigrees. Which is fine with me, but as a breeder, I like them to know what the registry I use is all about and why I've chosen it. Not to put any others down. I think putting other registries, breeders, breeders choices, etc down in front of a client is a terrible display. I always try to keep everything in a matter of fact when it comes to things like this and not do any bashing-it's such a turn off.
When I was looking for a stud, I interviewed several breeders. I was shocked at the lines I was fed that weren't true and their attitude toward other breeders, etc. I chose to work with a breeder that wasn't a basher of anything, just kept things in perspective and in general was a positive person. I felt comfortable then and still think that was the best decision.
To me a reputable registry is one that does the best it can to ensure that registered dogs are of the breeds it recognizes, offers a variety of events to people who own dogs of that registry, and has good public education and does other things that help support the dog world at large.
For example, I do NOT consider the continental Kennel club a reputable registry. Here's the big reason why. If I have a dog that remotely resembles a dog of any breed even if i KNOW It is mixed breed, I can register it with the ContKC as a purebred dog and suitable for breeding. WIthout being required to give any information about hte dog's parents or anything. So if I have a dog that is a doberman labrador retriever mix, that for some reason looks like a rottweiler I can send in two pictures of the dog and register it as a rottweiler. And then I can breed it and have little mixed breed puppies.
Now the AKC will also register a dog when you don't know the parentage of the dog in question under their Indefinite Listing Priveledge. However, you MUST provide proof that the dog is spayed/neutered first, so that dog will never enter the breeding pool, even if someone does lie about it's parentage.
Also, a dog registry that does nothing more than offer papers for any dog regardless of breed to whoever is willing to pay without doing anythign else or offering any other benefits to me is a sorry registry. I could just as easily make my own registry and do that and make obscene amounts of money on it with proper advertising.
myshadow, I think you are right on topic here! Great explanation!
To me, since they all do the same thing )with regard to their basic functions) then you just go with which one works for you, whether it be shows, trials, numbers, locality, etc.
That doesn't make one more superior though.
Hey Min, your reasoning with the cont. ken club is legit, but that goes back to the buyer needing to research a pedigree before buying the animal. If they researched that pedigree, they would see where it stops and that should raise a red flag.
I agree with your statement, but don't see how it makes it less superior (or reputable) of a registry. They are still providing the same service as the AKC - pedigrees.
***Edited By: duck butter on 6/29/2005 7:12:09 PM*** Reason: add
I also hate using the registry as a tool to sell also-I want them to not trust the registry, but to trust me. I know the registry does it's best to keep a good image so that we use them in our advertising. But in all honesty, it really comes down to the breeder. I hate it when I see AKC qualilty .... as it is saying because it is AKC that the puppy is quality-which AKC has nothing to do with and will tell you that. I prefer to see Quality AKC-suggesting that the puppy is a quality puppy and it is AKC. All in the wording.
Not to say any registry is in it for the money, even the nonprofit ones, but in all honesty, they want the breeders they bash and claim they don't want and encourage breeders to have our new families send in those papers too. They need the money to operate.
Minn-I agree about that type of registry. That is where I think it's best to just give facts about the registry to the client and their acceptance policies. Some think that AKC is the only one out there-they don't realize there are others and some just see 3 letters and call it good. I always hate asking a client to do more homework-but they always come back.
I think as long as the breeder is up front and honest with the registry selection and why they've chosen it, then it's good. Lately, I"ve felt like I"ve really put people through the ringer when they've called or emailed about a puppy. Like-please read this, please read that, check this, how about this option-but it seems that anything that you miss when talking to a new client seems to come back and bite you in the butt! Kind of like my housebreaking question earlier today-you didn't tell me that my puppy may not be housebroken at 4 months of age? How was I supposed to know that? Even though the reading material I send prior to the puppy is very clear about what to expect.
reputable registry is like saying military intellgence. I have not seen a registry in action yet that has done more good than bad to dogs. registires have taken no resposability in taking dogs out of bloodlines that carry genetic disorder. with working registries, i have seen the purebreeds be not so pure. and show registries having most of the emphisis on beauty and totally letting workability slide down the drain. a registry especially the larger ones are great putting the blind fold on us. but the truth is if you can get a a dog with hip problems, malaria, and a heart murmur you can register it. as long as you can prove pedigree and send your check in.