Registering Question

[beagle_lovergirl]

I can't believe this passed by my mind until now! Anyway, I want to know if a Dog that is registered with the Kennel Club (Brazillian Kennel Club to be exact) will be automaticaly registere in the AKC or do I have to register her again?

[Mordy]

you'll have to register her.
http://www.akc.org/rules/special_registry_services.cfm?page=2

personally i prefer the UKC over the AKC tho, they put more importance on a well rounded dog that is able to perform the job it was bred for (not just looks) and have a better code of ethics plus a puppy mill policy, which AKC doesn't have.

[beagle_lovergirl]

Does the UKC have shows here, in the US? And isn't it possible for a dog to be able to do it's job and be show quality? Sorry for the questions, I new at this showing stuff :)

[Richie12345]

Mordy, I love you, jk, but really, I've heard that AKC worries more about the looks of a dog and now the original reason why they were bred.

[Manchesters]

Does the UKC have shows here, in the US? And isn't it possible for a dog to be able to do it's job and be show quality? Sorry for the questions, I new at this showing stuff :)

Well, let's put it this way.......UKC recognizes and registers 300 breeds of dog. If it has 4 legs and a tail, you can register it. AKC only recognizes somewhere in the range of 186 breeds as being purebred.

You might be wise to rely on those with experience actually breeding, showing and registering pups for your answers. Oh, and a UKC championship is more or less a joke. Of course those of us who are AKC are a bit prejudiced, lol.

[Manchesters]

And as for conformation and working, YES AKC encourages both. It is the members of the AKC and parent clubs who determine the policies of the AKC. AKC is simply a registration body. The delegates to the AKC make the rules, and see that they are enforced.

AKC sponsers agility and field trials......and of course obedience. The purpose of conformation showing is to ensure that the dog is properly built for the job it was intended to do.....not just a beauty contest. The shows determine which dogs meet the breed standard most closely.

[showpug]

Well, let's put it this way.......UKC recognizes and registers 300 breeds of dog. If it has 4 legs and a tail, you can register it. AKC only recognizes somewhere in the range of 186 breeds as being purebred.

You might be wise to rely on those with experience actually breeding, showing and registering pups for your answers. Oh, and a UKC championship is more or less a joke. Of course those of us who are AKC are a bit prejudiced, lol.

Not only that, but if you really want to get into showing here in the US then AKC is the way to go for the shear fact that they have regularly planned shows that occur on a regular basis.

I really don't understand the predjudice that a lot of members on this forum have against AKC. I truly wonder the degree of experience you have had with the organization itself, the breed clubs, attending shows and showing dogs.

I know many dual champions that hold titles in the field, obedience ring, herding trials AND in the conformation show ring-ALL ARE AKC!!! I know many pugs to date that not only have their conformation title, but they also have their CD and do work as therapy dogs.

To come out and say the AKC is bad does not make any sense. Yes, there are people out there that care only about the beauty contest and not about conforming to standard, but those people are in the UKC AS WELL!!!!

It's up to the exhibitors to preserve what their breed was meant to do and breed ethically with purpose in mind, not the registry.

[Renee750il]

Pugs, you're right. It's just a registry. Unfortunately, a breed having the AKC 'seal of approval' all too often is the death-knell for the integrity of the breed. I haven't seen the AKC do much in the way of emphasizing that some breeds are just NOT for most owners and there seems to be a significant amount of breeding down temperaments to create homogeny across the breed boards. I shudder to think of what will happen to the Neo now that it has received recognition - and all the subsequent publicity (without any appreciable mention of the fact that very few people are capable of being effective Neo owners).

And the conformation standards seem to morph drastically in some breeds. The German Shepherd, for one, is almost unrecognizable now.

And don't you find it a bit laughable that the AKC is just now 'recognizing' a breed that has been in existance as a unique breed for over 400 years?

[Fran27]

My problem with AKC is that they are doing nothing to prevent puppy mills and backyard breeders, and you know why? Because they get money from those who register their litters. It just seems to me they don't care about the breeds, just about money... Having a registered pup really doesn't mean much does it?

I read an interesting article about it, I can't find it anymore though...

[showpug]

Pugs, you're right. It's just a registry. Unfortunately, a breed having the AKC 'seal of approval' all too often is the death-knell for the integrity of the breed. I haven't seen the AKC do much in the way of emphasizing that some breeds are just NOT for most owners and there seems to be a significant amount of breeding down temperaments to create homogeny across the breed boards. I shudder to think of what will happen to the Neo now that it has received recognition - and all the subsequent publicity (without any appreciable mention of the fact that very few people are capable of being effective Neo owners).

And the conformation standards seem to morph drastically in some breeds. The German Shepherd, for one, is almost unrecognizable now.

And don't you find it a bit laughable that the AKC is just now 'recognizing' a breed that has been in existance as a unique breed for over 400 years?

Well, I just don't know enough about the 400 year old breed to know if it's laughable or not. I don't know what the history of the breeding has been nor do I know when the breed clubs first tried to get it accepted by the AKC and so on.

There is no part of me that disagrees with what you have to say about some breeds within AKC, like the GSD's, BUT that is also a general statement about breeds in general and does not apply to all breeds registerd by the AKC. Everyone always reverts back to blaming the registry for the sins of the breeders, exhibitors and most of all, the breed clubs. I guess I am someone who feels responsibility should lie in the hands of the people, not the registry itself and that the people who love and work to preserve a breed should be ultimatley responsible for it's future, not the registry. It's up to the people that love the breed the most to control it. Unfortunatley GSD's are one of the most political breeds on the face of the earth and their breeders, exhibitors and breed clubs have allowed it to be taken too far and in turn let their dogs down.

I guess what bothers me is generalizing. Everyone always uses GSD's as an example, and they are a good one, but how about some others!

I urge those of you who are quick to judge the AKC to attend (NOT WATCH ON TV) a couple of dog shows and see what you think. Talk to the exhibitors and look at the breeds. Watch them move, watch the terriers spar in the ring to test their tenacity and so on. Get a feel for it and make your own mind up. I know some very honorable, ethical and protective people all of which I have met through showing in AKC. Many of them are very concerned with preserving a breeds original purpose.

[showpug]

My problem with AKC is that they are doing nothing to prevent puppy mills and backyard breeders, and you know why? Because they get money from those who register their litters. It just seems to me they don't care about the breeds, just about money... Having a registered pup really doesn't mean much does it?

I read an interesting article about it, I can't find it anymore though...


Out of sole curiosity, what do the other registries do to prevent them and is it free of cost to register puppies with the UKC or any other :confused:

[Manchesters]

Pugs, you're right. It's just a registry. Unfortunately, a breed having the AKC 'seal of approval' all too often is the death-knell for the integrity of the breed. I haven't seen the AKC do much in the way of emphasizing that some breeds are just NOT for most owners and there seems to be a significant amount of breeding down temperaments to create homogeny across the breed boards. I shudder to think of what will happen to the Neo now that it has received recognition - and all the subsequent publicity (without any appreciable mention of the fact that very few people are capable of being effective Neo owners).

And the conformation standards seem to morph drastically in some breeds. The German Shepherd, for one, is almost unrecognizable now.

And don't you find it a bit laughable that the AKC is just now 'recognizing' a breed that has been in existance as a unique breed for over 400 years?

Has nothing to do whatsoever with changes of any type in any breed. That fault lies directly in the laps of the breed clubs, who are the ones who formulate the standard for each breed. It is the show giving clubs, and the breeders who adulterate a breed. The club memebers vote to get judges that put up their type of dog. These judges get assignment after assignment even when it is known that they wouldn't recognize a good speciman of a breed if it bit them on their butts.

As for a breed being 400 years old, that doesn't do squat for establishing a stud book. You need at least 6 generations for a dog to be considered purebred (or at least that was what it used to be), and to establish a breed in the AKC stud books. I mean a 6 generation of "somebodys b!tchXsomebodys male ain't gonna tell ya diddley about the geneology of the dog! You need names and proof.

[Manchesters]

Well, I just don't know enough about the 400 year old breed to know if it's laughable or not. I don't know what the history of the breeding has been nor do I know when the breed clubs first tried to get it accepted by the AKC and so on.

There is no part of me that disagrees with what you have to say about some breeds within AKC, like the GSD's, BUT that is also a general statement about breeds in general and does not apply to all breeds registerd by the AKC. Everyone always reverts back to blaming the registry for the sins of the breeders, exhibitors and most of all, the breed clubs. I guess I am someone who feels responsibility should lie in the hands of the people, not the registry itself and that the people who love and work to preserve a breed should be ultimatley responsible for it's future, not the registry. It's up to the people that love the breed the most to control it. Unfortunatley GSD's are one of the most political breeds on the face of the earth and their breeders, exhibitors and breed clubs have allowed it to be taken too far and in turn let their dogs down.

I guess what bothers me is generalizing. Everyone always uses GSD's as an example, and they are a good one, but how about some others!

I urge those of you who are quick to judge the AKC to attend (NOT WATCH ON TV) a couple of dog shows and see what you think. Talk to the exhibitors and look at the breeds. Watch them move, watch the terriers spar in the ring to test their tenacity and so on. Get a feel for it and make your own mind up. I know some very honorable, ethical and protective people all of which I have met through showing in AKC. Many of them are very concerned with preserving a breeds original purpose.

Sparring has not been acceptable for years now.

[showpug]

Sparring has not been acceptable for years now.

Strange, I pulled this from a current document on the AKC website regarding how judges' are to handle the show etc. Looks like it's still accepted, but maybe not practiced very often? I actually remember watching two scotties spar in January?

Sparring means bringing select dogs together, usually in the center of the ring, to stand naturally on their own. It is important that sparring be a controlled demonstration of the dogs' "Terrier attitude". Bring out only two dogs at a time to spar, maintain control, and do not allow handlers to use other dogs as bait. The dogs should be very alert, up on their toes, looking for whatever is going on.

Sparring can be an excellent way to ascertain both desirable and faulty temperament. Are the dogs feisty, congenial, tolerant, cowardly or aloof?

Sparring is not fighting. With a clearer understanding of its present-day meaning and application, it will be easier for everyone involved to see that sparring is a vital part of the dog show scene.

[Renee750il]

Out of sole curiosity, what do the other registries do to prevent them and is it free of cost to register puppies with the UKC or any other


I don't know about the UKC or others, but the Fila registries charge a fee. (Gotta find Kharma's papers and send them in one of these days . . . )

Sparring has not been acceptable for years now.


That's an example of what I was talking about regarding promoting homogeny. It's certainly not limited to the AKC. There is a problem in Brazil with Fila show breeders being encouraged to breed down the temperament in their show dogs [shakes head].

I haven't seen the AKC do much in the way of emphasizing that some breeds are just NOT for most owners and there seems to be a significant amount of breeding down temperaments to create homogeny across the breed boards.

This is my real gripe with the AKC. The general public looks to the AKC - at least here in the U.S. - as the be-all and end-all authority on dogs and they just aren't being responsible or realistic enough in their presentation of the different breeds.

I've met some people who were very involved in the AKC - the most recent was a former breeder of Ch. Dalmations - one of her dogs was chosen for the picture on the AKC's Visa card, lol, and judge. She shared some of my concerns. For the most part, it seems that the higher up in the echelons of the AKC the people I've met have been the more concerned they've been about some of the directions the breed standards are going and the seeming apathy that the problems are being met with.

Fortunately, I doubt we have to worry about Filas being accepted into the fold anytime soon. For one thing, I don't see all the Fila people agreeing on 100% of the standard, and for another, the Fila is a dog that is not required to allow the judge to touch it during showing ;)

[Fran27]

Out of sole curiosity, what do the other registries do to prevent them and is it free of cost to register puppies with the UKC or any other :confused:

I have no clue. My point was that registration just really doesn't mean anything, because registered doesn't mean quality. Although I am curious, what does it take to register a litter? Do parents have to be registered?

Boris is registered, we just never bothered sending back the $20 papers because we're not planning on showing him, but we really didn't get him from a responsible breeder .

[showpug]

I have no clue. My point was that registration just really doesn't mean anything, because registered doesn't mean quality. Although I am curious, what does it take to register a litter? Do parents have to be registered?

Boris is registered, we just never bothered sending back the $20 papers because we're not planning on showing him, but we really didn't get him from a responsible breeder .

Fran...you are 100% correct when you say that registration does not guarantee quality. I could not agree with you more and more often than not, dog owners think it does!

When you register a litter, both parents must be registered with the AKC. There are some DNA requirements now as well, in certain situations.

[beagle_lovergirl]

OK, I leave for school and you guys start talking about something completely different? Lol, so I guess I'll have to register her again? Ok, BTW the reason I want to register her is because I DO plan on showing her and even some Obedience and Agility.

[showpug]

OK, I leave for school and you guys start talking about something completely different? Lol, so I guess I'll have to register her again? Ok, BTW the reason I want to register her is because I DO plan on showing her and even some Obedience and Agility.

That's great, good for you!

[Manchesters]

It is not an acceptable practice. It is in the info on judging, but the practice has been discouraged because it gave spectators the impression that AKC was promoting dog fighting. I don't go to hardly any shows anymore, but I cannot recall the last time I even saw sparring going on. My friends who had Kerrys were against it also years ago. It got their dogs all hyped up for nothing.

At the time, George and Angie had the top producing Kerrys in the history of the breed! And it was only the Terriers that were sparred. Just about every breed except for Manchesters, which are a nonsparring breed.

[Mordy]

manchesters - in my opinion the fact that the AKC only recognizes so few breeds is the joke. there are breeds out there that have been around longer than the AKC itself and have been recognized for years in other parts of the world.

to me, the AKC isn't the "be all and end all" when it comes to dogs, unlike to so many americans. i put more stock into the FCI and their work. to be honest, i find it an even bigger joke that the US still isn't a member of the FCI. it's like most of the rest of the world has the ability to agree on a common goal and work towards it, but a small group of people think they have to do their own thing.

it's completely untrue that UKC "registers anything that has 4 legs and a tail", in fact, their criteria for registerability (is that a word? lol) are stricter than those of the AKC. the FCI currently recognizes 335 breeds, of those, the UKC recognizes 308.

again, manchesters - please do elaborate why UKC championship is "a joke"? just because the registry is not quite as big as the AKC? or because it happens to be "the other team" for you? it doesn't make sense to me to divide breeds into "show lines" and "field/working" lines, as happens so frequently. either the dog meets the breed standard or it doesn't - how can there be two ways about it?


i freely admit i'm not "into" the conformation side of the dog world here in the US, but as much as you would like it to be that way, just because i have had my mentors (and made my experiences) in a different country doesn't mean i am entirely clueless. i've done my homework and if i ever get into purebred dogs again, the UKC would be my registry of choice, simply due to their philosophy on a balanced dog and what i consider to be better breeding ethics.

showpug, i'm also aware of the performance events in AKC, but in my opinion in many areas they just don't measure up and we are coming back to the division between show and working lines, which i just think is ridiculous.

when it comes to the ethics in breeding, sorry, but i don't agree that there should be no responsibility with the registry - on the contrary, that's the first place to start. if you take away that last bit of desirable "legitimacy" that puppy millers and other mass producers get with an AKC registration, you take away much of their incentive to commercially exploit dogs.

richie, you said "but really, I've heard that AKC worries more about the looks of a dog and now the original reason why they were bred."

i'm not sure what was a typo and what wasn't - but i do think you see it the way i do. :)

[Manchesters]

Blaming the AKC for anything is like blaming the DMV because GMC and Ford make unsafe, gas guzzling cars. Like "Well, if the DMV didn't register then, then the car makers would stop making them."

Why is it so difficult for someone to understand....IT IS THE BREED CLUBS that set what is acceptable for each breed. It is the delegates from the breed clubs to the AKC that determine what AKC will and will not accept.

As far as showing, UKC does not have near the shows that AKC member clubs hold. Again. They are NOT AKC shows-they are shows held by the member clubs of AKC. There are jokes told of people who send their dogs up to Canada to get a championship in one weekend, so their dogs can be "dual" champions. That is the joke part of it.

I agree, there should not be two versions of one breed. All dogs should meet the breed standard. That standard takes into consideration the function of the dog. And the breeders should quit breeding "whatever wins", and the frigging judges should learn what the hades a dog should look like. The top winning Toy Manchester is an absolute pile, and I went totally spastic when I found out my girl friend had bred Sophie to him!!!!!! Fit to be tied comes to mind.

The judges that put that dog up all the time should be castrated!!!!!! They have helped to ruin the breed, as have the kennel blind breeders. And so it is with many, many breeds. But it certainly has nothing to do with AKC.

Maybe if the UKC ever starts having shows that people can get to, more might start showing. But for what? There are tons of AKC member clubs holding them already. If the clubs don't want to join UKC, that is that.

As far as FCI...who gives a flip? I don't know too many people interested in showing beyond Canada or Mexico......and not too many show in Mexico even.

I showed because I got to see people that I didn't see any other time. I was a giant social gathering. And of course I got to show off my little brats. It was fun. I was not out for blood.

And for someone who wants to show his/her dog, suggesting registering UKC is just plain useless. There are so few UKC shows it would be nearly impossible to find shows!!!!!!

Anyway, since I have no idea what your country of origin is or was, I can only go by what you mention concerning AKC. You don't seem to be all that closely familiar with what they do or don't do, and what they can and cannot do. Blaming them or any other registery for anything is kinda pointless.

[Mordy]

Blaming the AKC for anything is like blaming the DMV because GMC and Ford make unsafe, gas guzzling cars. Like "Well, if the DMV didn't register then, then the car makers would stop making them."

i'm not blaming the AKC "for anything", it just happens to be my opinion that the UKC has better ethics as a registry. for you that might not be important, but for me it is.

Why is it so difficult for someone to understand....IT IS THE BREED CLUBS that set what is acceptable for each breed. It is the delegates from the breed clubs to the AKC that determine what AKC will and will not accept.

it's not dofficult to understand that the breed clubs ultimately set the standard that is acceptable, but it is ultimately the registry that sanctions the shows where titles are obtained. thus the registry isn't without fault when it comes to what is acceptable and what isn't.

As far as showing, UKC does not have near the shows that AKC member clubs hold. Again. They are NOT AKC shows-they are shows held by the member clubs of AKC. There are jokes told of people who send their dogs up to Canada to get a championship in one weekend, so their dogs can be "dual" champions. That is the joke part of it.

yeah, so UKC is a smaller registry and doesn't have quite as many shows, so it might take a little longer or a little more effort to finish a dog, but in my opinion that doesn't make it "a joke". neither does showing them in canada for a dual championship. i could argue a similar point saying it's less difficult to get a championship on a mediocre dog in the AKC because you have more venues to pick from and can avoid showing to judges who like a particular style that your dogs don't fit. and yes, i know people who enter shows under particular judges to finish a dog as quickly as possible.

I agree, there should not be two versions of one breed. All dogs should meet the breed standard. That standard takes into consideration the function of the dog. And the breeders should quit breeding "whatever wins", and the frigging judges should learn what the hades a dog should look like. The top winning Toy Manchester is an absolute pile, and I went totally spastic when I found out my girl friend had bred Sophie to him!!!!!! Fit to be tied comes to mind.

The judges that put that dog up all the time should be castrated!!!!!! They have helped to ruin the breed, as have the kennel blind breeders. And so it is with many, many breeds. But it certainly has nothing to do with AKC.

i do think it has a lot to do with the AKC. the AKC awards the titles and championships breeders compete for, so ultimately they are rewarding the results - and obviously we agree that these results are not always in the best interest for the breed.

Maybe if the UKC ever starts having shows that people can get to, more might start showing. But for what? There are tons of AKC member clubs holding them already. If the clubs don't want to join UKC, that is that.

depends on where in the country you are. but why should the AKC hold a monopoly? doesn't make any sense to me at all.

As far as FCI...who gives a flip? I don't know too many people interested in showing beyond Canada or Mexico......and not too many show in Mexico even.

sorry, that is just narrowminded. the US isn't an island in an universe where nobody else matters. lol

it's not just about whether "people are interested in showing beyond canada or mexico", it's about preserving and improving the breeds. why should it be accecptable that an american-bred [insert breed] is something entirely different than one in the country of origin for example? if it doesn't matter, why bother at all?

I showed because I got to see people that I didn't see any other time. I was a giant social gathering. And of course I got to show off my little brats. It was fun. I was not out for blood.

i'm not saying anyone needs to or should be "out for blood", and i agree that dog events are a great occasion to mingle with likeminded people, but that doesn't have anything to do with the entire argument.

And for someone who wants to show his/her dog, suggesting registering UKC is just plain useless. There are so few UKC shows it would be nearly impossible to find shows!!!!!!

again, depends on where you are. if i'm not mistaken, the OP is in florida, where it isn't much of a problem. and if someone is really into performance events like agility, they are likely to do AKC, UKC, USDAA and NADAC as well anyway.

Anyway, since I have no idea what your country of origin is or was, I can only go by what you mention concerning AKC. You don't seem to be all that closely familiar with what they do or don't do, and what they can and cannot do. Blaming them or any other registery for anything is kinda pointless.

that's your typical strategy again, manchesters. whenever you run out of points to argue, you stamp the other person as ignorant about a topic and that's settles it for you. you really need to get over that. just because i don't agree with you on everything in regards to dogs doesn't mean that i'm "not familiar" with the topic at hand. on the contrary, i like the fact that i'm in the fortunate position of being able to compare how things work here in the US to elsewhere in the world. i'm not as isolationist as you are, you know? :)

[Whitedobelover]

i'm not blaming the AKC "for anything", it just happens to be my opinion that the UKC has better ethics as a registry. for you that might not be important, but for me it is.


i agree with you.. i am not a big fan of AKC and i agree about UKC having better Ethics registry... i mean my pup is akc and ukc as well as register nadac and more...

[Manchesters]

No, I didn't run out of points to argue. I ran out of energy. It takes a lot of strength to sit upright, think and type.

I was just talking to Old Dog.......she can't recollect any UKC shows in Florida. Nor can I.

As far as AKC liability for awards given, that is purely in the hands of the judge. I am not blowing you off as ignorant......not as far as brain power, but being ignorant of an issue to me simply means that one has not familiarized oneself with that issue. There are many things I am ignorant of because I simply do not have the interest or desire to do research.

I have been involved with AKC for 30 years. I have shown in obedience and conformation. It is the breed club that sets the standard for Manchesters that my dogs were judged against. The judge awarded points, etc, supposedly based on the breed club's standard of perfection and the degree to which my dogs met that standard (supposedly).

Unfortunately like everything else involving humans, politics becomes a part of the picture, and quality of dogs goes out the window. It is a case of what handler (male or female) slept with what judge (male or female), who owes whom a favor, etc, etc, etc. Wherever there are people involved, there will be corruption.

However there are a few breeds where this is not the case. Manchesters is such a breed. Jake is not the #1 dog because of politics. It is because none of the judges have seen a decent Manchester for ages, and don't know what one should look like. They think straight fronts and rears are the way it should be. They don't realize that the legs should extend out from under the body when the dog gaits....unlike typical terrier movement. Etc, etc, etc, to quote Yul Brenner.

Oh, and as far as UKC and their great ethics...........I quote from their site..

<<This Code of Ethics is intended as an expression of goals for breeders, exhibitors, and fanciers. It is not to be construed as a rule or regulation to be enforced by punishment. Breeders are expected to police themselves in a civil and responsible manner.>>

Same as AKC. Same as the breed clubs. Dog showing is only as ethical and valueable as the lowest form of pond scum involved in same. A championship in most breeds doen't mean Sheeeet. But there are SOME breeds left where it is actually something to be proud of.