Limited VS. Full Registration for Pet Pups?

[Dekka]

Originally Posted by Romy

They do if you only let the pup on unlimited registration go on a co-ownership.

One breeder who's dogs I am seriously looking into does this. It's pretty awesome, because she puts in the contract that as co-owner she has to approve any breedings, has a list of required health tests that must be passed for both sire and dam before a breeding, and the mate being picked for the breeding must be approved by her. If the contract is violated, she has the right to regain full ownership. So, if someone did take one of her dogs and try to breed it willy nilly she could technically go and pick it up as it would become hers. Also, I think as the co-owner she has to sign off on papers for any litters.

I don't know if someone can dual register a co-owned dog with another registry as being owned by one person, without the co-owners signature either.

It seems like a pretty good system to me also, because nobody knows a breeder's lines better than they do, and so if you are planning to breed one of their dogs then they are the best person to go to for opinions when looking for a suitable match.

Co ownership can work. But it backfires too. I personally wouldn't co own a dog unless I knew the breeder very very very well. Many of the people I would want to sell too (dog sport type people) tend to be very leery of co owning dogs. I hear to many horror stories.

[Psyfalcon]

No, just that any litters are not registrable.

With so many mixes, and "alternative" registries, I wonder how long even this is going to be able to dissuade breeding. If people don't care if their Labradoodle is registered, will they continue caring if their Labrador is?

[bubbatd]

I was looking at a line I wanted to breed Bubba to , They would only sell with a spay clause or co- ownership . I throughly understood their position and appreciated it . I declined and that was the end of my line .

[Romy]

Originally Posted by Dekka

Co ownership can work. But it backfires too. I personally wouldn't co own a dog unless I knew the breeder very very very well. Many of the people I would want to sell too (dog sport type people) tend to be very leery of co owning dogs. I hear to many horror stories.

It's definitely something where you would want all the details laid out beforehand on paper. For instance, I would never want to co-own a dog where the breeder required a litter, or had the power to go ahead with breeding it if I disagreed with that decision, wasn't in a position to finance a whelping, etc.

My next borzoi will hopefully be on a co-ownership, and I say hopefully because we have a litter and a very good breeder picked out. Right now it depends on who/what are actually successfully whelped at the end of the day. It definitely helps to check with other people who co-own dogs with a breeder you're looking at, to see if they have ever had problems. She's a great lady, very laid back with the attitude of "you guys are the ones living with this animal, so you get to make the decisions of gender/neuter or not/what kinds of competitive events you get involved in/etc," and she is there to mentor us.

[HoundMusic]

Originally Posted by Lizmo

In AKC, does Limited Registration mean they must be s/n by a certain age?

No, limited registration is just a way to prevent litters being registered with AKC ... so if the dog was bred behind the breeder's back, they could still use another registry, even UKC does not recognize limited reg & will override it. Personally speaking, my pups are also sold on a spay/neuter contract which is meant to prevent breeding of pet quality pups. It's very effective, especially since I negate my health guarantee if the pup is not altered in the specified time period.

Thanks for all the suggestions, this is definitely something to think about - I am not taking it lightly. That was an excellent point that it definitely would make it easier for someone unscrupulous to go behind my back if sold on full registration. Have not thought about it that way but makes perfect sense

[Gypsydals]

"Has anyone gone from pet owner to being a show person.....with any success or otherwise?"
I have somewhat recently (in the past 3 years). I went from pet owner with my previous dal to showing with my current dal Ivan. I think it was a success, we achived his Championship and I am now hooked.

[Gypsydals]

"I don't know if someone can dual register a co-owned dog with another registry as being owned by one person, without the co-owners signature either."
Romy, I'm sure someone could lie. But I recently got a flyer in the mail from UKC and a registration form with it. On it there was a question about whos name(S) where on their papers and if the co-owner(s) on the registration papers were needed IF the dog was sold or bred. If you marked yes you needed the Co-owners signature also. So IF I read it right you would need a co-owners signature to register atleast with UKC.

[SizzleDog]

So IF I read it right you would need a co-owners signature to register atleast with UKC.

Ronin is dual registered with UKC, and we didn't need his co-owner's signature.

[MafiaPrincess]

While the AKC/CanKC isn't the be all and end all for many breeds.. many people consider it decently important. While it is no more than a registering body, it is one of a list of many things even uniformed people often are looking for in a puppy.

If I was breeding dogs (that were primarily AKC/CanKC rather than breeds they don't recognize like JRTs) I wouldn't want the possibility of someone sullying my kennel name by taking a dog that should have been altered as it was sold as a pet and breeding it and registering the litter.

When it comes down to it, one has to be pretty ingenious and often work with a lawyer to come up with contracts that are truly enforceable. And not everything one wants to make enforceable often is. I've seen a lot of contracts that stipulate if you don't do 'X' I will repossess the dog. Whether that is not alter it.. breed it.. abuse it.. etc, many of those things aren't enforceable by removal of the animal. Monetary penalties often are one of the only enforceable options. Make the penalty big enough and hopefully people won't dare to try you on it.

There is no perfect solution. It's talked about often on showdogs-L. Disputes over withholding paperwork till the dog is altered to make absolutely sure that it happens. People lying to the AKC, AKC stepping in and giving up the paperwork as the contract wasn't written in a way that was enforceable enough..

Sadly it can be a mess.. Personally, I would want to do as much as I could to protect my dogs and my kennel name. And that would involve in part not giving out full registration to pet quality dogs.

[Gypsydals]

Originally Posted by SizzleDog

Ronin is dual registered with UKC, and we didn't need his co-owner's signature.

There is a question on the registration form that I got and thats why I thought both were needed. It asks "Are both registrants signatures required if this dog is sold or or when registering a litter of puppies." With yes or no boxes to check. Then it says signature(s) of registrant(s) sign here.
Thats how I got both co-owners where needed. If I was wrong(which I was) and gave the wrong info I'm sorry. I didn't mean to pass on wrong info.