Registration question

[doxiemom71]

Hello all,
I have a question for you guys who breed dogs regularly. I have been looking for a new pup and what I have noticed is that a lot of breeders are selling puppies for one price for a limited registration and more for full registration. Some want a spay and neuter contract some don't....I am not sure I understand this practice fully. The AKC seems to frown upon it as unethical. Can someone explain the reasons for this?

 

[*blackrose]

I don't think either is unethical (although I wouldn't purchase a dog who I had to have altered by 6 months of age per a contract).

I think what the AKC frowns upon is selling the papers themselves. (Dog with papers equals 800, same dog without papers 650). Limited registration just means your dog is registered, but it's offsrping won't be. It's a way for breeders to help ensure that the pet quality pup they're selling won't be used for breeding purposes.

 

[Elrohwen]

Limited registration means that if you breed the dog, the puppies cannot be registered. It's basically a pet form of registration. Personally, I am not a fan of breeders who sell dogs for different prices based on the type of registration. If you think the dog is breeding quality, put it on full registration and work out the breeding rights in the dog's contract. If you don't think it should be bred, do limited registration (it can be changed later as the dog matures). To me, selling a dog on full registration for more money is like you are selling breeding rights, with the assumption that the person will breed that dog to make money. The implications of it are just a bit shady to me, like the quality of the dog doesn't matter, just how much money someone is willing to pay for it.

Selling with a spay/neuter contract is pretty standard, again to limit breeding of dogs that are only pet quality. Personally, I would not agree to spay/neuter a dog before 6 months. I do think a lot of breeders would be willing to negotiate this if you had good reasons for wanting to keep a dog intact for longer and they trusted that you could responsibly own an intact dog.

 

[crazedACD]

Personally, I am not a fan of breeders who sell dogs for different prices based on the type of registration. If you think the dog is breeding quality, put it on full registration and work out the breeding rights in the dog's contract. If you don't think it should be bred, do limited registration (it can be changed later as the dog matures). To me, selling a dog on full registration for more money is like you are selling breeding rights, with the assumption that the person will breed that dog to make money. The implications of it are just a bit shady to me, like the quality of the dog doesn't matter, just how much money someone is willing to pay for it.

Yes totally agree. If you are getting from a show breeder, I think the increased price can be more to deter people who aren't serious about responsible breeding/exhibiting but generally screening and a good contract will take care of that? If the person is more of a back yard breeder/doesn't exhibit their stock, by purchasing a pup on full registration I think it would be expected you are purchasing "breeding rights".

I've even heard of people charging less for full registration in order to get people showing and competing with the pup! It looks good for the breeder and also the pup is more likely to stay in the home since it's being trained and bonded with.

 

[Stingr69]

Different prices for different registrations is clearly look down upon by AKC. They do not want to encourage the practice as it appears they are helping to justify the breeding of AKC registered puppies for profit. Not a good thing. AKC does not want their hand in that. Limited registration allows someone to purchase and register a puppy but discourages puppy mills from buying one cranking out more AKC puppies with little regard for the animals health or welfare. Ideally, the breeders are acting like a gate keeper when they insist on limited registration for pets.

In a pure "Show Breeder" operation, the pups should be evaluated by how closely they match the standard, how well they would perform in the ring, and if they will be useful in improving the quality of the breed. Any pups that the breeder believes will not improve the breed by being reproduced but otherwise healthy animals are considered "pet quality" and are sold off as pets. The "Show Breeder" ideally would not want to reproduce the traits that would reduce the quality of the breed so they ask you to alter a pet quality dog and never breed it.

The legal repercussions and enforcement for breeding an otherwise "pet quality" animal that was sold under a spay/neuter contract are sketchy at best BUT the word would get out and the "Show Breeder" community will know that the person breeding that pet quality animal is not trustworthy and they would not get access to any top quality animals to breed with. You would get blackballed.

That said, breeders do charge more for a top quality show prospect. They are hard to come by and they usually share the rights to the show dog.

I know not every breeder in the hobby fits this definition. There are other types of breeders besides pure "Show Breeders". Thankfully there are many out there that take good care of their animals and the responsibility that comes with it.

JMO - It is a labor of love for the breed. If you are in it for the money, you are doing it wrong.

-Mark.

 

[Elrohwen]

I've even heard of people charging less for full registration in order to get people showing and competing with the pup! It looks good for the breeder and also the pup is more likely to stay in the home since it's being trained and bonded with.

Yes, definitely. I know breeders who have sold show dogs cheaper, because they wanted to get the dog out there showing and know how expensive it is. Often the breeder retains some breeding rights as well, so they may lower the price to factor that in.

 

[Beanie]

I paid more money for Payton because I bought out his breeder. I guess in some ways I did buy "breeding rights." I didn't want to co-own him with her, so I paid more money to buy him outright. So now the rights to breed him solely rest with me, and if she wanted to use him, we would have to work something out rather than her just saying "okay let's use him now."

I don't look at it that way, I bought the dog and wanted him solely for myself so I paid to own him entirely. If I was willing to share it would have been less, but I didn't want to share, so... I didn't.

He does have a contract that stipulates not breeding him until his health testing was done, but that's about all that's in there... I'm not even sure it says anything about breeding him only to health tested bitches? I would have to look, it has been almost four years since I read it and it wasn't something I was like OH MUST MAKE NOTE OF THAT because it was all stuff that was a given for me anyway...


Payton is co-owned with a different person, and so is Pepper, and honestly, I doubt I'll ever co-own again. If it means paying more money to not co-own, I'll do it every time.

The legal repercussions and enforcement for breeding an otherwise "pet quality" animal that was sold under a spay/neuter contract are sketchy at best BUT the word would get out and the "Show Breeder" community will know that the person breeding that pet quality animal is not trustworthy and they would not get access to any top quality animals to breed with. You would get blackballed.

LOL.