# Using Limited Registration



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

I'd like opinions about using limited registrations. I'd like the opinions to be based upon the following assumptions:

1. Limited registration for females only; and

2. Removal of limited registration if--

a. Female is spayed; or

b. Female achieves either MH or QAA title.

c. Female obtains necessary health clearances (ie OFA good or better; CERF clear; CNM clear; EIC not affected)

3. Sales contract that clearly stipulates that the Limited Registration be lifted upon completion of all components of #2, above, to the purchaser and filed with AKC (in the event of some catastophic event that could complicate removal of the limited registration)

Reasons for considering:

1. Too many breedings currently taking place; and

2. Market is completely saturated

3. IMO reasons for breeding many litters is NOT based upon adequate criteria (i.e. the reasons to breed are not significant for improving the breed).

This would prevent registration of any pups resulting from these females until and unless the above issues were accomplished.

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I am NOT advocating anyone else considers this a ban on any particular breeding they may have done or may contemplate doing.

What I AM interested in learning is what potential puppy purchasers reaction to this stipulation would be. Please understand that I am interested in breeding performance Labradors. While I have no aversion to selling a pup to someone who wants a pet or a hunting dog, I don't believe breeding those dogs promotes my objectives for raising litters.

I have not imposed this restriction on male puppies because I believe that casual breedings most occur from owners of females (they are purchased with the intent to breed).

If I could hear from serious competitors, I would sincerely like to have your opinions--both FT and HT.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

I guess the only way I would buy Limited is based on health clearances on a litter I really want. Health is not sex oriented, so might as well do both.

IMO, improving the breed doesn't mean putting a title on a dog. I've seen nicely titled dogs that I want no part of in my program. Also, there are excellent sires/dams out there that just do not run the games or very limited.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I am not against limiteds, but am wary of them, based on an experience where something happened to the breeder.

I totally get the reasons you state and think I could be comfortable if there was some provision if the catastrophic happened. Even if not, if I really liked the litter, I would take my chances but would try to convince you that the same end could be accomplished in another way (through the contract, for example).

I guess to summarize, it would be a thought, but not necessarily a deal breaker.


----------



## KNorman (Jan 6, 2003)

I will not buy a limited registration.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

Limited Registration has worked well for me, but I think it is because I thoroughly go over the clearances the sire and dam have and why it is so important that they have them. I have a sales contract and very carefully go over every aspect of that contract. They understand the time and thought that went into the breeding. 
There are those who will not buy a pup from me because of the Limited, but I have never had trouble selling pups...I always have more people calling for pups than pups for sale.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

I use Limited registration w/ an option to convert to Full almost exclusively and have found it to be a great tool as long as the contract outlines very clear expectations for both parties. Here is a snippet of my contract on an upcoming litter where mom is both a PRA and EIC carrier (note that sire is Clear on both, so Affected won't happen!): 

General Terms and Conditions for Change to AKC Full Registration Status:

1. The above dog must be an acceptable representative of the breed as outlined by the AKC Labrador Retriever Breed Standard.
2. The above dog must receive a number and certification from the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) or other recognized registry to be clear of hip dysplasia with an excellent or good rating.
3. The above dog must receive number certification from the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) or other recognized registry to be clear of elbow dysplasia.
4. The above dog must be examined and certified annually by a board certified member of the American College of Veterinary Opthamologists (ACVO) to be clear of heritable eye defects (including but not limited to retinal dysplasia, progressive retinal atrophy or cataracts).
5. The owner of the above dog must obtain a letter from his/her veterinarian stating that the dog has not been diagnosed or treated for a defect of a hereditary nature (including but not limited to diabetes, thyroid disease, auto-immune disease, epilepsy or heart disease).
6. The above dog must have DNA submitted to Optigen for the PRA gene test.
7. The above dog must have DNA submitted to U of Minnesota VDL for the EIC gene test.
8. The above dog must have DNA submitted to Alfort France for the CNM gene test.
9. The above dog should be examined by a cardiologist and certified clear of cardiac disease.
10. The owner must finish at least one (1) AKC title or service title on above dog.
11. The above dog must be a minimum of 24 months of age and a maximum of 36 months of age.
12. Copies of the above documentation along with a request for reversal of limited registration and the current fee for AKC application processing (made payable to the American Kennel Club) must be sent to WindyCanyon.
13. If the above dog is either mis-bred or purposely bred prior to applying for full AKC registration, the litter owner has the option to refuse granting full registration status.

I've used this format for the past 5 yrs or so, and have yet to have anyone take issue w/ it. Anne


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Cat Squirrel said:


> I will not buy a limited registration.



I have to ask "Why?". The dog can still partake in all events except the show ring in AKC... but just can't have registerable offspring.

To me, this type of response may indicate that you intend to breed regardless of how the dog turned out. As a breeder who has done a fair amount of work w/ breed rescue, and am trying my best to produce healthy/sound lines, I'd see that as a big red flag and wouldn't want to work with you either!


----------



## kbobbjr (Jan 17, 2009)

I would not purchase a limited registration puppy from anyone. It assumes too much trust on the part of the buyer. Trust that the breeder would not change their mind and or something catastrophic wouldn't happen. The fact that the "contract" is probably not legally binding in all states and the costs associated with taking someone to court over it is not worth it. Too many quality litters out there to choose from. Also, the only thing I should have to provide "if" I were to buy one of such pups would be OFA clearances/eye CERF because I wouldn't purchase a puppy from a breeder that didn't already know/provide me with CNM/EIC clearances.


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

I personally would have no problem buying a limited registration dog. I am not interested in breeding a litter. I will leave that to the people who have done it for years. I prefer to have my dogs fixed. My golden is not because she is a potential dog to carry on my friend's line if and only if she passes her health tests at 2yrs and is a good rep of the standard.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

It's your litter, you can require anything you want.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

WindyCanyon, Perhaps Cat Squirrel, and others who would say no to a limited registration contract, has had an experience with a breeder that indicated that he would rather own his dogs fully and outright.

I don't think that indicates that he intends to "breed regardless of how the dog turned out."

When I bought my Lab, after being treated like a child and spoken to v- e- r- y-----s -l- o- w- l- y by breeders who only sold on limited registration, I decided that I couldn't trust and respect them if they couldn't trust and respect me, and I made the decision to purchase a dog from a breeder who did not. That was just my one experience, and my one decision.

At this point, I would consider it, as I understand better where it's coming from, but I would be wary of it. And if a breeder wants to be wary of folks they don't know, that's perfectly reasonable, too. 
Doesn't mean either side is harboring disreputable intentions!

Do what you need to do, it takes all kinds, can't we just all get along, blah blah blah.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

The purchaser's reaction should be relative to how good is the breeding.

If its a super breeding, people won't care.

If its a common breeding and you can buy a pup with a limited registration from one breeding, or get a pup from the same stud with similar bitch lines from any number of breedings with no restrictions - people will go with no restrictions.

SM


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

luvalab said:


> WindyCanyon, Perhaps Cat Squirrel, and others who would say no to a limited registration contract, has had an experience with a breeder that indicated that he would rather own his dogs fully and outright.
> 
> I don't think that indicates that he intends to "breed regardless of how the dog turned out."


Re-read what I actually said, I say it "MAY" indicate... until you really get a chance to get to know the people, you just don't know what the intentions are.

I tell folks I'm not asking my buyers to jump thru any more hoops than I do myself before breeding. 

It's not been a problem at all to find super homes-- and so many have become great friends over the years too.


----------



## KNorman (Jan 6, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> I have to ask "Why?". The dog can still partake in all events except the show ring in AKC... but just can't have registerable offspring.
> 
> To me, this type of response may indicate that you intend to breed regardless of how the dog turned out. As a breeder who has done a fair amount of work w/ breed rescue, and am trying my best to produce healthy/sound lines, I'd see that as a big red flag and wouldn't want to work with you either!



It is my opinion that if I pay my hard earned money for something, it is mine to do with as I wish. Pretty simple really. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just feel I'm not gonna buy something with strings attached. However, all conventional cert dates apply for me.

And actually, I'm extremely particular about breeding and committed to pursuing advanced training...and I do all of my own work with my dogs. I also judge other people's dogs (mostly HRC).

Health certs, titles, conformation, temperment, etc. are all extremely important to me and I have very, very, very high standards. Heck, I researched studs for my last breeding for 4 years before I found a stud I liked ;-) But I have a feeling if we were to speak in person, you would be very comfortable selling me a pup.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> The purchaser's reaction should be relative to how good is the breeding.
> 
> If its a super breeding, people won't care.
> 
> ...


I look at it opposite. If it's an expensive performance breeding, and I know the breeder and they still want to sell on limited registration, I would pass. I use the limited to make sure the health certs are done so I decide on an individual basis.
But I go along with it's your litter and you can make the rules.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> Re-read what I actually said, I say it "MAY" indicate... until you really get a chance to get to know the people, you just don't know what the intentions are.
> 
> I tell folks I'm not asking my buyers to jump thru any more hoops than I do myself before breeding.
> 
> It's not been a problem at all to find super homes-- and so many have become great friends over the years too.


Okay, it may. But obviously it's a flag for you. I'm just pointing out it may not.

I really do "get" limited registration, and may enter into one someday. Sometimes I wonder if folks "get" why others may not be comfortable with it. But you may! It's all good.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I look at it opposite. If it's an expensive performance breeding, and I know the breeder and they still want to sell on limited registration, I would pass. I use the limited to make sure the health certs are done so I decide on an individual basis.
> But I go along with it's your litter and you can make the rules.


If i can get in on a proven repeat FC/AFC x FC/AFC breeding... reasonable restrictions on breeding a female puppy are going to be trumped by the potential greatness of the breeding. Most of the people buying a puppy from this litter are going to comply with the restrictions, even if there were not any restrictions.

FC/AFC x MH breedings can be found anywhere.

SM


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

I would not buy one.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

We would not buy one. Our dog, our decisions concerning that dog.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Cat Squirrel said:


> Health certs, titles, conformation, temperment, etc. are all extremely important to me and I have very, very, very high standards. Heck, I researched studs for my last breeding for 4 years before I found a stud I liked ;-) But I have a feeling if we were to speak in person, you would be very comfortable selling me a pup.


I bet I would too, esp knowing that you went to great lengths to find Mr. Right. It's the ones that I used to run into too frequently who knew nothing at all about breeding, or the breed in general or the possible consequences of breeding, that wised me up. The folks who take the time to read, respond and learn from a forum like this are (better insert generally here!) a safer bunch.  Anne


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Vicki-

I'm curious...are the only acceptable titles AKC? If a dog was an HRCH you wouldn't lift the limited?

Also, suppose both parents of the litter were EIC and CNM clear...would the pup still have to be tested to lift the limited?


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> We would not buy one. Our dog, our decisions concerning that dog.


I agree. I wouldn't do it no matter how good the breeding is. It's a matter of principle for me. Plus, i just don't have to buy one on limited. I haven't been in this game long, but people who know me know the pup will get a great opportunity and a loving home.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Thanks for your feedback so far!

First, let me say that it is not the "known quantity" that I'm concerned about. If, as Nancy pointed out earlier, it is someone known to me that I know is not just looking for a puppy factory, then I would be comfortable selling with full registration. Ditto, well-known field trial competitors like Charlotte & Dick Kaiser, who I know give pups they buy every chance for success. 

As Sharon pointed out, if both parents were CNM/EIC clear, then obviously the actual test(s) would not have to be performed for those clearances as they would vest in the pups through the parents. If, however, as time passes, the EIC or CNM tests are required to be refined for any reason, then that may not prove to be the case. Right now, it is believed to be definitive, but may prove later to have exceptions that require all animas to be tested.

I knew that there would be a certain number of folks out there who would simply bristle up because the registration is--well--limited. That's okay too.

Shayne also has a valid point that half siblings could be purchased without limited registration and similar breedings like the ones I'd like to prevent would occur. I'm not trying to police the breed, just take precautions with the pups I produce--perhaps.

I'd sure be interested in hearing any other logical arguments either for or against. Rest assured I've heard all the emotional arguments long before now.

As far as HRC goes, I really don't know much about their criteria. I'd have to investigate it or be educated by someone who knows more than I do about it.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> it is someone known to me that I know is not just looking for a puppy factory, then I would be comfortable selling with full registration.


I would not buy a puppy on a LR, but that's me - however I think I would qualify on the above snippet and if a breeder was not willing to let me purchase on a full registration, I'd pass, regardless of breeding.

Also just curious, you stated not EIC affecte, what about carrier? You would allow CNM carrier? Just clarifying....

FOM


----------



## marshmonster (Jan 21, 2009)

"While I have no aversion to selling a pup to someone who wants a pet or a hunting dog, I don't believe breeding those dogs promotes my objectives for raising litters."


if it is your litter, I think you answered all of your questions with the above statement. That is your belief, and your right to put whatever you believe is in your best interest in your contract.


but let me throw you a curveball.

I am a novice trainer. If I bought one of your pups, and agreed to it (I wouldn't however, for what it's worth, on principle alone), and tried diligently to obtain a MH or QAA title, and failed, but came close, 

are the dog's genetics any less valuable? Sure the pedigree wouldn't be as good, but I am not breeding the paper, I'm breeding the genes. Surely the genetics of the offspring of your dogs could not have been diluted by my inefficient training sufficiently that a JH title would ruin the line?

And If I had a MH stud to go with it? Or bought some frozen AFC, or FC juice?

I understand your intentions, but question the methods.

one other note....I have seen MH dogs and UKC finished dogs perform, and hunting dogs, and I think I've seen some 'hunting dogs' (offspring of SRS winning dogs for example) that have never even been to a test, or trial, and they could easily dominate their fields. The owner simply chose to hunt them at a game club, or outfitter ranch etc...Why shouldn't they be able to carry on such awesome ability?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Actually, I originally started using the LR because I got taken by two of the _nouveau _puppy mills who scope out good pedigrees and they lie to you about what they are going to do with the dog etc. This was before LR. They have their stories down and are very convincing. I learned to google phone numbers and see if you come up with any ads, but then they could be using a calling card or cell. With LR I didn't have to worry about tracking them down because as soon as they hear LR they go away or don't call. Then came EIC and that really changed things for me also. I'm not so much for policing but for education. 

For the people that are afraid to buy on limited, AKC will keep a Power of Attorney on hand for someone that can convert to full for you in your "absence". I would think that could be written in a contract.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I would not agree to limited registration. For many of the reasons previously stated.

As a general rule, when I buy something, I don't want strings attached. I don't want to have to deal with trying to enforce promises, either through buyer, their POA, or whomever. 

For the most part, puppies that I am buying are going to be at least $2k and for that kind of money, I especially don't want springs attached.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Ted,

You are not the buyer I would worry about!


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

I think your right on Vicki. Especially if you keep in mind that in actuallity most of your puppy buyers won't breed. They say they will or might, but they don't. To breed they're going to have to go and get all those clearances anyway so it's neither here nor there to them I feel.

As long as you have a plan established to remove that limited registration if the puppy buyer should meet your stipulations in the event you're not available.

If you're selling one of your puppies to myself or Ted,,,, that's another story. You know us... And we sure wouldn't want to do anything to piss you off.....

Angie


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Hey Angie,

Like I told Ted, it's not the people I know that I'm worried about.

What I am worried about are the ones who are only looking for a pedigree upgrade to their puppy factories. They will breed the females even before they are IMO old enough, they'll get no training, be lucky if they even get socialized enough to be handled in the kennel, and NEVER get the training and opportunity to be what they're supposed to be--RETRIEVERS!

Good to hear from you!


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

I would not pay full price for a limited registration pup.

...Don


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

I can understand your position. What about a lesser price, with a "kicker" when it is removed, provided the milestones are achieved?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> I can understand your position. What about a lesser price, with a "kicker" when it is removed, provided the milestones are achieved?


I think that's fair and smart...

Angie


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I know a breeder (not of labs) who absolutely will not place a puppy with anyone they have not known for at least five years unless they can provide references from folks the breeder has known at least ten years. Problem solved .

Frankly, I have always been a little surprised how easy it is to get a pup from the top field dogs du jour. 

IMO the breeder does make a difference. I want them to care very deeply about the home they are sending the pups to, get to know me, ask for and check references, etc. I just would rather not go through the limited hoops, even though it is highly unlikely that I would breed a bitch (too much like work). My last pup the breeder wanted to do it with the lowly pet and hunt test prospect pups, but I was able to make the case that I could be trusted. I appreciated the thought.


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

I wouldn't buy limited unless I was absolutely sure the seller's understanding of breeding was truly superior to mine in every respect AND every possible test had been done on the pup. Limited registration gets the AKC involved as a third party, too.

So even though I love Zeke ("Trip"X"Genie") and even though I almost sure will not breed him for various reasons, I most likely would not have bought him.


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

Vicki Worthington said:


> I can understand your position. What about a lesser price, with a "kicker" when it is removed, provided the milestones are achieved?


This is more reasonable. (Provided you include NAHRA MHR in place of AKC MH. ;-).)


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

Vicki Worthington said:


> b. Female achieves ... QAA title.


YIKES! You're in favor of this title now ;-)?


----------



## Bill Watson (Jul 13, 2005)

Vickie, With all respect to your reputation as a breeder, I offer my own feelings on Limited Registration.

When you buy a dog from us, it is YOUR DOG and you may do with it what you please. Our only hope is that you will give the dog the chance to be all it can be and be happy doing it. We try to get a good feeling about the people getting a pup from us as best we can by talking to them as to what their aims are for the pup, particularly if the pup is to be shipped. 

When the pup is to be picked up we try to farther evaluate the people getting the pup. There have been three experiences where we felt the pup to be picked pup was not going to the home we were led to believe and the folks left with their deposit back, but no pup! That is out of over 20 + years of breeding. We've let a few slip through though

I won't speak for Cleo, but at 79, I'm feeling OLD and want to not have to fool with anymore paperwork or have to keep up with anymore records than necessary.

Over the years you have had considerable success and for that, I congratulate you, so if you want to go the LR route, more power to you! At this time this is still a free country and I wouldn't change a thing you do. Why argue with success?

I wish I could put emotions all over this post... Do you have your guns registered? Bill
________
Carolinehot86 live


----------



## Smokin' Guns (Feb 2, 2009)

No way I would by a pup with limited registration!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

This isn't meant to be personal but it's a lot more potent written that way Vicki. Please don't be offended. Here's a bit of straight forward perspective from someone you don't know who might want one of your pups. A hypothetical arrangement, if you will, for effect. I would never do this by the way. To Ted's earlier point it's just too easy for someone to go back on their word and too hard to enforce a contract accross state lines for me to get into this or any other limited registration deal. But I was thinking about what conditions would have to be in place, assuming everyone could be counted on to live up to their word in your proposed scenario.

I would say if you want to give me a limited registration I'll make you a deal.

I will take the pup from you at 8 weeks old. You pay the dog's vet and food bills. I will house, care for and train the dog. If it comes out the way we both want, from a health and talent perspective, I'll happily buy it from you for a predetermined price. I'll also reimburse you for all expenses you have paid to that point in time.

If it doesn't come out the way we like, for whatever reason, then you will be obligated to take the dog back from me. You will then pay me for the 2 1/2 years care and training it would take to properly evaluate the dog from both a talent and health perspective. You will also pay me for "lost opportunity" because had I not had your inferior puppy in my kennel, I could have had a more talented or healthy pup in it's place and I have lost the financial benefit of future breedings by wasting my time and energy.

If a title is in the requirements, we will have to send the dog to a pro, which you will finance and I will reimburse you for, because I am just a novice trainer with limited time. Regardless of the dog I may not be able to achieve that objective, so a mutually agreed pro trainer is in order to insure we are both satisfied with the end result.

This way I feel we will both be doing everything we can to accomplish YOUR goal of breeding only the best of the best, via your definition of what that is, while sharing equally in the financial risk/reward equation.

My perspective on a limited registration using your criteria is that if for any reason the pup either isn't as talented as required, or can't pass one of the health clearances, then you as the breeder should take responsibility for that and reimburse me for my wasted time and effort. Otherwise, I, as the new owner, take responsibility for making sure the pup comes up to your standard, which is not what I'm paying you for. You should be paying me to nuture YOUR puppy, since you obviously don't feel as though I can be trusted to do the right thing by the pup or the breed.

Overall, I feel that if you want to enter into a relationship where you get to have a say over what I do with a pup down the road, then you should have an ongoing responsibility to insure it is as talented and healthy as you made it out to be in the first place.

Otherwise, I'll pay my money, close my eyes, reach into the whelping box and take my chances.

REALLY guys this is just a perspective on things. If you really feel as though you have to limit registration for the pups should you really be breeding?

Remember, everyone doesn't want a fire breathing field trial dog for their companion or hunting dog.

Sincerely and Respectfully submitted.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Vicki Worthington said:


> I can understand your position. What about a lesser price, with a "kicker" when it is removed, provided the milestones are achieved?





Angie B said:


> I think that's fair and smart...
> 
> Angie


I bought my boy on limited registration like this. Limited pups were $800, full $1500. He's my first dog and I just wanted him as a pet / duck dog. One thing led to another, and as he was doing good in the field she was happy to give full registration. I paid the difference and now he's fully registered.

I think limited registration is perfect for situations like mine. I don't think many breeders would be looking to slap limited on proven puppy buyers.


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Oh great, Anne, you better not let anything happen to you in the next 2 years so I can get Skeeter's full reg!!!! I'm going to hire a visiting nurse just in case, better to be preventative!!  just picking


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

I've often wondered why limited registration is almost unheard of for HT and FT Labs, yet it's pretty widely accepted in other retriever breeds. I don't think I'd be interested in purchasing a pup on LR. However I do sell quite a few CBRs on LR. It doesn't presuppose that I know more than the buyer does, it just means I'm not selling the dog as a breeding prospect. I do have conditions under which I would lift it to full, but heck, I don't think I've changed one single LR to full, ever. I've sold dogs to people that I thought had sufficient knowlege to make the appropriate breeding decisions, on full registration. It seems like with my last 2 litters that I've had more buyers than puppies so I was very comfortable with selling them on full registrations.

One thing I do not do is sell a dog as a breeding prospect, and in fact my guarantee explicitly states that. There's too much stuff out of my control once the dog leaves here that would determine if it was a good breeding prospect, and I don't want to be in a position to have the guarantee cover sterility or minor things that might preclude it from being bred, but won't affect performance in the slightest. 

Most of my pups go to people that hunt and keep the dog inside like family. While I love it if they go to HT or FT homes and title, the serious HT/FT folks wash dogs much quicker than I'm comfortable with since I have in my contract an agreement I'll take the dog back at any time over its life if they can't keep it. I've fostered rescue CBRs, and feel like if you can't take back a dog you bred, you should not be breeding. Heck a lot of dogs I sold I'm sure were never even registered. And anyone that knows me knows I have to be positive you don't just want a uterus to live in a kennel and hatch out puppies for cash before I'll sell you a female. I'd rather her never have a single litter than lead that kind of life and I don't want my kennel name attached to people that breed for the wrong reasons. It seems that people that buy male dogs don't have the secret desire to get rich off their dog's spawn 

Anyway, that's my take on LR, it's going to kill some sales if you try and sell nice field bred Labs that way, simply because it's not widely accepted in the HT or FT Lab community. Buyers of other breeds don't seem to mind as much, but they don't always have a lot of other litters without LR to choose from, either.


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

For everyone who says they would not buy a puppy on LR why do you sell a puppy with LR? Shouldn't you practice what you preach? For lack of a better term!


----------



## Chance Raehn (Dec 18, 2008)

Vicki Worthington said:


> I can understand your position. What about a lesser price, with a "kicker" when it is removed, provided the milestones are achieved?


Just curious, what about the opposite - pay full price and get a rebate for titles and spays/neuters?


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

Sound to me like in the case of Sean H, the "breeder" was using the LR as a scam just to get more money out of the client.

Now, as far as using LR to improve the breed, why not use LR on the males Vicki? I am somewhat new to all of this, but your origional post makes it sound like it's just the females that pass along EIC, CNM, bad hips, bad eyes and everything else. Is that what your saying and is that correct? If not, why not the males?


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I have not imposed this restriction on male puppies because I believe that casual breedings most occur from owners of females (they are purchased with the intent to breed).


It doesn't sound like a couple of the recent posters have read this. This is from Vicki's origional statement.

You can disagree with her if you want but at least know what she said.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

RemsBPJasper said:


> Oh great, Anne, you better not let anything happen to you in the next 2 years so I can get Skeeter's full reg!!!! I'm going to hire a visiting nurse just in case, better to be preventative!!  just picking



After last week, I might just need one!!!! 

Don't worry Kourtney, I ain't that old... and I'm not going anywhere anytime soon!!! You just take care of that boy and grow him up properly... 

Anne


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

birdboy said:


> Sound to me like in the case of Sean H, the "breeder" was using the LR as a scam just to get more money out of the client.
> 
> Now, as far as using LR to improve the breed, why not use LR on the males Vicki? I am somewhat new to all of this, but your origional post makes it sound like it's just the females that pass along EIC, CNM, bad hips, bad eyes and everything else. Is that what your saying and is that correct? If not, why not the males?



I've actually had more problems w/ owners of the males doing (or now, wanting to do) "casual" breedings in the past than w/ the females.  

Most of my owners of females can't wait to get them spayed!

As for the price tag on mine, Kourtney, I hope you read Sean's post-- what a deal!  No, I do not charge any extra for Full vs Limited. My only concern is that the dog is healthy, sound, well cared for and worthy of being bred first--- this just helps to ensure that we are all on the same page. I feel I have a certain amount of responsibility to those who allowed me to use their studs too, so this is done w/ respect for their breeding programs as well. As w/ Julie R, I too have cleaned up after more than enough unscrupulous breeders in my life. LR won't prevent everything, but I do think it helps weed out the bigger problems as someone else stated earlier. 

I'd like to ask all the folks who won't sell on LR, do you do thorough conformation & physical evals on your pups before they leave? Do you KNOW which ones may have slipped hocks, tipped pelvises, herring gut, retinal folds, etc, or other potentially significant issues to be concerned about from the breeding perspective? May be something to look into! Anne


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

An out of the box thought. What is the overall purpose of limited registrations? to most it is to limit the puppy mill type breedings. Yet just what is a puppy mill breeding? 

If you look closely at pedigrees and the AKC Stud Book, a very large percentage of the dogs being bred do not have any titles, OR health clearances. This number used to be in the 70-80% range. And if you follow their pedigrees, they have not had any titles or health clearances for several generations. Assuming that everyone who posts to this site is of the "non" puppy mill variety and that the breeders here subscribe to the notion that breeding animals should have all pertinent health clearaances and have shown some performance/conformation achievements to warrant their breeding, wouldn't the offspring from these breedings be much better breeding stock than the puppy mill breeding stock currently being used? Would not the inclusion of these bloodlines improve the bloodlines of those pups and of the "xxx" breed in general? 

Also keep in mind that limited registration does not prevent the dogs from being bred, only that their offspring can not be AKC registered. Surely we have seen enough of the non-papered pup owners coming on this list trying to figure out a way to register their dogs. And many do wind up with ILP registrations as is or registered with competing registries; CKC. 

Just some thoughts. And no I would not buy a limited registered pup and I do not sell my pups with limited registrations. 

T. Mac


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

birdboy said:


> Sound to me like in the case of Sean H, the "breeder" was using the LR as a scam just to get more money out of the client.
> 
> Now, as far as using LR to improve the breed, why not use LR on the males Vicki? I am somewhat new to all of this, but your origional post makes it sound like it's just the females that pass along EIC, CNM, bad hips, bad eyes and everything else. Is that what your saying and is that correct? If not, why not the males?


It's a little bit different with show breeders. They are able to evaluate their pups at 8 weeks to identify show prospects. These puppies are sold on full registration to show homes as you can't show on limited. The rest of the puppies are sold as pets on limited. I don't see the scam in that.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

I sell 98% of my Goldens on a LR basis.
When asked by Johnny B. Public about the meaning of LR?? 
I tell them the importance of spay/nueter and controling the over crowding of shelters.
Hunters; I tell them having ovaries and testicles doesn't make their dog hunt any better or less. If they want to breed or have bred a litter in the past. I tell them to do the health clearances first ,show me copies and I do the research and the LR has been lifted.
As "Windy Canyon" pointed out, Go do rescue for your breed sometime.
Never ever had problems. It does keep the "I want to get my purchase price back on this dog" people away or "I want to the kids to experience the miracle of birth" folks away.
It's strictly done for protection of the breed and the over population of Goldens (badly bred ones with no regard to health clearances).
If you want one puppy from "MallardMuncher" than go back to the experinced breeder and buy one. 
IMHPO.
Sue Kiefer


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

Howard N said:


> It doesn't sound like a couple of the recent posters have read this. This is from Vicki's origional statement.
> 
> You can disagree with her if you want but at least know what she said.


I know what she said. Go back and look at reason #3 for using LR's (improving the breed). What good is it to give a FR to a male that has no health clearances, that can breed to a female that has been checked head to toe. All I was saying is that if you go with the LR's, make it across the board. I understand that most casual breedings start with the female's owners, but it takes two to tango. 

Sean H, I wasn't trying to bash your breeder. It just seemed odd that you could just buy your way into a FR without any health checks or performance evaluations.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

birdboy said:


> Sean H, I wasn't trying to bash your breeder. It just seemed odd that you could just buy your way into a FR without any health checks or performance evaluations.


I never said there wasn't any evaluations done. She evaluated his conformation and field performance and was so pleased that she plans to breed to him herself. He wasn't 2 yet so there was understanding that I would get the final clearances done. Again, he needed full to enter the show ring which can be done before the age of 2.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

birdboy said:


> What good is it to give a FR to a male that has no health clearances, that can breed to a female that has been checked head to toe. All I was saying is that if you go with the LR's, make it across the board. I understand that most casual breedings start with the female's owners, but it takes two to tango.
> 
> Sean H, I wasn't trying to bash your breeder. It just seemed odd that you could just buy your way into a FR without any health checks or performance evaluations.


I guess it does happen, but if someone puts all the time and money into getting the various clearances it would be highly unusual for them to select a stud dog that didn't have the same. As you're now talking about a considerable outlay: Hips/elbows $250; PRA $200, DM $65, CERF $75, that's nearly $500 for my breed, the Chesapeake. 

Also, it's a fact that anyone owning a mediocre bitch can breed her to a top titled stud (maybe not the best of the best, but good enough to peddle pups) and the same is not true of a mediocre male. Go on the Fuge and look at the weekly posts of some poor hunter lookin' for a female to breed ole Mallard Muncher to 'cause he's such a great dog.

As for why I sell on LR, but would not buy a dog on LR: I've spent 27 years with Chesapeakes and learned bloodlines from some of the best. Most owners are not as interested in doing the kind of research and putting the time commitment I have into the breed. It sounds arrogant I know, but if the person primarily wants a pet or hunting dog, they don't mind buying on LR; it can always be changed if their plans change. 

As I said earlier, it's not widely accepted in the Lab HT/FT world and any breeder trying to sell pups on LR will face a lot of competition from similar litters sold on full reg. This is not the case with other breeds. Probably everyone reading and contributing to this thread is the responsible type owner that a breeder would not need the LR on anyway so it's kind of like preaching to the choir.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Like Sue said, almost all the sporting breeds have been selling on LR for years as well as the bench Labradors. The field Labradors in the past have not been sold on LR and it's a fairly new concept as it has pretty much been accepted all pups are sold on full registration. I think with the EIC carrier status, more breeders are using LR that never would have a few years ago. One, it depends on who you are mostly marketing your litter to. If you have a titled female, and I mean FC/AFC, you are probably selling to people you know from competition. If you don't know them and someone wants one of your pups and you feel they are qualified for a pup, why would they object to a limited registration that would be lifted with health certifications and a performance title for the priviledge of owning one of your dogs? It's not a co-ownership like the bench breeders do for people starting out to show. I have actually applied for the priviledge of being qualified for a pup out of an FC/AFC bitch. The same if you are selling from a MH titled bitch-do you know the buyers from competition or can you find them on Entry Express that they do run their dogs? I handle it on an individual basis by talking to the buyer. I do not sell to agents either where I don't know where a dog will go. Neither of these types are going to breed without papers. Why breed an FC X FC pup without papers? Dogs sold without papers usually are oops dogs or ones with no pedigree.

If you are selling to John Q Public who approaches a breeder because he wants a healthy good dog to compete with at the HT level or as a gundog, I find that 90% don't care about LR because they never intend to breed, especially once you take the time to educate them why you are using limited registration and all the health certs you have to get now. A few people don't like the idea and choose to go elsewhere. 

I personally find the people that would not accept LR under any circumstances also fail in other aspects I consider a good home. Obviously there will always be those out there that never buy or sell on limited. Buyer beware if they have done their health certs and stand behind their dogs.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

Most of my buyers need educated on the difference and the meaning of FUll and Limited reg. Most think that LR means that THEIR pup isn't fully registered. Most people still hold out that AKC reg. is the "holy grail" that they need to get in order for their pup to be a good dog. I tell all my "pet" and "hunting buddy" buyers that AKC and UKC for that matter, are just buildings that house a large computer that records their pup's family tree. That's it. Most people want full reg. but in the same breath tell me that: 1: they don't even intend on sending in the papers, and 2: they are planning on spay/neutering their pup. I tell them that the reg. form is basically a "pink slip" and that if they don't send it in, then in the eyes of AKC and UKC, I still own the pup. Most still only send in AKC and not the UKC paperwork, so then I went to permenantly registering the litter myself, so now I have to come up with an average of an extra $100-200 dollars per litter, a bunch of names (most of which the owner most likely will try to change), and they most likely still won't send in the damned paperwork to transfer the pup into their names! I have had people ask about directly registering the pups in the new owners names, the problem with that is that I register the pups on the day they hit the ground, not all are generally sold, and even though I may have deposits, I don't want the hassle of having to change a reg. paper if someone backs out on the deal. I also don't want the papers arriving to the new owners before the pup. Anyway, long story short, I sell all my pups on LR with the provision of lifting restrictions after completion of health clearances and minimum of SHR and or JH title which should be simple to do for any amatuer with any of my pups. Since it also fulfills the guarantee, for me, I see it as a win-win situation. The serious breeders are going to do the health certs anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem selling them on LR.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> If you don't know them and someone wants one of your pups and you feel they are qualified for a pup, why would they object to a limited registration that would be lifted with health certifications and a performance title for the priviledge of owning one of your dogs?


I have to be "qualified" to have the "privilage" of giving you upwards of $2,000 of my money in return for a pup that you want to tell me how to raise? 

Given the price of pups out of an FC-AFC bitch line, I think not.


----------



## kb27_99 (Sep 28, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> I have to be "qualified" to have the "privilage" of giving you upwards of $2,000 of my money in return for a pup that you want to tell me how to raise?
> 
> Given the price of pups out of an FC-AFC bitch line, I think not.



I agree, it is pure BS. Sounds like the breeders are tring to better their NAME not so much the breed!


Kevin


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Anne, oh I noticed! That's why I keep having to explain to people why I went to WA for a lab lol. Ironically right after I returned to work there was a poster for yellow pups, "Champion lines" for $600. No thanks. Oh, and be careful!!  

Here's my take on my experience with Anne, yes it is a male. Even if I have a dog, I'm constantly looking at breedings and studs and bitches to see what ones I would like if I ever had the chance based both on performance and looks. I say looks because I'm still really learning about conformation and structure. I do want to breed, eventually. If it happens it happens, if not, well I just wait some more. I'm definitely not in the category of breeding to make money. So when I saw Anne's litter that I got Skeeter from, we talked from a few weeks before the pups were born right up until I decided to get him and then went and brought him home (and still talking after). I was impressed with the breeding, how she raises her pups, and I didn't and still don't feel that anything she asks to grant full reg. is unacceptable. We did have a discussion about feeding as I have moved to raw feeding but easily settled and I'm more educated for it. 

While the dog may become my "property," I want to buy from a breeder who cares that much about their pups. If I ever breed, it's going to be heartbreaking letting that first litter go home with their new owners. I think LR used to watch out for the well-being of pups is LR used wisely. It's actually nice for someone like me who wants to breed but never has have the LR requirements, it's kind of like having a mentor in the breeder to help me figure out a new game. 

My opinion.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

kb27_99 said:


> I agree, it is pure BS. Sounds like the breeders are tring to better their NAME not so much the breed!
> 
> 
> Kevin


Well, in fact you are trying to better your own name, or at least keep it out of the gossip mill! As I said, the average RTF poster has titled a dog in some venue and has an understanding of what goes into breeding and is not the target buyer for the LR. I've had my 'line' of dogs for 27 years. And yes I would be extremely angry if CBRs with Hope Springs in the pedigree started turning up in shelters/rescue with regularity along with whispered comments they have surly dispositions, soundness issues, or something else that always seems to get blamed on the best known name in the pedigree, not the crummy POS the 'name' was bred to. I have worked VERY hard to produce dogs with good dispositions, sound minds and bodies, correct type and good work ethic. This can be undone by one bad breeding! 

For every breeder that advertises puppies out of a dysplastic bitch advertised as "OFA Pending" or practices other deceits to con buyers, there are buyers who feed the seller a line of BS so they can get their hands on a nicely bred bitch to use as a cash cow. A LR will weed out those kinds of people.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

What I think is funny is how people won't buy a pup with LR due to their objections of the breeder being too much like "big brother" but live in houses/neighborhoods with covenants on their "property" that they just paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for. Also, the argument that the breeder just wants to promote their kennel name.....SO WHAT!!! So now its terrible that the breeder wants to have their name on healthy, titled dogs? Funny, if the dog didn't turn out, how much do you want to bet that owner would be slinging mud at said breeders name. The breeder did most of the hard work producing the litter, researching the parents, getting health clearances and titles on the breeding stock, all those things that lead you to buy a pup from them in the first place, so why shouldn't they get some of the credit??? Did it not occur to you that by "stamping" their name on the pup, that it is like a stamp of approval from the breeder, after all, who wants their name on an inferior product. It used to be a badge of honor for people to say that they got their pup from "such and such" kennel. Now it seems like people want all the credit for plunking down a chunk of change for a pup, more money for a pro, and then go bragging how THEY raised this great dog that is now a FC/AFC. If you want to claim that right, then breed a litter and name it for yourself. Then you might learn that what it takes to raise a great competition litter. Or not.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

firehouselabs said:


> What I think is funny is how people won't buy a pup with LR due to their objections of the breeder being too much like "big brother" but live in houses/neighborhoods with covenants on their "property" that they just paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for. Also, the argument that the breeder just wants to promote their kennel name.....SO WHAT!!! So now its terrible that the breeder wants to have their name on healthy, titled dogs? Funny, if the dog didn't turn out, how much do you want to bet that owner would be slinging mud at said breeders name. The breeder did most of the hard work producing the litter, researching the parents, getting health clearances and titles on the breeding stock, all those things that lead you to buy a pup from them in the first place, so why shouldn't they get some of the credit??? Did it not occur to you that by "stamping" their name on the pup, that it is like a stamp of approval from the breeder, after all, who wants their name on an inferior product. It used to be a badge of honor for people to say that they got their pup from "such and such" kennel. Now it seems like people want all the credit for plunking down a chunk of change for a pup, more money for a pro, and then go bragging how THEY raised this great dog that is now a FC/AFC. If you want to claim that right, then breed a litter and name it for yourself. Then you might learn that what it takes to raise a great competition litter. Or not.


Not possible to breed a litter with LR....just saying.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

As a breeder, every pup I sell takes the reputation of my program with it when it goes to a new home. While I can't control what people do with a pup after they buy it, I can certainly do my best to see to it that the lines that come from here aren't used in backyard breedings to the pretty dog next door because he's "got papers" but no clearances, and puppy mills, with no health clearances above and beyond what the sire and dam of my pups have. And believe me, no puppy buyers considers themselves irresponsible or a puppy mill, even if they are. They don't exactly walk up to your door and announce it.

I used to sell all my pups on full registration because I wouldn't buy one myself on limited. Trusted everybody to do the right stuff. Screened buyers as best I could. All it takes is one bad experience to change that. Believe me, some people can talk a good game, when the reality is much different.

Now, my pups leave with full registration for buyers that I *know* have experience and will train and hunt them and do the clearances. The basic family puppy that will be a hunting dog goes with limited registration. Many of those people don't even bother to register the pup in their name. And if I get one of those who insists on full registration even after I explain why...I offer them the option of full registration with me listed as co-owner ("and", not "or"). I'll sign off once they've got health clearances and a title (and CGC doesn't count). It's really not much different than limited, but it's the psychological idea of "full" vs. "limited". 

How else does a breeder protect their program? We have no control over what a puppy buyer does with or to that puppy after it leaves here. The last thing I want is to find out one of my pups is being used to produce poorly bred dogs with no health clearances. It's not a car with a title that shows ownership...it's a puppy with registration papers that allow it to breed or not.

For those here who insist on full only, what are your suggestions as to how a breeder can keep their pups from being used for breeding with no clearances, training, etc.? I'm always looking for a good solution, and I'm all ears.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> I have to be "qualified" to have the "privilage" of giving you upwards of $2,000 of my money in return for a pup that you want to tell me how to raise? Given the price of pups out of an FC-AFC bitch line, I think not.


You quoted me out of context. I said " If you have a titled female, and I mean FC/AFC" 
Like I said, I'm not saying me but SOME people who have FC/AFC bitches don't just place pups in anyone's hands because they plunk down the cash. That doesn't cut it because it is not about the money, it's about being qualified for one of their pups and $2K is cheap. I'm taking long time national caliber breeders. If they don't know you, they want to know what you have done as far as titling dogs, and if you use a trainer, has the trainer titled dogs or run the National. Yes, I basically had to write a resume, and as Shayne said, if you had the opportunity to get one of those pups, you would agree to their terms. They are always the ones in control no matter what the market and caustic, cocky buyers wouldn't get the time of day.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Depending on what side of the fence you are on (buyer or seller), I think it comes down to:

1) Knowing the sire and dam
2) Knowing the seller
3) Knowing the buyer


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Ted, dare I say it? You are absolutely correct!!!

Keith, MH covers all the HT venues. I know they are called a little differently, but evidence the same levels of competence give or take a twist here and there. Besides, I know you so well, there would never be an issue!
No, I don't/won't support QAA as a title--slip of the keyboard.

Nancy, I went through that with a breeder of a hot litter that I wanted a pup out of years ago. I didn't get one! I guess they didn't like my newness, choice of trainers (FT trainer with success/not wannabe), etc. You are absolutely correct. With FC to FC its not about the money--its about getting the pups in the best hands for success to become a FC-AFC themselves! 

For those of you who pointed out that I don't impose the same restrictions on the males. I DO impose a restriction in the guarantee--it NULL and VOID if the dog is used for breeding before getting clearances. I may add field accomplishments to that as well for the boys. I still feel the owner of the female makes the decision to breed or not, which is why I impose it on the girls only. It's like getting pregnant without a husband--both are responsible, but only the female carries the evidence of the deed!

Seriously, thanks to all of you for you feedback. I appreciate it--even when you didn't agree with me or think it a good idea.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

So now you got me curious - what breeding do you have planned?


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Lainee,

I bred Joy (Cosmo daughter x FC-AFC Sandman's Saidie Lady--Jay Hearnsberger's bitch) to FC Riparian Windfall "Ricky" (FC-AFC Blackwater Rudy x FC-AFC Riparian Mariah). Don't know yet if it took, but looking forward to it if she did.

I don't have results back on Joy's test (EIC) but Ricky is Clear.

Ricky is closing in on his AFC--has WIN & other placements. Joy, you kow from Mark's awhile back.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> For those here who insist on full only, what are your suggestions as to how a breeder can keep their pups from being used for breeding with no clearances, training, etc.? I'm always looking for a good solution, and I'm all ears.


The only way to accomplish that goal would be to raise them all to six months of age and sell them spayed and neutered. 

Otherwise all you're doing is preventing the pups from being registered. So while your "name", your "program" and the "breed" may be protected in your mind, the pups certainly aren't, nor are any of their offspring.

So I would have to ask, with all due respect...

What is the point of LR? What exactly have you done for the puppies you created? Is your responsibility to the AKC and the "breed" or is it to your puppies?

Or are you just making yourself feel good about something you have no control over to begin with?


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

By making the pups inelligible for registration, you limit or deny the income for the litter to the person(s) in question. I believe that these litters take place for profit, so if you erode or destroy the profit, you end the practice.

While it may not be foolproof, it is a step in the right direction IMO.


----------



## K.Bullock (May 15, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> .
> 
> Otherwise, I'll pay my money, close my eyes, reach into the whelping box and take my chances.
> 
> ...



Just another perspective for what it is worth. Is it helping the breed for every schmoe that can lock two dogs in a room to be selling puppies? No, the market is flooded with inferior examples of the breed. 

What does it do for a newcomer to the sport to be snookered into buying one of them? The health problems, lack of desire or ability serve to quickly discourage a newcomer. The dog sports are already in decline enough without our help. 

I agree with Shayne that if it were a breeding that I otherwise would not have a chance at getting in on. I would not mind at all. The time, money and sweat equity you put into a retriever far outweigh the initial output of money. If paying a little more and having a dog with a limited registration will give me a bigger payoff in the long run, I will gladly play along.

Regarding the fire breathing field trial dogs, honestly the better field trial dogs I have seen are not the fire breathing automatons that the uninitiated love to extol at all. 


In order to compete at the all-age level the dog must be willing to work as a part of a team with its handler. The dog must be tractable and trainable in order to be successful. So maybe think of it this way. The dog that wins an all age stake at a trial has been the most tractable and trainable dog of that day in spite of incredible physical and mental challenges it had to face.


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

I get what everyone is saying about LR and trying to keep certain things from happening but with all do respect, once you sell that pup you have no control over who does what with it in the future. Yes they can't register the pups but that is all. All the lab litters around here are from non registered stock. I get trying to keep your dogs and your line healthy and what not and like I stated earlier I wouldn't have a problem buying a pup with LR under certain circumstances but you kind of lose all say after that pup leaves your property.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Yeah I remember Joy....god that's been a long time.....good luck with the litter, sounds like a nice one!

FOM


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> They are always the ones in control no matter what the market and caustic, cocky buyers wouldn't get the time of day.


I don't understand what's caustic or cocky about telling you, or anyone else, for that matter, that I'm not giving you three grand ++ for a puppy without the full right to do with it what I wish.

We all put our pants on the same way in the morning, although some seem to believe differently. 

I should have known you owned one. 

Humility is a virtue, regards,


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

I haven't read all of the posts but I wouldn't buy a limited registration pup. I do not breed and my top female is even fixed. However, I believe that when I buy something then I own it. PERIOD END OF STORY

I don't want big brother of any kind telling me how to live.

If the concern is that you want good genetics in the gene pool then don't sell me an inferior puppy. If I want to produce a million puppies then I don't need a high end female to do that.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

I would not have a problem buying the right puppy on a LM from a reputable breeder, but there would be one more serious contract with a power of attorney to lift the LR before I plopped down the cash.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Yes, Ken, but if you want to produce a million puppies, you won't do it such that the offspring will be registered from MY breeding.

I am truly surprised by the indignation expressed here. Each of you have a choice about where to buy puppies. Why should breeders have a choice about how they sell puppies.

Darrin, until you reach the level of success that breeders of top litters (FC-AFC to FC-AFC) merely having $2,000.00, $3,000.00, or even $6,000.00 won't get you one of those pups in LOTs of cases. They want those pups raised by people who know how to direct a pup towards achieving FC-AFC or higher from age 7 weeks. Doesn't matter how you put your pants on! Heck, you can even wear them backwards and it won't matter! Has nothing to do with "rights"; it has everything to do with credentials.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

I have always used limited registration.
UNLESS, I know for a fact that the purchaser
will compete and do clearances. ie Vicki Trainor
I feel that males need to be limited too. Too often the best friends male gets used because he hunts good and looks good. Even though they have poor structure, no clearances, etc.
I will remove the limitation, if they start showing and are of show quality or attain a title, get clearances, and are structurally and tempermentaly sound.

I should say, that I will not buy a LR pup. I believe it is known that I will provide a good home, compete, and breed quality. Like many of you would.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> I don't understand what's caustic or cocky about telling you, or anyone else, for that matter, that I'm not giving you three grand ++ for a puppy without the full right to do with it what I wish.
> 
> We all put our pants on the same way in the morning, although some seem to believe differently.
> 
> ...


Again quoted out of context, and the comment has nothing to do with my post and makes no sense. The owner of an FC/AFC bitch owes no one a puppy for their cash.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

K.Bullock said:


> Just another perspective for what it is worth. Is it helping the breed for every schmoe that can lock two dogs in a room to be selling puppies?
> 
> What does it do for a newcomer to the sport to be snookered into buying one of them?
> 
> Regarding the fire breathing field trial dogs, honestly the better field trial dogs I have seen are not the fire breathing automatons that the uninitiated love to extol at all.


KB, 

I don't think for one minute that every idiot who can put two dogs in a room should be breeding, but I also don't believe that LR will do anything to stop it, other than making it a bit else profitable for the idiot. I've seen too many dogs sold for a profit with no papers at all, for both hunting and companion dogs to believe that line of reasoning. 

If by "a newcomer to the sport" you mean someone who has recently entered FT, well hell, according to this they would never be given a decent dog to begin with, so who cares what the terms are and whether or not they breed some hunting or pet dogs? You're not going to stop them with LR, that's for sure. 

I mentioned fire breathing FT dogs because I own more than one lab, one of which is a pleasure in the house asa puppy and the other, while very intelligent, sensitive and highly tractable, was an absolute pain in the house up to about 2 years old simply due to his energy level.

Overall I think this whole issue of LR is only important to people when the look within the scope they want to look at, because outside that scope there are literally thousands of puppies produced for hunting companions and pets that are well within breed standards, pass all their health clearances, but will never ever see the line in a HT or FT, much less title. 

The fact is that the general public simply doesn't have the desire nor the means to get involved in these sports.


----------



## Hidden Valley (Aug 4, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> And if I get one of those who insists on full registration even after I explain why...I offer them the option of full registration with me listed as co-owner ("and", not "or").


Any YOU pay 1/2 of all expenses????


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

The longest journey begins with a single step.

While my use of LR may not complete irradicate indiscriminate breeding, it can be a step in the right direction.

When/if you buy a pup carrying limited registration, you do NOT have the "right" to do whatever you want. The purchase creates a contract for both seller and buyer. The fact that AKC supports LR by disallowing registration of pups resulting from such breedings is a fact.

No, LR employed by a few breeders won't cure the problem. But by the same token, they won't be extolled as AKC Registered out of champion lines in the Sunday newspaper either. It won't stop breeding pups who carry no "papers". That happens across breed lines and within breed lines every day caused by irresponsible people.

My imposition of LR on a puppy sale won't automatically make the purchaser be responsible if they otherwise would not, nor could I realistically enforce a purchase contract that provides that a buyer must do/cross certain hurdles before breeding. Locks only keep out honest people. Sure someone with LR on the pup can still breed the dog--they can't register the pups. If it keeps one more person from breeding indescriminately, then I think it will be worth the effort.

If you are serious about competition--the reason that I raise puppies--then LR should not affect you in ANY way. You are still able to enter any working competitions out there. If you are interested in buying a pup for conformation (as far as I know the only venue that LR is barred from entering), you won't come to me for one anyway--not my forte.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

DarrinGreene said:


> So I would have to ask, with all due respect...
> 
> What is the point of LR? What exactly have you done for the puppies you created? Is your responsibility to the AKC and the "breed" or is it to your puppies?


The point of LR is to at least bring to people's attention the responsibilities needed to breed a dog. And it's the only way I've got to try and make sure they take those responsibilities seriously.

There are only two things LR prevents: AKC conformation shows, and breeding. Anything else is fair game. HT, FT, etc. Since I don't expect to be selling any pups that are going to set the show ring on fire ;-), breeding is my main concern.

The people who want to buy a puppy and use it as a backyard breeder all of a sudden realize that it's gonna cost them another several hundred dollars in initial health clearances, ongoing CERF exams, etc. plus time spent training and getting at least a JH or the equivalent, and all that had never occurred to them before. All they thought they'd have to do is keep buying cheap bags of Ol' Roy and feed her 'til she comes in season, breed her to the dog down the street, and wait for the money to roll in. 

My responsibility is to the breed and to the puppies I produce. And I don't want them to end up in rescues, puppy mills, etc. LR isn't the perfect thing, but it's the best I've got.;-)


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Darrin, until you reach the level of success that breeders of top litters (FC-AFC to FC-AFC) merely having $2,000.00, $3,000.00, or even $6,000.00 won't get you one of those pups in LOTs of cases. They want those pups raised by people who know how to direct a pup towards achieving FC-AFC or higher from age 7 weeks. Doesn't matter how you put your pants on! Heck, you can even wear them backwards and it won't matter! Has nothing to do with "rights"; it has everything to do with credentials.


I'm sure you're right about that Vicki and I'm also sure that week in and week out, with 1 in 100 odds of winning at every trial, those "super" puppies will be routinely beaten by the garden variety mutts the rest of us are "qualified" to own. I'll bet if you pull the weekly winners of every trial in the country the vast MINORITY will be from FC/AFC to FC/AFC breedings. 

So what does that tell you about all these stipulations and qualifications? I know what it tells me. 

Lots of long, pointy noses being peered down through bifocals...


----------



## K.Bullock (May 15, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> I'm sure you're right about that Vicki and I'm also sure that week in and week out, with 1 in 100 odds of winning at every trial, those "super" puppies will be routinely beaten by the garden variety mutts the rest of us are "qualified" to own. I'll bet if you pull the weekly winners of every trial in the country the vast MINORITY will be from FC/AFC to FC/AFC breedings.
> 
> *So what does that tell you about all these stipulations and qualifications? I know what it tells me.
> *
> Lots of long, pointy noses being peered down through bifocals...


 Dude, you made it up,that doesn't tell anyone anything. nice chattin see ya.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Obviously, the people who are vehemently opposed to LR will not buy puppies from breeders who use that tool. Some just appear have a real problem with authority or the word "no", but others make me wonder about their true motivations. 

Just as obviously, as a breeder, I may refuse to sell puppies under certain circumstances that I feel do not benefit me, as a breeder, and the pup for the lifestyle I think it may be subjected to. Just as buyers make distinctions about who they will buy from and what they require to purchase, breeders must do the same. 

I know that some people don't like LR because they see it as a limitation of their "rights". Well, guys, that's exactly what it is. Why is it becoming more prevalent? Because people with full "rights" won't exercise restraint.

As a breeder, I want to be known for producing pups that have the ability and opportunity to excel at field work. I try hard to get my pups into those kind of homes/situations. I want to know who will be training them and that they will not be just shoved into a kennel and bred every heat cycle until they die. Am I 100% successful--NO. Do I try? Yes. I want to build a reputation that the pups I produce ARE exceptional performance candidates. Hopefully, enough of my puppies have/are succeeding such that I am achieving my objective.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Lots of long, pointy noses being peered down through bifocals...


Someone is taking this Waaaaay too personally.
I know what's going through my mind why.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Along the lines of "I paid for it, I own it and it's mine to do whatever I want with it and nobody can tell me what I can or can't do"...

Firehouselabs' analogy of a subdivision with covenants is a good one. You buy the property, pay the mortgage, taxes, etc. but you can't paint your house a certain color, or plant a tree in a certain place, or cut one down in another, and your landscaping has to be approved and your lawn needs to be kept a certain way, etc. Why? You paid for it, you own it...but you knew what you were getting into when you bought it.

So, you decide you don't like that. You move way out in the country, rural USA, no close neigbors, etc. so you don't have to deal with subdivision rules. You can do whatever you want on your land out in the country, right?
Want to build a garage? Better get a building permit. Oh, and watch the setback regulations so you're not too close to the property lines, even if that would be the best spot for the building. And be sure your well isn't located in the wrong spot too...or if you're out west where water is a concern, you can't just use as much as you want from the river that flows through your property. You have an allotment.
Want to have a kennel? You'll need a conditional use permit and a license. And if you want a sign out front, that's another permit. 
But you paid for the land...you own it, it's yours and you should be able to do whatever you want with it, right?

So, you buy a truck. And decide you want a lift kit on it...but the law says it's too high...or the wheels stick out too far from the fenders....or you decide you like the sound of straight pipes and the law disagrees and tells you to change it. But it's your truck, and you paid for it, and you should be able to do whatever you want with it.

Compared to all this stuff, LR seems like kinda small potatoes. At least you can quickly get to the point of having it be all yours to do whatever you want with.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Think what you like Erin's Edge.

I simply said no way I'd give you the kind of money a decent pup costs without the full right to do what I like with it.

Vicki asked for responses, so I gave one. Yes, I expounded a bit on why and had a little fun with scenarios, but Vicki knows where I'm coming from (I think). And if she doesn't, simple enough to ask me on the side. I'm a straight shooter. 

But part of the response to my comments was to say "you would never get one anyway".

I knew that was part of this game and I find that a very pompous, self righteous statement. 

My word is all I have and it is GOOD, period, end of story. You would not need to sell me a LR puppy because when I said I wouldn't breed it except with appropriate health clearances, you could count on me to do that. Anyone who knows me personally knows I value intergrity above all else and I have plenty of references. 

But I don't accept that anyone has a puppy that's "too good" to be in my care. I have three spoiled rotten dogs who get to do what they were bred for and sleep in my bed at night. I don't accept that you need to play big brother with how I would treat a dog, nor how I choose to use it.

Now, if you're breeding your dog and you have friends that you're placing all those pups with, or a network of folks to sell them into that will do what you want with them, who am I to tell you to do otherwise? I'm no one, under any circumstances.

But don't put down on me for giving an opinion that was solicited on a public message board, and don't fault me for trying to show you what many others may be thinking but wouldn't be willing to say or write.

I have no bad intentions and I have never been denied a pup from any breeding based on my "qualifications". I'm not a back yard breeder or some animal abuser. 

I just have a different perspective because I haven't been around this for as long as everyone else.

And if you don't want the opinion, the solution is rather simple, don't ask.


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

Its actually a very poor analogy.....The law is the law and I can't avoid set back laws and building permits just like I can't drive as fast as I want.

The idea that people need a BIG BROTHER so they do the right thing sounds a whole lot like a certain president we have that I didn't vote for either.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Vicki Worthington said:


> What I AM interested in learning is what potential puppy purchasers reaction to this stipulation would be.
> .
> If I could hear from serious competitors, I would sincerely like to have your opinions--both FT and HT.


That's why I responded to this thread. Serious, yes, judging by the amount on the training bill every month....
Anyone can sell their pups anyway they like, no argument there. I just won't be buying them, no big deal.

As for the co-ownership thing,( someone other than Vicki ) would run, not walk, away from that.

Now, back to changing pants on 4 in season bitches, none of which are being bred.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

There is a good post on that other thread refereced. "*Unfortunately, there are some kennels that sell all pups on limited registration with NO, ZERO, NADA chance to ever reverse it no matter what you achieve or clear with your dog. I would NOT buy one of those*."

Those kennels are a big difference from what nearly all of us are saying here from the seller stand point. Showing you have a knowledge of breeding, pedigrees, which health certifications to get for your breed, places and venues you have competed in, makes a huge difference to the seller. Each seller can determine how and to whom they sell their puppies. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. Problem solved.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

*Personally, I'd have NO problem buying on LR with a contract like what I use.* It spells out everything. Even the show ring isn't an issue, since afterall, I tend to like slower maturing lines and wouldn't waste my $ on AKC shows until the dog was at LEAST 2.5 yrs old anyhow! I can still do all the performance venues in the meantime, so who cares? I don't even think seriously about breeding until the dog has had all the clearances and testing done so I know what I have to work with, so who cares that the border on my reg papers is a different color...

Do I think everyone here (no matter how awesome of trainers/competitors you are) REALLY has a grasp of breeding and genetics? Just go back and do a search on EIC and CNM in the past year. Wow. It was amazing to me how many folks had NO idea about simple recessive genetics, let alone polygenetic issues. Do you REALLY think I'd want one of my dogs bred who failed something? Apparently there are field folks who still don't care much about elbow clearances, but I do!!! And for those of you bought the $3000 pup out of hot FT lines, darn, I sure hope you have an expert's evaluation on conformation in hand as slipping hocks etc (one of the things I poke and prod all my pups for) can ruin your chances of success in the field in a heart beat-- forget about breeding clearances as you'll likely have issues there by 2 also! Don't think that it's out there in field breedings? Think again! That's one example of a dog that I'd not consider conversion to Full, btw (and Kourtney if you are reading this, don't worry... Bubba, er Skeeter, passed all the soundness checks here! ).

I would like to add a story about a long time breeder, LRC member, etc, who was notified a few years ago by a public internet forum that a GRANDPUP (maybe even great grand pup) was rescued from the auction blocks at a puppy mill sale. This breeding took place w/ her stud before LR was an option, so not like she had the control over much at the time. BUT... one of those pups apparently fell into the wrong hands, and a grand pup ended up in a puppy mill. Her kennel name was the only recognizable name on the pedigree, so there it was smeared on the only internet list at that time, that a "XXXXXXXX" grandpup was rescued, and this name is familiar, so how do we get ahold of this person? This breeder ended up paying the dog's airfare, medical expenses, etc, brought him home, and took responsibility because she felt that was the right thing to do. Would the rest of you (who feel your rights are being infringed upon w/ LR) even THINK of stepping up to the plate in such a case? Why not? Because you didnt produce that particular dog (or even if you did...)? Sorry, but I think far too many still look at breeding purebred dogs, no matter how great the pedigree, as not much more than farming pigs. As for me, I get attached to the little buggers, so take an interest in following their lives. I don't mind the thought of others breeding my dogs at all, just as long as it was with equal care and intent as I'd have. 

By the way, I have sold pups to lawyers and have been complimented on my contract by them. I hope never to have to use it in court, but at least it's there, just in case. Anne


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> As for the co-ownership thing,( someone other than Vicki ) would run, not walk, away from that.
> 
> Now, back to changing pants on 4 in season bitches, none of which are being bred.


 
Co-ownership is something I'll NEVER do again. 

And boy charlotte, you sure know how to have fun!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

cakaiser said:


> As for the co-ownership thing,( someone other than Vicki ) would run, not walk, away from that.


Me too ...and I've yet to ever actually do it, nor do I want to. I've had to say it exactly once, mostly to make the buyer understand that a puppy mill/BYB is not an option. They went for LR instead, and never did follow through with any clearances, etc.

It's pretty common in a lot of show dog breeds, though. The only way you can get a show quality pup is to co-own with the breeder. Everything else is sold LR.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Guess that means I won't be owning a show dog any time soon. Darn it..


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

,


> And for those of you bought the $3000 pup out of hot FT lines, darn, I sure hope you have an expert's evaluation on conformation in hand as slipping hocks etc (one of the things I poke and prod all my pups for) can ruin your chances of success in the field in a heart beat-- forget about breeding clearances as you'll likely have issues there by 2 also! Don't think that it's out there in field breedings?


I admit I have been very lucky with field dogs as far as skeletal problems-maybe it's because they are from lines that are actually heavily trained and competed-but when I poke around using the part bench lines, I have found little genetic problems that have been overlooked or hidden probably by breeders in the past, that pop up, that I just have never heard much of in field lines. That's why the partial bench lines have to have working performance titles for me to use them. Sorry but that's been my experience.


----------



## kb27_99 (Sep 28, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> The only way to accomplish that goal would be to raise them all to six months of age and sell them spayed and neutered.
> 
> Otherwise all you're doing is preventing the pups from being registered. So while your "name", your "program" and the "breed" may be protected in your mind, the pups certainly aren't, nor are any of their offspring.
> 
> ...




Boy talk about hitting the nail on the head!

For all you LR puppy sellers. If a person is interested in just making money off of a bitch, do you really think a LR will stop them? If they are willing to breed without clearances whats to stop them from using another bitches registration? Perhaps one that died a premature death.


Just saying,

Kevin


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

I actually co-own one pup, a male, and even though the gal HAD been burned in a prior co-ownership, we sat down and drew up a contract that both of us could not only agree on, but are happy with. You'd be surprised at how well they can work if the intentions are good on both ends. It's been 2 yrs so far, and we're still friends.


----------



## kbobbjr (Jan 17, 2009)

windycanyon said:


> *Personally, I'd have NO problem buying on LR with a contract like what I use.* It spells out everything.
> 
> By the way, I have sold pups to lawyers and have been complimented on my contract by them. I hope never to have to use it in court, but at least it's there, just in case.



In order to purchase a pup from you I would have to research contracts and contractual law to determine if it is valid and whether I would have a case in court in the event that you changed your mind.

Like someone else stated earlier, it all comes down to trust. I'm expected to trust that you'll lift the LR pending certain requirements be met and you have no skin in the game. The only hope I have is that this "contract" is legally binding and that I could recoup my legal fees from you in the event that I had to take you to court. Too much risk on the buyers part and none assumed by the breeder. Also, I haven't heard one proponent of LR explain how I get a LR lifted if something happens to the breeder before the pup is 2 yrs of age.


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

My golden is co owned. The breeder is one of my best friends.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

I'm gonna give some of you guys boxing gloves!


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Vicki - would you (hypothetically) make exceptions for some buyers or is it firm across the board?


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Many exceptions to people that I know or know "of" personally! 

It's the unknown quantity that is the problem for me. Will I make mistakes--sure--we all do. Am I willing to lift the LR? Sure, once I know that the problem I'm trying to prevent is not a problem.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

CA Kaiser posted:



> As for the co-ownership thing,( someone other than Vicki ) would run, not walk, away from that.


A very wise, respected professional told me a very long time ago that co-ownership is rarely a good thing because its so easy for misunderstandings to occur--except between husbands and wives--and that too can be a problem when divorce is on the horizon!


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

I co-own several dogs with one person. One is a FC -AFC. The other is a nice derby dog. Just got to find the right person. On the other hand, there are a lot of people that I would not co-own with.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

This has been an interesting thread. I am curious, the breeders that support LR how many litters a year do you whelp?

THanks,

Tim


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Usually one. And....I'm going to take a break after this one--if it "took"!

It's more trouble than its worth. Not to mention aggravation.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

1st retriever said:


> My golden is co owned. The breeder is one of my best friends.


Been there done that....Never EVER EVER AGAIN! 

Any dog I purchase will be owned by me and nobody else. I will also never own a dog that does not come with a contract that clearly spells out all agreements of the sale, health etc....

If you want your life free from stress, DO NOT EVER CO-OWN or HAVE A LIMITED REGISTRATION. 

Regardless of how good your contract is I would still prefer to only argue with myself if I have some disagreement with me.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

kbobbjr said:


> Also, I haven't heard one proponent of LR explain how I get a LR lifted if something happens to the breeder before the pup is 2 yrs of age.


see post #26


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Usually one. And....I'm going to take a break after this one--if it "took"!
> 
> It's more trouble than its worth. Not to mention aggravation.


maybe if you quit all this LR stuff it would be easier


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Darrin posted--



> maybe if you quit all this LR stuff it would be easier



 Now that is FUNNY! I'll have you know I've NEVER yet sold a puppy on Limited Registration! I'm merely considering it.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

One every couple of years.


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

What the heck is an LR going to do to stop unethical breedings when everyone knows that producing 'Doodles are where the money is


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Darrin posted--
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know I won't be gettin one after this here hootnanny so it's a mute point for me


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> I know I won't be gettin one after this here hootnanny so it's a mute point for me


I can't here yu....I resemble that remark.:razz::razz:


----------



## Smokin' Guns (Feb 2, 2009)

I agree with DarrinGreene. I spent the money and took the risk on the pup why shouldn't I have the right to breed it when I want to.


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

i wouldn't buy one under a limited registration.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

CBR KAIE said:


> Been there done that....Never EVER EVER AGAIN!
> 
> Any dog I purchase will be owned by me and nobody else. I will also never own a dog that does not come with a contract that clearly spells out all agreements of the sale, health etc....
> 
> ...



Oh yea but admit it to the others, honey, who was your CO-OWNER???????? A girlfriend! Duh!!!!!! :razz::razz::razz:


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> Oh yea but admit it to the others, honey, who was your CO-OWNER???????? A girlfriend! Duh!!!!!! :razz::razz::razz:


HAHAHA!!!  Busted!


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

LOL! Uh oh... My Kiela will be co-owned on her AKC papers with, get this, my ex boyfriend, only for reasons of if something happens to me there is some kind of record of ownership so that he gets her. She lives with me full-time and it's definitely not an issue of him wanting her or anything like that. Ask the current boyfriend how that makes him feel!! hehe. Us women ARE evil.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

To be honest I look at the use of a LR to maintain artificial price control; otherwise, titles would have nothing to do with the equation. You will not deter "the unknown", and saturation equals lower prices.


----------



## drbobsd (Feb 21, 2004)

Does anyone know AKC's original intent w/ limited Registration. Was it health or protection of breeder's business?


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

I apologize if this has already been proposed.

Vicki,

If your ultimate goal is to keep pups from going to puppy-mill breeders, would it work to offer LR based on age and health clearances. For example, LR to age 3 and dog has OFA hip, eye CERF and other health clearances as determined by the breeder?

Would this be enough to deter puppy-mill buyers? Ann


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

drbobsd said:


> Does anyone know AKC's original intent w/ limited Registration. Was it health or protection of breeder's business?


From AKC.
"Limited Registration helps breeders protect their breeding programs. If breeders do not want puppies used for breeding purposes, they can request the Limited Registration option for those puppies."


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

AKC was tired of complaints from people who bought purebred pups for $xx and had to pay extra for the papers. It was actually taken through the court system and deemed illegal some how so in order to appease the breeders and the people, Limited reg. came about.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

HiRollerlabs said:


> I apologize if this has already been proposed.
> 
> Vicki,
> 
> ...


That's basically what I cut/paste from my own contract on page 1.... not so much that I'm worried about selling to puppy millers as I doubt they'd have the patience to get on a wait list for long. But there is much misunderstanding about the clearances and now especially the gene test results, that I think requires a little extra mentoring if you want to preserve a decent reputation in your program. I worked too hard to get where I'm at to not want to keep it that way. 

I had a stud inquiry the other day that was a classic example of people wanting (and apparently having the all clear) to breed their girl w/o a clue about EIC, CNM and PRA. My co-owned male came back EIC carrier by the research test and I've yet to get him tested for PRA, yet all they noticed was he had his hips/elbows/CERF done (which is actually overdue). The comment was made that she runs w/ him regularly and never collapsed. I had to explain that a Carrier wouldn't collapse, but he could cause heartache for others if he bred a carrier to my carrier! This isn't an isolated event. I know of someone, who I thought would surely know at least basic genetics, who bred their PRA carrier dog to an untested bitch and had no idea why it was a bad thing. No, LR won't prevent everything but at least it buys me time to work with the prospective breeder for a couple years. I have a much better idea who is receptive to help and who isn't at least. I have one I'm dealing w/ right now who has made no attempt to do any clearances, etc, yet the owners of a bitch who really want to breed to him have asked another friend of mine what they can do to get me to "change my mind" about the full reg. Lets see.... do the testing and get busy proving the dog is worthy outside the backyard????


----------



## gdluck (May 27, 2005)

WOW, Am i still in America Toto? Home of the FREE? 

Or have I entered a 3rd world nation where the people in power that think they do it the right way dictate how others should.................................

Wonder why "is in accordance with breed standards" as in physical and temperment wasn't listed?

STUPID STUPID STUPID. I know. cause that isn't the way they want it....................


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

gdluck,

It is a way for breeders to take responsibility for the puppies they produce. It also is a way for breeders to track health issues within their lines (if they require health testing before lifting an LR).... I imagine just about every 'established' breeder has had the unfortunate experience of dealing with someone who bought a pup and bred it unethically - and that is probably how/why these breeders use LRs..... These are living animals, not houses, four wheelers, or shotguns.

Juli


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

sky_view said:


> gdluck,
> 
> It is a way for breeders to take responsibility for the puppies
> 
> Juli


When you sell them, they are no longer your responsibility. This is all about control, nothing else.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

that is right - WHEN the pups are sold they are no longer the breeder's responsibility....the LR is how a breeder takes responsibility for the pup _before_ it is sold. 

As I've mentioned in other posts, I would not buy a LR pup unless I knew the breeder would lift it when certain criteria were met, and I agreed upon those criteria - which would be clearly stated in the sales contract.

I have not yet bought a pup with a LR - but I predict that the time will come, at some point in the future, when I will.....

Juli


----------



## gdluck (May 27, 2005)

sky_view said:


> gdluck,
> 
> It is a way for breeders to take responsibility for the puppies they produce. It also is a way for breeders to track health issues within their lines (if they require health testing before lifting an LR).... I imagine just about every 'established' breeder has had the unfortunate experience of dealing with someone who bought a pup and bred it unethically - and that is probably how/why these breeders use LRs..... These are living animals, not houses, four wheelers, or shotguns.
> 
> Juli


sorry not buying the BS. 2B and reason 3 indicate otherwise. MH? who says MH is quality enough? How many attempts for master? I think only NFC should be allowed to breed.

Who are the people that declair what is "ethical"? how did they become qualified to do so? 

Lines? i see very few real lines, being bred. which by the way leads me to ask how the "breeder" became qualified to make the educated decision to pair dogs for breeding?

Maybe we should make breeders have a minimum of a bachelors in dog behavior and genetics? I mean if the dog has to have certain qualifications then the breeder should too.


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

Most of the puppy mill type won't call about litters with LR b/c they want to breed for max profits...before the age of 2, no certs, no DNA, etc. LR doesn't control what they do with the dog, only breeding rights to register offspring with AKC.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

gsc said:


> When you sell them, they are no longer your responsibility. This is all about control, nothing else.


You are SO wrong about that if that is the way you feel, anyhow. I guess you've never involved yourself w/ breed rescue?


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

windycanyon said:


> You are SO wrong about that if that is the way you feel, anyhow. I guess you've never involved yourself w/ breed rescue?


Your opinion, just my observation. Yes I have been involved in breed rescue and I don't see LR doing anything to slow it down. The only impact it has had is to push the quality of pups down. If they are going to breed, they will breed. If they can't get a quality animal, they will breed junk. Pretty simple.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

gsc said:


> When you sell them, they are no longer your responsibility. This is all about control, nothing else.


No kidding it's about control??? HELLO!! It's about controlling animals that I've bred from being bred inappropriately!! My puppies go to good well informed homes,,, but I don't want or need one dumba$$ listening to his neighbors or training partners telling him he should breed their dog... Because most people shouldn't.. The only reason they're even considering it is to stroke their own ego.

But if they are hell bent for election to breed their dog I will remove the LR after I've made them realize what they need to do and what they're getting into. And they can convince me that they will do a good job.

Most people don't breed. I wonder when people are going to figure that out. Puppy buyers feel they have to have that option... P*l*e*a*s*e,,,, 

My puppy buyers that compete, are very educated about clearances, have a game plan other then being a pet/gundog, I will sell with a full registration... But even those don't breed their dogs in the end. 

They'd rather I do it...

Angie


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

How many puppy mill breeders are willing to pay $1,000 to 2,500 for a pup?

I think the people on this forum breeders, owners, or otherwise are not going to breed their females in that manner.

If you know who you are selling to LR is not necessary. I would hate to think that anyone I buy a pup from would think I would sink to the level of abusing my females in that manner.

If the breeder didn't trust me enough for full registration than that breeder didn't know me well enough.

Tim


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

GSC - 

In my chosen breed (chessies) the American Chesapeake Club has a code of ethics for breeders:

*Do not breed Chesapeake Bay Retrievers that are not registered by the American Kennel Club or by kennel clubs recognized by the American Kennel Club. 
Strive in each breeding to improve the breed according to the ACC Breed Standard. 

Conscienciously plan each breeding based on parents of appropriate temperament, appearance, and other desirable qualities. 

Be aware of genetic defects which can be harmful to the breed. When breeding, endeavor to select animals that will reduce the incidence of genetic problems while enhancing the positive attributes and abilities of the breed. 

Be open with all persons interested in the welfare of the Chesapeake Bay Retriever and discuss possible physical or temperament defects in your own stock. 

Do not breed any bitch which is not mature (never before the second heat) and in good health. Do not allow puppies to go to their new homes until at least 7 weeks of age. 
Act responsibly toward all puppies produced by your brood bitch or stud dog for the lifetime of the puppies. (Recommend that the breeder encourage the owner to contact him if he can no longer keep a dog at any time in the dog's life.) 

Understand that written contracts are strongly recommended for all transactions, such as sales, guarantees, co-ownerships, breeding rights agreements, bitch leases, stud services, etc. Keep accurate records and pedigrees and give new owners registration papers or forward as soon as possible. 

Use and promote the use of the American Kennel Club non-breeding registration on pet quality puppies which are sold or placed by you. *

There are several chessie breeders who have their own 'lines' - and have worked hard for many yrs to develop those lines - so yes, they do have a LOT to gain or lose by not selling on LR.

LR shouldn't and probably won't slow down puppy mills - that is not what it is for. People that want to breed and breed and breed will find the dogs to do it but they won't be getting their pups from very many GOOD breeders that sell on LR's......

If the criteria of lifting a LR are PLAINLY and CLEARLY written and understood by both the seller and buyer of the puppy, then there should be no problem. Really, how hard can it be....dog passes health tests, possibly minimum field abilities and/or has good conformation, dog gets full registration - it's not rocket science....

Juli


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Again, just my observation. I am outside "the game" and have no interest in playing. I just don't believe you are getting what you think you are with the LR. Very few people have developed a true "line" of a breed. Very, very few of us could afford the expense of doing that and even fewer would be able to make the decisions that entails, i.e. culling. If you are happy with LR's, great. They are not for me. As the survey here has shown, they are not for most folks.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

gsc said:


> Again, just my observation. I am outside "the game" and have no interest in playing. I just don't believe you are getting what you think you are with the LR. Very few people have developed a true "line" of a breed. Very, very few of us could afford the expense of doing that and even fewer would be able to make the decisions that entails, i.e. culling. If you are happy with LR's, great. They are not for me. As the survey here has shown, they are not for most folks.


Well,,, when you breed a litter, you may have a better understanding...

Angie


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Angie B said:


> Well,,, when you breed a litter, you may have a better understanding...
> 
> Angie


I have in my life time bred many litters. I understand.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

duk4me said:


> How many puppy mill breeders are willing to pay $1,000 to 2,500 for a pup?
> 
> I think the people on this forum breeders, owners, or otherwise are not going to breed their females in that manner.
> 
> ...


You miss the point... I'm not talking puppy mill... You can smell those folks a mile away. Plus they will pay that much because they can recoup their inital investment 20 times over if that's what the general pet market wants...

No,,,, people won't breed their dogs in that manner. Like I said 7/8 of people who own a dog won't breed... So the LR to those 7/8 should be no big deal. If by some surprise they are going to run FT or compete in the breed ring, it can always be removed. Just like if they want to breed and do all the clearances and understand how to whelp and raise a litter... No problem...

But the LR keeps that goober who wants to reproduce his wonderful dog from doing so. You have no idea how many people are out there that would do that. They're great folks,,, good to their dog. You couldn't find a better home for that puppy. But man,,, once they fall in love with their dog they think it should be bred...

I get e-mails weekly from folks looking for a female that they can breed their wunderhund dumba$$ dog too. Needless to say I don't respond....

Once you breed and you deal with the general public... You'll know what I'm talking about...;-)

Until then,,,, you have no idea what you're talking about....

No offense....

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

gsc said:


> I have in my life time bred many litters. I understand.


But you're outside the game...

And we don't know who you are... 

You can say you understand til the cows come home... 

And I still look like Uma Thurman...

Pisssshhhaaaa....

Angie


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Angie B said:


> But you're outside the game...
> 
> And we don't know who you are...
> 
> ...


Reminds me of a sales class speaker who said I know George W. Bush, I know Warren Buffet, I know Bill Gates.....the only problem is they don't know me.

That is what I meant by an earlier post, buyer and seller should know each other then it is a moot point on the LR.

Tim


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Angie B said:


> But you're outside the game...
> 
> And we don't know who you are...
> 
> ...


That sounds like if I don't agree, your not interested in another perspective. I can live with that.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

gsc said:


> That sounds like if I don't agree, your not interested in another perspective. I can live with that.


You can disagree,,, But people talk smack all the time....

Everyone is cooler on the internet.....

Angie


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Angie B said:


> But even those don't breed their dogs in the end.
> 
> They'd rather I do it...
> 
> Angie


Good point. I am not a breeder. Way too much trouble, although I do build a mean whelping box. 

If I did have a dog, even with a full registration, that I wanted to breed, the first person I would call would be my dog's breeder. Who better to help me pick a stud/bitch than someone who not only knows a lot about my dog's genetics, but also how the rest of the litter turned out?

I am wary of limiteds, but I admit it is probably not rational, given the above.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

duk4me said:


> Reminds me of a sales class speaker who said I know George W. Bush, I know Warren Buffet, I know Bill Gates.....the only problem is they don't know me.
> 
> That is what I meant by an earlier post, buyer and seller should know each other then it is a moot point on the LR.
> 
> Tim


People change their minds Tim!!! You can't control people and their feelings about their dog. Or what they want to do with that dog....

They think they own the next best thing since Rin,Tin, Tin... I'm thrilled... I've achieved my goal as a breeder...

Doesn't mean they should breed their dog...

Hey,,, Tim,,, Do me a favor. Breed your dog. Let me know how you feel once you've dealt with placing a puppy with John Q Public...

Angie


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Angie B said:


> You miss the point... I'm not talking puppy mill... You can smell those folks a mile away. Plus they will pay that much because they can recoup their inital investment 20 times over if that's what the general pet market wants...
> 
> No,,,, people won't breed their dogs in that manner. Like I said 7/8 of people who own a dog won't breed... So the LR to those 7/8 should be no big deal. If by some surprise they are going to run FT or compete in the breed ring, it can always be removed. Just like if they want to breed and do all the clearances and understand how to whelp and raise a litter... No problem...
> 
> ...


Ok I'm the 1/8 that buys a 1,000 buck pup from you. I don't give a rats a... about running ft or ht with said dog. I train said dog to a MH level and I have 10 friends that would love a pup out of her. I breed her twice in her lifetime to quality sires. Am I wrong? Do I deserve a LR? 

Two sides regards

Tim


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

If I wanted to be cool I probably wouldn't disagree? I'm afraid after several years in the dog show game, I became a little jaded. Too much politic, not enough what the dogs were meant to be. A lot of people who talked about "its all about the dogs", but it was really all about their egos. Not suggesting that applies to any here, just a little explanation about where my perspective is coming from.

I've never believed in the hard sell. I am happy to offer help, to share what I have learned, but people need to learn to be responsible themselves, not because "I make them be good." Mentoring is great, but again, it has to be a two way street to be effective.

“Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.” You are welcome to discount, throw way or disagree with anything I say. You can even belittle or dismiss me. I am here by choice. I enjoy most of what is offered. I've got thick skin.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Tim,,,

re-read post #137....

That's okay... I do the same thing...

Angie


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

duk4me said:


> Ok I'm the 1/8 that buys a 1,000 buck pup from you. I don't give a rats a... about running ft or ht with said dog. I train said dog to a MH level and I have 10 friends that would love a pup out of her. I breed her twice in her lifetime to quality sires. Am I wrong? Do I deserve a LR?
> 
> Two sides regards
> 
> Tim


I haven't bred a litter in 20 years. I may breed one or two in the future, but I need to get a female who doesn't have hip dysplasia. We will spay tomorrow regards.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Angie B said:


> People change their minds Tim!!! You can't control people and their feelings about their dog. Or what they want to do with that dog....
> 
> They think they own the next best thing since Rin,Tin, Tin... I'm thrilled... I've achieved my goal as a breeder...
> 
> ...


Never bred a dog that all the pups werent sold. Not $1,000 pups but solid dogs that locals have seen the dams and their work. I guess I'm not in this to make a living. Maybe thats why I don't worry about LR......glad I dont have to worry about mine going to a mill or stupid breeder.


----------



## Tollwest (Oct 22, 2008)

gsc said:


> When you sell them, they are no longer your responsibility. This is all about control, nothing else.


NOPE! *As a breeder, any puppy I bring into this world is ultimately MY responsibility, for the entire life of that puppy!* Any other responsible breeder I know feels the same way. Dogs are not (or at least should not be) a cash crop to simply sell and forget about! The "control" is called being responsible for your puppies and doing what is right for them!

BTW, yes as a breeder *I would* buy a puppy on a LR. If I can't trust the breeder's word to follow the terms to lift it later, then I don't think I could trust much else the breeder has to say, in which case I probably shouldn't be buying from that breeder at all!

And I can't say I would harbor any resentment towards another breeder wanting to sell to me on a LR. After being lied to or having the terms of my sales contract generally ignored by some other breeders I have sold to, I can tell you I am now pretty darn picky about who gets a pup from me without either a co-own or NBA (CKC's version of LR)...so I can't say I would blame other breeders for feeling the same way I do and preferring to sell on LR (or co-own) unless they know me really REALLY well! (yup, I've been burned by people I "thought" I knew and could trust)

Those of you "breeders" that claim no responsibility for your puppies should really switch to growing carrots or something...


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

gsc said:


> If I wanted to be cool I probably wouldn't disagree? I'm afraid after several years in the dog show game, I became a little jaded. Too much politic, not enough what the dogs were meant to be. A lot of people who talked about "its all about the dogs", but it was really all about their egos. Not suggesting that applies to any here, just a little explanation about where my perspective is coming from.
> 
> I've never believed in the hard sell. I am happy to offer help, to share what I have learned, but people need to learn to be responsible themselves, not because "I make them be good." Mentoring is great, but again, it has to be a two way street to be effective.
> 
> “Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.” You are welcome to discount, throw way or disagree with anything I say. You can even belittle or dismiss me. I am here by choice. I enjoy most of what is offered. I've got thick skin.


Oh my,,, you are out of touch... Alaska will do that to one....

Good luck to you....

Angie


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Angie B said:


> Oh my,,, you are out of touch... Alaska will do that to one....
> 
> Good luck to you....
> 
> Angie


There is a reason I live here!!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

duk4me said:


> Ok I'm the 1/8 that buys a 1,000 buck pup from you. I don't give a rats a... about running ft or ht with said dog. I train said dog to a MH level and I have 10 friends that would love a pup out of her. I breed her twice in her lifetime to quality sires. Am I wrong? Do I deserve a LR?
> 
> Two sides regards
> 
> Tim


You'll get your LR lifted, no problem. Of course, I'm assuming you've also done hips, eyes and elbows at minimum.

Now a question for you: if you buy your dog from well known XYZ Kennels, with highly titled dogs behind her, are you going to use that as a marketing tool if you need to advertise any of the pups she has?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

gsc said:


> There is a reason I live here!!


LOL!!! Enough said!!! Hahahahahaha....

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> You'll get your LR lifted, no problem. Of course, I'm assuming you've also done hips, eyes and elbows at minimum.
> 
> Now a question for you: if you buy your dog from well known XYZ Kennels, with highly titled dogs behind her, are you going to use that as a marketing tool if you need to advertise any of the pups she has?


Sharon's got you there Tim....

See it's not _so_ easy..... 

Angie


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

> There is a reason I live here!!


yeah - not to mention the traffic in the valley these days...that'd be enough to drive anyone to the loony bin

lived there several yrs regards! (during the before and after!) 
Juli


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

sky_view said:


> yeah - not to mention the traffic in the valley these days...that'd be enough to drive anyone to the loony bin
> 
> lived there several yrs regards! (during the before and after!)
> Juli


O.K. You "special" folks love your hinter land...

Got it....

Angie


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

gsc said:


> I haven't bred a litter in 20 years. I may breed one or two in the future, but I need to get a female who doesn't have hip dysplasia. We will spay tomorrow regards.


OK I've bred three litters, all clearances written guarntees, in 14 yrs but so help me I have no idea what your post means

Please shed a little light on the great unwashed.......I think.


Tim Bockmon


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Angie B said:


> O.K. You "special" folks love your hinter land...
> 
> Got it....
> 
> Angie


it is a love hate relationship with Alaska.....love it in the summer, hate it in the winter!!!! 
but now we are on the downhill side of winter - only another month and a half left!;-)

Juli


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> You'll get your LR lifted, no problem. Of course, I'm assuming you've also done hips, eyes and elbows at minimum.
> 
> Now a question for you: if you buy your dog from well known XYZ Kennels, with highly titled dogs behind her, are you going to use that as a marketing tool if you need to advertise any of the pups she has?


Sharon I respect your right to LR but I don't think you realize my position. The only reason I breed a female is to carry on the line I am accustomed to.

My first good dog, Sarah rip, was from old time field lines. Rippin Blue Thunder etc. I bought her as a started dog got an HR because my cousin said she could and never competed again.

If she was LR I would never have had the pleasure of hunting with her offspring both mine and friends nor would I be looking forward to her great grandbabies that I hope to get in 09, God willing.

I guess you guys are just on such a higher level than me and my type that we can't reach a middle ground.

Good luck I will be looking for a sire that is willing to breed to my dawg, damn mutt.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

sky_view said:


> it is a love hate relationship with Alaska.....love it in the summer, hate it in the winter!!!!
> but now we are on the downhill side of winter - only another month and a half left!;-)
> 
> Juli


Excuuuuuuse me, Whatdoyamean only a month and a half left. A month and a half from now will be April 4. We'll be going through breakup. It'll be freezing every night and thawing every day. What bare ground we'll have will be muddy during the afternoons and frozen solid in the mornings. Most of the fields around town will not be usable yet. The water in the ponds will still have a couple feet of solid top on them.

Nope, I figure we have a good 2 months before we can train on frozen mud and and the frozen tops to the ponds will be startin' to show they will be giving up their grip in a couple/three more weeks.

Damn I need spring.

Cabin fever regards,


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Tollwest said:


> NOPE! *As a breeder, any puppy I bring into this world is ultimately MY responsibility, for the entire life of that puppy!* Any other responsible breeder I know feels the same way. Dogs are not (or at least should not be) a cash crop to simply sell and forget about! The "control" is called being responsible for your puppies and doing what is right for them!
> 
> BTW, yes as a breeder *I would* buy a puppy on a LR. If I can't trust the breeder's word to follow the terms to lift it later, then I don't think I could trust much else the breeder has to say, in which case I probably shouldn't be buying from that breeder at all!
> 
> ...


Amen sister! 

To those who don't think it can happen that folks change their minds-- What if they are some "professional" who decides they know more than you do (even though those pesky stats that show he's likely an EIC or PRA carrier are there, but heck, HE's not going to produce it!)? I've been burned once (probably only a scald), but not again. Sorry, but not everyone really understands how involved breeding really is.

And on that note, a story: Guy calls me wanting to breed his bitch. He DOES do all the testing and links up w/ a nice stud (one of my recs). By the time the pups are 5 wks, he's already ready to send them out the door as he had no idea how much WORK a litter was (despite both of our attempts to forewarn him-- heck I post litter diaries on my website that folks can read)! I now have an agreement w/ my vet-- when she has someone interested in breeding their lab bitch, she has them call me. I've welcomed folks to come and puppysit for a day here and there at a time. Get a flavor for what is involved. I think many would decide the $900-1000 or so they'd spend to buy a nice pup is well worth it.
The other side of the coin of course is to offer to whelp a litter or 2 for a local rescue or serve on a club rescue board so your eyes are truly wide open. Someone BRED those pups... some came from decent lines way back when. When folks who haven't a clue about the responsibility issue breed a litter and then decide to sell to "whomever" on open contracts, that is where this breeding stock comes from. Wake up folks! Anne


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Angie B said:


> People change their minds Tim!!! You can't control people and their feelings about their dog. Or what they want to do with that dog....
> 
> They think they own the next best thing since Rin,Tin, Tin... I'm thrilled... I've achieved my goal as a breeder...
> 
> ...


Angie, question for you and the other ladies... 

What do you do with dogs in your program that for one reason or another can't reach the level of success you're looking for? 

A common practice would be to sell them for either pets or gun dogs, right? Certainly it would be in FT circles. 

What do you do? To hear you ladies talk you're treating these animals more like your children, with statements like "I have a lifetime responsibility for every pup I breed". 

Do you keep every single dog regardless of it's ability and or success?

I really respect the fact that you care so much about these puppies that you want to protect them so badly. I think it's a bit over the top, personally, but it is hard not to have some respect for the fact that you would be dealing with John Q. Nucklehed for 10 years when he could be out of your life forever the day he picks up his pup.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

windycanyon said:


> Amen sister!


Tim, it's time for us to retreat to a neutral corner. Run Tim, run...


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

duk4me said:


> Sharon I respect your right to LR but I don't think you realize my position. The only reason I breed a female is to carry on the line I am accustomed to.
> 
> My first good dog, Sarah rip, was from old time field lines. Rippin Blue Thunder etc. I bought her as a started dog got an HR because my cousin said she could and never competed again.
> 
> ...


duk4me, I'm on your side..really. LR isn't an issue with what you're doing because it would likely be lifted pretty quickly...and it sounds like you're doing a good job with your dogs. No reason you wouldn't have been able to breed your first dog...LR would have been changed to full, I'd bet on it. And if you'd bought that first dog from me and then come back for another one, I'd know you were responsible, and you'd have likely gotten full reg. on the second one because at that point I'd know you and how you handle things.
Believe me, every puppy buyer believes they're responsible (even the puppy mill kind). I need some proof of that responsibility.

So, what will your requirements be for a stud dog? ;-)


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

I get calls all the time from Joe Schmoe asking if I could "let" him breed one of my females to his fabulous older stud dog who is the "best darn huntin' dog" and "is great with all the kids" and of course he is a "good lookin' dog" that has never been sick or hurt and has all his shots (his idea of health clearances). He doesn't seem to understand that breeders do not rent out their females for whelping services (unless it's the owner of one of the greats!) and all his friends want a pup too. And it wouldn't cost me (not including food, housing, vet, meds, all whelping supplies, cost of litter, advertising, and on and on...) a thing for the stud fee. Heck, for my trouble, he is willing to GIVE me a pup. Wow! With a deal like that, how could I refuse??? Oh, and by the way, he isn't a breeder (not in his eyes anyway). 
Then there are the Say anything for a pup Sally's that call. Call number one goes like this: we live in an apartment, I stay at home and run a daycare in which I watch over 5-6 kids plus my own 3, we don't really have a yard but there is a school playground nearby and we go to the lake and camp on the weekends in the summer. The kids have been bugging us lately for a dog and labs make great pets! After a polite NO, they call back with a different story, usually including a fenced in yard, a house not an apartment. After a second NO, they will call back again, this time dad hunts. Like I don't have caller I.D. people! Come on! The moral of that story is: people will say anything to get a pup that they most likely will not even want 6 months from now. 
Third scenario: People calling to ask about "older" female pups. They start out saying they want a pup but not the up all night whining and potty breaks. They say they are looking for a pet. Once I mention that the pup would be sold on LR, they immediately ask why. I tell them it is to curtail the impulse breeding that takes place every day by people who don't have a clue as to what it takes to raise a litter of pups. They immediately get defensive (don't know why, I never once said that they were those type of people) and state that they did not intend to breed the dog, although their brother in law did mention that he would like them to buy a female (make sure it's fox red!) to breed to his male pup that he just bought a month ago. 
I call on ads in the local paper (just checking out the competition!) and ask them questions in regards to the health of their dogs, the pedigree, the titles or if none, then what role the dog plays in the home. Most often then not the FIRST thing out of their mouths is: I DIDN'T GET THE TESTS DONE, 'CUZ I'M NOT A BREEDER!!! Followed by, I only ask for $350 a pup so I'm not in it for the money (pups had never been to vet, no shots, no worming, but they were farm raised!). I had a guy that I couldn't get to acknowledge that he was a breeder, he had bred his dog once a year to the same neighbors dog, sold the pups out of the back of his truck in the walmart parking lot for $500 a piece, and now after she was 10 yrs old, he wanted another female pup to replace her since she was getting old. He seriously thought that unless you have a website, a kennel building, and more than 5 dogs, that you aren't considered a breeder. We sat and shot the breeze for almost 2 hrs discussing dogs, in almost every area EXCEPT for the breeding issue, he was very knowledgable and we had a great conversation. The pups he was selling looked healthy, the pedigree did have FC/AFC's in the third gen. with hunt test titles in the second. But the parents and the grandmothers didn't have their hips or elbows done, no cerfs, etc... 
If LR is used for nothing else but a way of educating the general public, taking away the impulse to breed, or is used to compel the owners of the pups to do the health checks, then I am for it 100%.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> Angie, question for you and the other ladies...
> 
> What do you do with dogs in your program that for one reason or another can't reach the level of success you're looking for?
> 
> ...


The dogs that I personally own that can't hack it are sold to people I know and trust. Usually clients... We have a mutual understanding that works out well.

Angie


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Good question Darrin...........
Personally what I do is 
1.) If she/he can't even accomplish the bare minimum (f.f,c,c, singles, simple doubles, has questionable temperment, too small,...examples)........than they are spayed/nuetered and sold for what they have been taught.
2.) If....... she can do some nice things but won't cut the mustard for me(my opinion, and I loved the pedigree or other littermates are doing awsome work) than I look for a male to breed her to to strengthen those darn weaknesses.

Like others have pointed out..........
LR isn't a quick fix or something that well solve all problems....but you be surprised at the responses that I get from some Johnny Q. Public when I tell them that my litter is LR.
AND please remember.......... like many of us have pointed out......................Puppies priced in the thousands of $ are sold well in advanced to people or persons with credituals in the sport. 
Also another good point was.........
Who wants their bloodlines in a puppy market @ 7 Mile Fair( Wis./ILL, border) advertised as the selling point for a puppyracket.
Sue


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> Tim, it's time for us to retreat to a neutral corner. Run Tim, run...


Hell no.


----------



## Tollwest (Oct 22, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> Angie, question for you and the other ladies...
> 
> What do you do with dogs in your program that for one reason or another can't reach the level of success you're looking for?
> 
> A common practice would be to sell them for either pets or gun dogs, right? Certainly it would be in FT circles.


Well, I am certainly not in the FT circle - my main breed is Tollers and I am pretty sure I would be laughed right off the grounds!  Although I am training for FT with my Chessie pups...

Most of the puppies I sell go as pets, gun dogs, agility dogs, show dogs, or any combination thereof LOL If I keep a pup and as it grows I decide it doesn't "make the cut" in what I am wanting to add to my breeding program, then I find it a new home (that suits the puppy's temperament, structure and drive)...and then I try again with a pup from my next litter.



> Do you keep every single dog regardless of it's ability and or success?


No, of course not! But if a dog I have produced is not of breeding quality - whether through structure, temperament, or not knowing a bird from a pot roast LOL, then the responsible thing is to NOT allow that dog to breed - doesn't matter whether I still own it or it was sold to someone else. There are lots of dogs on this planet, and no they don't ALL need to be bred!



> I really respect the fact that you care so much about these puppies that you want to protect them so badly. I think it's a bit over the top, personally, but it is hard not to have some respect for the fact that you would be dealing with John Q. Nucklehed for 10 years when he could be out of your life forever the day he picks up his pup.


Life certainly would be easier LOL and I'd get a whole lot more sleep. But when I went into breeding I wasn't expecting it to be easy! Sometimes being a breeder really sucks, in fact!

Now to really knock your socks off - not only do I claim responsibility towards the puppies I produce...but as a STUD OWNER I also will claim equal responsibility towards any puppies produced by my stud dogs. It takes two to tango!

10 years before I bred dogs, I bred birds. How many people do you know who would even think to sell a $15 budgie, on a written sales contract with health guarantee, lifetime buy-back policy, and sending that bird home with a care package including a book on bird care, a "hatch certificate", toys, food etc that cost me way more than what I sold the bird for? hahaha obviously money was not my objective!


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> duk4me, I'm on your side..really. LR isn't an issue with what you're doing because it would likely be lifted pretty quickly...and it sounds like you're doing a good job with your dogs. No reason you wouldn't have been able to breed your first dog...LR would have been changed to full, I'd bet on it. And if you'd bought that first dog from me and then come back for another one, I'd know you were responsible, and you'd have likely gotten full reg. on the second one because at that point I'd know you and how you handle things.
> Believe me, every puppy buyer believes they're responsible (even the puppy mill kind). I need some proof of that responsibility.
> 
> So, what will your requirements be for a stud dog? ;-)


Oh man I had the best answer ever......lost my connections. So I have to do it again.

Note my avatar Sarah rip is laying down Gracie the grandaughter is giving me a kiss. 

I have narrowed it down to four studs. 

2 FCs that I dont know a lot about that come highly recomended. I haven't seen them work but FCs have talent and pedigree. I also know theirconnections. A MH dog on a friends truck and a Grand dog.

I am leaning heavily towards the Grand Dog because he fits my female. He won't be commercial but I don't care. I have seen him run, I have seem him interact with kids, and I hear if you arent careful he will give you a big ol wet kiss.

BTW Gracie X any of the four studs will give you a nice pup.

Tim


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Angie B said:


> Oh my,,, you are out of touch... Alaska will do that to one....
> 
> Good luck to you....
> 
> Angie


Not so much. I've watched and given advice to a daughter in law who has been in the game for the last 12 years. She has been active in Alaska and taken dogs south. She showed one in the Euk Champ. a year or two ago and her experience and the people she had around her were pretty much what I saw 30 years ago. I do think that is somewhat breed specific. Her and my son have GSP and that group seems to be a bit better. I also travel and have national professional responsibilities so I do get out some.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

duk4me said:


> OK I've bred three litters, all clearances written guarntees, in 14 yrs but so help me I have no idea what your post means
> 
> Please shed a little light on the great unwashed.......I think.
> 
> ...


Hi Tim. I'm dealing with my 2 year old CLF (turned two on the 7th). I took her and my male to have Penn Hip done last Friday and she has turned up dysplastic. She is going in to be spayed tomorrow. The breeder is standing behind his guarantee and is being really good about it. The second half of that post was just grumbling. She is out of a Good X Excellent breeding, so that makes her the one in ten.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

firehouselabs said:


> I get calls all the time from Joe Schmoe asking if I could "let" him breed one of my females to his fabulous older stud dog who is the "best darn huntin' dog" and "is great with all the kids" and of course he is a "good lookin' dog" that has never been sick or hurt and has all his shots (his idea of health clearances).


Hope you don't mind if I shorted the quote, no disrespect was intended because I agree with you 100% My response to a request like that is I do not rent out my underwear either


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

sky_view said:


> yeah - not to mention the traffic in the valley these days...that'd be enough to drive anyone to the loony bin
> 
> lived there several yrs regards! (during the before and after!)
> Juli


Juli, I'm one of those who loves winter!!! We've been driving in the slop and dirty muck for the past few days. I'm not thinking it is over, I'm sure more winter to come. I'm one of the crazys who drive to Anchorage to work. I just turn on a book and enjoy the ride. I also leave at 4 AM so there is no traffic.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Besides all the normal great reasons for living here, I also raise a few gamebirds, mostly pheasant and chukar. They don't live in Alaska so we don't have all the state regs the others have to deal with. I have access to a section of land to play on, we can hunt the dogs year round if we want to and life is good.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

gsc said:


> Hi Tim. I'm dealing with my 2 year old CLF (turned two on the 7th). I took here and my male to have Penn Hip done last Friday and she has turned up dysplastic. She is going in to be spayed tomorrow. The breeder is standing behind his guarantee and is being really good about it. The second half of that post was just grumbling. She is out of a Good X Excellent breeding, so that makes her the one in ten.


Gotcha. Sorry about the bad luck, glad the breeder is honourable.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

gsc said:


> Juli, I'm one of those who loves winter!!! We've been driving in the slop and dirty muck for the past few days. I'm not thinking it is over, I'm sure more winter to come. I'm one of the crazys who drive to Anchorage to work. I just turn on a book and enjoy the ride. I also leave at 4 AM so there is no traffic.



Well, you can have it (winter, that is!);-)...I don't miss the freeze/thaw weather of south central - ..though I was whining pretty good when my friend said they were training on bare ground with standing water from snow melt off...oh well, at least I don't have to worry about some of the idiot drivers there! - my hubby made the commute to Anchortown for near 5 yrs ...he doesn't miss it! much prefers the 10 minute commute in Tok..LOL....

sounds like you have some nice places to work the dogs! getting harder to come by down there (not that it is easy to do up here - LOL)

Juli


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

duk4me said:


> Hell no.



You're a hell of a man ma brotha...

You have the makings of a three on one fight you just can't win  

JK of course.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> You're a hell of a man ma brotha...
> 
> You have the makings of a three on one fight you just can't win
> 
> JK of course.


With the multitudes of puppies I breed at least I don't have the problem of the poor guy who got the wrong dog from a breeder. Seven years and finds that out, what a letdown.

Tim


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Angie B said:


> The dogs that I personally own that can't hack it are sold to people I know and trust. Usually clients... We have a mutual understanding that works out well.
> 
> Angie


So why not just do that with all the pups?


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

I would imagine that a great majority of dogs that breeders don't keep because of being washed (either training or health) are spayed or neutered before sale. 

Juli


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

sky_view said:


> I would imagine that a great majority of dogs that breeders don't keep because of being washed (either training or health) are spayed or neutered before sale.
> 
> Juli



Please refer back to post #70...

But the question still remains... Why are we breeding if we feel as though we have to use LR to protect the pups or our program?

Why not wait until we have demand for every puppy we produce from buyer where we feel that restriction is not necessary?

One could easily argue that if you need to put LR on a litter then you are breeding for no better reason than John Q Public who you are trying to stop, whether it be for money, or to perpetuate your line, or whatever reason. Reading back through the posts you have all said that JQP states those same reasons when they call you. 

I feel like I've lost my mind because I know no one has a bad intention for breeding and that everyone in question does a ton of work on developing a quality program, but I still can't see the logic in LR vs. just not breeding without appropriate buyers for the pups.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

DarrinGreene said:


> But the question still remains... Why are we breeding if we feel as though we have to use LR to protect the pups or our program?
> 
> Why not wait until we have demand for every puppy we produce from buyer where we feel that restriction is not necessary?


That is a thought provoking one. Is LR the new gunny sack?

So, I am slowly but surely breeding the next superdog. I have a litter of pups, evaluate them and I keep the best and my close friends in the dog world get the next couple, but there are several that won't measure up. I could cull them the old fashioned way or sell them to JQP and defray some of the cost of my program. However, JQP might breed to some lowly pet quality dog and degrade the name of my superdog lines. Voila! We have LR so that can't happen but I can still get some jack for the pups. [monty burns] Excelennnnnnt!!! [/monty burns]

Even I am not cynical enough to believe this, but I find the parallels interesting.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Darrin, can you define an appropriate buyer? Thanks!


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Darrin, there's an old adage that "the road to Hell is paved with _good intentions_"!

Here are MY objectives IF I decide to use LR to deter indescriminant breedings:

1. I want to be known as a breeder of successful performance dogs. Dogs attaining some evidence of the ability to advance to higher levels: Qaa status or MH title will evidence this. JH, SH and other lesser titles/status don't mean much TO ME. 

2. I want to assure that health clearances are done before breeding.

3. I want to avoid sales to bona fide puppy mills.

4. I want to eliminate registration of offspring that result from uninformed breedings such as my smart, wonderful house girl bred to your good looking male down on the corner.

I see LR as the best means to try to accomplish my objectives. Fact: *The evidence of a successful perfomance dog is with titles/degrees awarded by recognized trialing/testing venues.* All other claims are subjective opinions that are unsubstantiated by fact. Example, perhaps your idea of a good hunting dog is far from my idea of a good hunting dog.

Citing health clearances alone does not accomplish My stated objectives--successful performance dogs. I don't think health clearances, alone, are the end all to be all with respect to working breeds.

While not foolproof, most buyers who run puppy mills are not willing to wait the length of time and engage in the activities that would be necessary to remove LR from a dog they buy from me.

Indescriminate breedings have no bearing on whether the breeder can SELL the pups, it has to do with whether that breeding should occur. IMO, working breeds should evidence--WORKING ABILITY--supported by fact, not opinion, before reproducing. 

Regardless of pedigree, there are different traits (gene combinations) within the litter that makes all puppies different from their siblings. What makes one puppy great and another mediocre or worse is not just how it is raised or trained, although it can be. I don't believe a dog should be bred based upon pedigree alone. Therefore, I recognize that some pups from my breedings will not meet the criteria, but it won't be evident until they are purchased/older. If they don't, they should NOT be bred. I make no guarantees about socializing, training, treatment, etc. once the pups LEAVE MY CARE.

It was mentioned in an earlier post that performance owners must have some plan for those pups that don't make it and get "washed out". Yes, I agree. If I believe they will be successful in a different program, but not in mine, I sell them. If I believe they would not be successful in any program, I place them in a pet home with a spay/neuter agreement, or I do not provide papers with them at all.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

heck, I am not a breeder...have been working toward that end for a few yrs. I guess I could have been a breeder by now, and bred the first two bitches I bought, both of which have cataracts. (One was spayed and sold, the other we still have)....

Because I am not yet a breeder, I can only make an educated guess as to WHY breeders breed pups, only to sell them on a limited registration...for me, when the time comes, it would be to:
protect my 'kennel name' from people that would breed a dog not suitable for breeding (ie, conformation dq's, poor temperment, health issues for example):
to help me determine the quality of the pups I breed( health, conformation, ability wise),:
and most importantly to weed out possibly unethical puppy buyers. 

Anyone serious enough about getting a pup from a breeding they like is probably not going to let an LR deter them. What it will do is help for that person and the breeder to be on the same page regarding the future breeding of that pup. 


Juli


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Why not wait until we have demand for every puppy we produce from buyer where we feel that restriction is not necessary?


Demand does not equal a good home. 

Basically, many of the people that don't want to use LR will still be around to provide dogs to those that won't buy on LR. No problem. Some of us choose to not be in the position where we find out one of our dogs has found its way into the wrong hands and bred repeatedly indiscriminately. Even though you may have a contract that says buyers should notify the breeder they are giving up a dog, some don't because they don't want to hear a lecture. If those dogs are intact, that's where they may get into the wrong hands. That's life but I have had that happen before LR. 

What some of you anti-LR people should worry about more is all the ARA's trying to pass legislation that prevents you from breeding legally where you reside and passing mandatory neuter and spay laws for pups at 4 months. Happy moving. Use that passion for something positive.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> Darrin, can you define an appropriate buyer? Thanks!



No Sharon, I can't define the objectives of your program or anyone else's, so I can't define and appropriate buyer except to say I would hate to see a puppy sold to someone who would abuse it in any way. 

My question was...

Why not wait until we have demand for every puppy we produce from buyer where we feel that restriction is not necessary?

So again, it's left to the breeder to define what they feel is an appropriate buyer where LR is not necessary.

I understand that there will be certain pups in a litter that may not be appropriate for breeding regardless of the quality of the parents. That's a given in this not so exact science, but if you don't have people to place them with that will do the right thing by both the dog and the breed, why bring them into the world in the first place?


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Darrin posted:



> I understand that there will be certain pups in a litter that may not be appropriate for breeding regardless of the quality of the parents. That's a given in this not so exact science, but if you don't have people to place them with that will do the right thing by both the dog and the breed, why bring them into the world in the first place?


Because we probably would NOT have produced even half of the most wonderful dogs in working history had breeders not taken the chance! Very few litters produce more than 1 or 2 successful working retrievers. There have been only a few over many years which produced multiple--meaning 5 or more that achieved lofty working titles. I don't know of a single litter from which every pup attained serious titles/designations. By that I mean QAA/MH or higher.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Darrin, there's an old adage that "the road to Hell is paved with _good intentions_"!


Ain't this the truth! 



Vicki Worthington said:


> Here are MY objectives IF I decide to use LR to deter indescriminant breedings:
> 
> 1. I want to be known as a breeder of successful performance dogs. Dogs attaining some evidence of the ability to advance to higher levels: Qaa status or MH title will evidence this. JH, SH and other lesser titles/status don't mean much TO ME.
> 
> ...


You are very straightforward here Vicki and I appreciate that perspective. 

So this is about what dogs end up in the registry with your name associate with them. I can understand that quite readily.

Is it simple vanity on the part of the breeder or increasing the price of the pups that really drives the need for such a reputation?

Or is it something I haven't thought of?


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Darrin posted:



> Is it simple vanity on the part of the breeder or increasing the price of the pups that really drives the need for such a reputation?


Quite simply it is the indescriminate breedings going on by those who often claim to refrain from such actions.

If I have a desire to achieve a good reputation in any other endeavor does that mean I am vain? If I succeed, does that make me vain? Or is it merely the mundane seeking validity to argue. Methinks you merely like to argue!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

DarrinGreene said:


> Why not wait until we have demand for every puppy we produce from buyer where we feel that restriction is not necessary?
> 
> So again, it's left to the breeder to define what they feel is an appropriate buyer where LR is not necessary.


Darrin, 
I could give you a couple examples of buyers who seemed REALLY good-- upstanding and competent hunting/family homes who came to me for PETS. I'd never have questioned that they would be really good homes, appropriate buyers when I sold to them. These folks would never *intentionally* do something harmful to the breed, but obviously not all take the time to study all the genetic factors they are dipping into because it's still somewhat a "good old boyz" world in breeding in some circles. One pup I sold years ago, prior to LR (or maybe it was available but I thought it cheapened the pup because I didn't know better) had a littermate, who I owned, who would have failed hips had I sent them in (I had her xrayed at nearly 2, while spaying her due to her conformation not being up to my standards). I told him and others w/ sibs that if he even thought about breeding, they needed to have the hips and elbows done but this guy didn't listen. He bred his dog (nice hunting dog-- I always heard great compliments from his buddies too) w/o clearances. Lo and behold, the ONE pup that is OFAd from the litter comes back w/ Mild hips-- so obviously it's my fault! 

Now I've got a guy who really should know better as he's in the medical profession. Hunter, family guy... REALLY nice family! When they left w/ pup, the couple said obviously there was more to breeding than they previously thought, so they'd be getting him neutered when the time came (the hip, elbow, annual CERF, PRA testing --mom is a Carrier-- and title was more than they cared to do). He was sold on LR. Imagine my surprise at 1 yo, when I get an email telling me they had found a future "mate" for him... the hunting buddy's dog and were so excited. In the meantime, the EIC research test had revealed that my girl (pup's mom) is an EIC Carrier too. Dad is HIGHLY suspect as a carrier... so now I tell him in addition to the other tests (he's not even done a CERF yet and the dog is approaching 2 yo), that he absolutely must test for EIC also and if he comes up a carrier on either or both tests, the prospective "mate" needs to be tested as well, and tested Clear on whatever he's a carrier for. No response. I seriously doubt the guy is going to spend $1000 doing all the tests he really NEEDS to do, unless he's forced to, don't you? If I rolled over, and granted him Full reg (as his hunting buddy wants me to do), I could have blind, collapsing labs out there to smear my name at least locally in the coming years. Yes, he can choose to breed unregistered chocolate labs, but at least my name isn't on any official pedigree showing I gave my blessing to the emotional decision to breed.

LR is a wonderful tool to have. What can I say?  Anne


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Darrin posted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, I quite the opposite Vicki. In my own way I'm trying to convince myself that LR is something I would accept down the road in order to get a nice pup from someone like yourself who may not know me very well.

Believe me I understand that people we don't know can't be taken at thier word. That's my rub with LR to begin with. I don't know you, you don't know me. I can't count on you anymore than you can count on me to do the right thing. But I might have to take that risk to accomplish MY objectives, afterall, you have the pups and the money won't win me any titles. 

If I really understand why you're doing what you're doing, there is a better chance I might roll the LR dice someday.

Thanks for helping me to understand better. 

Really, that's all I was trying to do. Sorry for all the questions.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Thanks everyone for your patience. I have learned a lot from the thread about the perspective of the person I may be talking to in the future abotu securing a pup. I hope others have as well. 

Sorry if I seem dense but I sometimes have to make sense of things before I can leave them alone.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Darrin,

a well established breeder will have (be able to give) lots of references from previous puppy buyers...A well established breeder didn't get to be that way because they were frauds or dishonest (usually!).

When a person contracts work out to build a house or to do some other project, they generally will research the contractor they hire and try to find out as much as possible about them...Why would someone not do the same when buying a future animal companion?
on the flip side, when a puppy buyer calls up about a litter or breeding, that breeder has no way of determining the honesty and integrity of that person - except by talking to them or meeting them in person (unless they know them personally)...

I don't know why you think LR raises the cost of the pups....the price is the price - type of registration has nothing to do with it (unless of course the pups are not registerable).

Juli


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> Darrin, can you define an appropriate buyer? Thanks!


Sharon,

Did you read my post where I responded about my choice of studs? Just curious if you think it is a proper way to evaluate studs.

THanks

Tim


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

Darren, you may not know Vicki yet, but you certainly will if you want one of her pups! Breeders don't just met people at the door with a folder and a pup. They have an interview process, some ask for referrals from vets, trainers, etc... If they can't met you in person, there are long and extensive phone and email conversations with many questions asked, some of which may sound invasive and personal but necessary in finding out who you are and what your goals for the pup are. You should be asking just as many questions about the breeder. Good breeders like questions, dialog goes both ways and friendships are often formed, or some relationships become mentor like which helps not only the novice but also the mentor inregards to feedback on the pup/litter. One of the greatest pet peeves of breeders is when buyers cannot be contacted or do not reply to phone calls and emails in regards to how the pup is doing. Unless we keep a majority of every litter back until the age of 3yrs, we need the input from our buyers to keep us informed on training ability, health issues, social issues, and conformation. Without that information, its pretty hard to "improve" the breed! It's my hope that by using LR on ALL pups, that it will help "remind" people to stay in touch and to give me a broader scope on what I am producing, other then the 1-3 pups that I keep back from our litters.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Darrin,

I never thought you were "dense", merely argumentative! 

I think anyone who has kept track of where their pups go and what gets done with them has at least one "horror" story to tell. The very issues that make most people "mistrust" the breeder are the very reasons I support LR! The people who argue for the sake of having "the option" still have the "option" they just have to jump through some hoops to be able to exercise that option!

Most breeders have guarantees regarding health issues for pups. No breeder will guarantee against failure of the pup to succeed. It is a risk to both the breeder and the purchaser. The pup can be the brightest and ablest ever, but be ruined by inappropriate training--from both amateur and professional. By requiring certain performance hurdles, it is hoped that sound, reasoned decisions about purchasing the pup and its later development and training will be made.


----------



## TimThurby (May 22, 2004)

Hey, I'll buy "Karma with a K" on limited registration. 

Will be waiting patiently for her paperwork,
Tim


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

I hear ya, I'm just not going there!

Did you make it home okay or are you still there? Somehow I thought you might get talked into staying another day or two--woodpile issues notwithstanding!


----------



## TimThurby (May 22, 2004)

UNFORTUNATELY I had to come home. I got talked into staying until Sunday, but an emergency came up. 

Woodpile will be growing quickly, so that I can go back for a longer stay in March. Bags are all ready packed!!!

Well since I can't have her, just put me on the future list, cause I bet I know what you are thinking, or what I would be. LOL

Sorry to detour the thread, looks like someone needs to go south as well,
Tim


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

duk4me said:


> Sharon,
> 
> Did you read my post where I responded about my choice of studs? Just curious if you think it is a proper way to evaluate studs.
> 
> ...


Tim, to each his own. What I do is evaluate my bitch, both structurally and talent/ability wise. I know her strong points and her weak points and try to find out where they exist in the pedigree. And I try to find a stud for her that compliments/balances her in ability and structure, and tends to sire pups that are strong in her weak areas. Health clearances are a given, and titles are the frosting on the cake. 

That's what suits my goals and needs...may not work for the rest of the world, but it's what I do. ;-)


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> Tim, to each his own. What I do is evaluate my bitch, both structurally and talent/ability wise. I know her strong points and her weak points and try to find out where they exist in the pedigree. And I try to find a stud for her that compliments/balances her in ability and structure, and tends to sire pups that are strong in her weak areas. Health clearances are a given, and titles are the frosting on the cake.
> 
> That's what suits my goals and needs...may not work for the rest of the world, but it's what I do. ;-)


Thanks for the reply. That is why I like the Grand Dog he suits my female both mentally and physically.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Again, I'd like to thank each of you for your views and opinions! I am amazed that we have 207--yep, 207 replies!

I have learned something from each response.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> Tim, to each his own. What I do is evaluate my bitch, both structurally and talent/ability wise. I know her strong points and her weak points and try to find out where they exist in the pedigree. And I try to find a stud for her that compliments/balances her in ability and structure, and tends to sire pups that are strong in her weak areas. Health clearances are a given, and titles are the frosting on the cake.
> 
> That's what suits my goals and needs...may not work for the rest of the world, but it's what I do. ;-)


Sorry forgot to mention these pups will be for sale on LR basis.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

sky_view said:


> I don't know why you think LR raises the cost of the pups....the price is the price - type of registration has nothing to do with it (unless of course the pups are not registerable).
> 
> Juli


Juli, 

I could give a breeder plenty of references, just as quickly as they can give them to me, but that is beside the point, isn't it? We are still enterring into a long term relationship where one or the other of us might change our mind down the road, causing a conflict. 

I really dislike the idea of putting either of us in the position, and would go out of my way to avoid it. But, like I said, understanding the motivations of a breeder who might be selling on LR is helpful to me in determining my willingness to enter into that relationship with someone. 

Believe me I would prefer to be the next rising star in the Delmarvelous retriever circuit and have people lining up to sell me pups, but I don't see that happening any time soon, so it's helpful to me to understand people's motivations a bit as a potential puppy buyer 

There's nothing like knowing what questions one might ask to determine the sincerity of the arrangement. This thread and you lady's responses has been a big help to me there, and hoepfully to others who aren't posting but are most certainly reading. I'm getting some PM feedback on the thread so I know others are listening as well.

As for prices, I really liked the earlier scheme where a LR pup was less than a full registration, and if everything worked out OK, then the difference was paid and the FR granted. I think that gives everyone an incentive to do their part when the time comes.

That said I wasn't talking about that in the context you referred to. I was referring to the fact that you cheapen the pups from a dog that isn't on a FR. Hopefully that provides less of a market for them and deters the indiscriminate breeders.

Again thanks for all your insight and same for everyone else.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Man I thought all you ladies would be asking for my address to send the deposit. 

Great thread very productive on both sides in my opin I enjoyed it and learned a lot.

Tim


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

While I understand what motivates all those who think LR is a good thing, I still have problems when I have to ask mother may I when I want do anything. I'm an adult and perfectly capable in making these kinds of decisions by myself. I haven't seen a litter that would motivate me to want to enter into a relationship with an overseer. I guess I should add that I wouldn't fit in Germany very well. I guess I am glad I live where I can still be a responsible adult.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

Just when I thought we were all going to get together for a group hug....oh well, there go my plans for "goosing" Tim!


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

The problem with selling puppies is "Do we really know who we are talking to really?"
For example:My last litter.
I bet I got at least 7 scam phone calls and at least 2 phone calls from "PuppyMill" people. Know why?
Because went the word "Limited " came up the phone went dead.
I guess what you Nonlimited People" fail to understand is I am protecting my breed from indiscriminate breeding practices.
I'm NOT trying to control "You". I believe that you are taking it (limited way tooo personal.)
Don't you think that you should be happy that the breeder cares this much about the breed rather than NOT giving a sh%t?
Sue


----------



## danae (Feb 21, 2009)

Am new here, as someone will no doubt point out based on my post count.

Came here just to read and learn. Can't help commenting now.

Just this month paid for a puppy after spending a few months trying to get references and information about breeders in our state. Don't need a champion dog, just a family dog with possible hunting if my husband starts up again. For a variety of reasons, wanted a lab, not a shelter mutt this time.

Would have been open to LR, except for one thing: the breeders I talked to that mentioned it were condescending. The two breeders I found who spoke to me like I was an intelligent grownup didn't mention it. 

We have no intention of breeding, I prefer to leave that to the experts. I do my best to be a responsible pet owner, have spent months looking for the right breeder to buy from, researching training, food, local ordinances about dogs, veterinarians ... you get the idea. Knowing that my family is committed to being responsible, it's hard to swallow being talked down to.

*TLDR version:*
I respect your right to exert some control over what happens to your litters. Your choice. May cost you some buyers, but sounds like that's acceptable to you, in which case ... go for it!


----------



## Cresthill (Apr 19, 2005)

There are breeders that focus more strongly on performance and there are breeders that focus more strongly on health related issues of the breed. That is not to say that the health related issues of the breed are not important to the breeders that focus strongly on performance and vice versa, this is merely my observance of the folks on this forum that breed. It also goes without saying that the folks that frequent this forum are by far more informed about the genetic problems of our breed (hip, elbow, eye, PRA, RD/OSD, EIC, CNM) than the every day average ?Joe? that is looking for a puppy as a pet or hunting companion. 

80 ? 90% of my puppies are sold to pet homes with people having no intention what so ever in breeding. They don?t have the knowledge of the genetic disorders of our breed that folks that are active in the breed are familiar with. This makes them in my mind a danger to the breed. This is one of the leading reasons I have decided to sell my puppies on LR. 

I have found that the remaining 10 ? 20% of my puppies go to homes where the folks are much more in tuned with the health issues of the breed. For these folks I am still going to sell on LR. They can do the health clearance and I will reverse the registration to full? it?s that simple. I am not requiring that they use my kennel name or have a title on the dog. I am not asking them to jump thru any more hoops that I myself have to jump thru in order to breed one of my own dogs. 

I think that the choice to use LR or not use LR is a personal preference and HOW it is used is also a personal preference. I think that whether you gear your contract toward making sure the puppies have some kind of performance titles AND all health clearances OR if you just require that the health clearance be performed should depend upon the folks that you tend to market your puppies toward. Limited Registration, used correctly, I feel, can only better our breed.

As has been mentioned by several folks (WindyCayon, Vicki, ErinsEdge and others), if you breed long enough and keep track of your puppies and what is going on with them you will eventually come across an issues that forces you to take a good, long, hard look at selling all your puppies on LR. While I have had a few issues with my puppies that had made me wish I had sold on Limited years ago, for me the real issue came to a head in 2008 with the new EIC and RD/OSD tests becoming available. I had two of my dogs come back as carriers of RD/OSD (which most folks are NOT testing for? SCARY!!!) and 60% of my kennel come back as carriers of EIC. I am one of the breeders that chooses to focus very strongly on genetic health more so than performance (my pups can still perform in the field....lol) as this is what the vast majority my clients are looking for. Morally and ethically, I can no longer sit back and sell my puppies on full registration knowing that 80 ? 90% of my potential puppy owners do not have a clue as to what is involved in breeding their dog. They don?t know the testing that should be done to make sure no affected puppies would be produced should they decide to breed their dog (intentionally or unintentionally). I would be more than happy to educate them should they decide to seek out information from me (I make this abundantly clear from the get go). 

About six years ago I felt that it was unfair to pay good money for a puppy and only have limited registration. Now I feel that selling and buying puppies on Limited Registration is the only way to protect our breed and promote sound breeding practices. For me personally, I feel it is a severe disservice to the breed to continue to sell my puppies on full registration. 

For the folks that are concerned that the breeder may decide not to reverse the registration to full upon completion of clearances, I have a clause in my contract the GUARANTEES that I will follow thru on my end of the deal. I put this in the contract specifically to protect my clients. 

The price of my puppies that are now being sold on LR is the same as when I was selling on FR. I don?t feel that my puppies are worth less because of their registration status as they can easily be reverse to full if desired. 

I have NO PROBLEMS with folks that want to breed their pups AS LONG AS THEY DO ALL THE HEALTH CLEARANCES!!!

I want to thank Anne (WindyCayon) for allowing me to take a peek at her contract; it was most beneficial in assisting me in re-writing my contract. 

Best of luck to all who are making the difficult LR/FR decision,

Wendy Bonello
Cresthill Kennels
________
MAZDA R360 HISTORY


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

ginger69 said:


> The problem with selling puppies is "Do we really know who we are talking to really?"
> For example:My last litter.
> I bet I got at least 7 scam phone calls and at least 2 phone calls from "PuppyMill" people. Know why?
> Because went the word "Limited " came up the phone went dead.
> ...


Probably what you're seeing is the result of the fact that those of us who chose to engage in the discussion from the "anti LR" side, aren't the people who a breeder needs to worry about.

I for example, when I bought my first FT bred puppy, considered a bitch, figuring if she could make QAA or higher I would start myself a small breeding program to defray the cost of all this stuff...

Then my friends had a litter of CBRs and I saw how much time they put into raising them, staying home from training to care for pups and so forth. 

At that point I bought a male puppy, knowing full well that the breeding potential isn't there with my limited time and budget (because he's not going to be a super FC-AFC). 

Had I already bought a bitch at that point I would have spayed. 

So while I don't like the idea of this arrangement because as Ted Shih said 150 posts back, it has too many strings attached, I'm clearly NOT the person who would indiscriminately breed. Because of that LR is a bit insulting to me personally.

After a bunch of learning though, my position on it is a bit different because at least I UNDERSTAND the motivations and results.


----------



## danae (Feb 21, 2009)

Cresthill said:


> For the folks that are concerned that the breeder may decide not to reverse the registration to full upon completion of clearances, I have a clause in my contract the GUARANTEES that I will follow thru on my end of the deal. I put this in the contract specifically to protect my clients.


What I hear you saying is that you know deep in your heart, and are willing to put in writing, that you will honor your side of the agreement. Because you know yourself to be ethical and responsible.

People who buy from you may well feel the same way about their stated intention never to breed etc - and they also know themselves to be ethical and responsible. 

You expect them to trust you, because of a piece of paper, but that same piece of paper isn't enough for you to trust them....awkward. Of course, you probably have no trouble finding buyers, so if you turn away a few that would have made good non-breeding homes for your pups, then no matter to you.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> What some of you anti-LR people should worry about more is all the ARA's trying to pass legislation that prevents you from breeding legally where you reside and passing mandatory neuter and spay laws for pups at 4 months. Happy moving. Use that passion for something positive.


So true, especially with what we are dealing with in Oklahoma now and other states. Just received my HRC magazine, and in the Feb/March issue, there's an article titled "Sneaking the Big Lie through the Back Door"...How Special Interest Groups are Hijacking Local Legislation".. very informative information.

And I used LR on CNM carriers last year and if I ever breed a EIC carrier and test, I will use LR on other carriers if tested...pet homes only with no interest in breeding I also use LR, and I inform the client of such and noted in the sales contract.

Otherwise, I carefully screen, educate, and offer buy-back of Purchase price on any dog I breed, and have purchased a few back over the years. 

I stay in touch with clients, and have not had any issues to date (knock on wood). Individuals with a proven track record always get full registration.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> Demand does not equal a good home.
> 
> Basically, many of the people that don't want to use LR will still be around to provide dogs to those that won't buy on LR. No problem. Some of use choose to not be in the position where we find out one of our dogs has found its way into the wrong hands and bred repeatedly indiscriminately. Even though you may have a contract that says buyers should notify the breeder they are giving up a dog, some don't because they don't want to hear a lecture. If those dogs are intact, that's where they may get into the wrong hands. That's life but I have had that happen before LR.
> 
> What some of you anti-LR people should worry about more is all the ARA's trying to pass legislation that prevents you from breeding legally where you reside and passing mandatory neuter and spay laws for pups at 4 months. Happy moving. Use that passion for something positive.


Good Post Nancy!

Angie


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Let me first say I am going to play devil's advocate. What I am hearing is that the desire is to produce an obsure and elite line of dogs. We do not want this line or its genetics to be in the general population. 

I'm not sure where that is a bad thing though. We represent such a small fraction of the general animal population that the more we restrict access to these genes the less impact all our work will have. Right now it has be around zero. So how do we help in a positive way to "improve the breed"? Or is it a lost cause, and all we can do is save our own small corner?


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Limited Registration helps breeders protect their breeding programs. If breeders do not want puppies used for breeding purposes, they can request the Limited Registration option for those puppies.

Two simple sentences. 

Apparently a few breeders in the US who have imported ie from the UK, routinely enforce LR. 

During a conversation years ago, with a highly successful show exhibitor and breeder who has imported genetic material (dogs and semen) from overseas to Australia, only sells on LR. He wants to keep winning in the ring. I thought this rather selfish, until I imported (Yank) from the US.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

firehouselabs said:


> Just when I thought we were all going to get together for a group hug....oh well, there go my plans for "goosing" Tim!


Careful isn't that how Gooser ended up nekid in the snow?


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Cresthill said:


> There are breeders that focus more strongly on performance and there are breeders that focus more strongly on health related issues of the breed. That is not to say that the health related issues of the breed are not important to the breeders that focus strongly on performance and vice versa, this is merely my observance of the folks on this forum that breed. It also goes without saying that the folks that frequent this forum are by far more informed about the genetic problems of our breed (hip, elbow, eye, PRA, RD/OSD, EIC, CNM) than the every day average “Joe” that is looking for a puppy as a pet or hunting companion.
> 
> 80 – 90% of my puppies are sold to pet homes with people having no intention what so ever in breeding. They don’t have the knowledge of the genetic disorders of our breed that folks that are active in the breed are familiar with. This makes them in my mind a danger to the breed. This is one of the leading reasons I have decided to sell my puppies on LR.
> 
> ...


Glad to be of help Wendy. I'm still a bit saddened by the lack of understanding on some folks' parts.  Oh well, the earth is still spinning on its axes though!!!


----------



## Cresthill (Apr 19, 2005)

danae said:


> What I hear you saying is that you know deep in your heart, and are willing to put in writing, that you will honor your side of the agreement. Because you know yourself to be ethical and responsible.
> 
> People who buy from you may well feel the same way about their stated intention never to breed etc - and they also know themselves to be ethical and responsible.
> 
> You expect them to trust you, because of a piece of paper, but that same piece of paper isn't enough for you to trust them....awkward. Of course, you probably have no trouble finding buyers, so if you turn away a few that would have made good non-breeding homes for your pups, then no matter to you.


I must ask you this question. Would you buy a puppy from a breeder with no WRITTEN guarantee on hips, elbows, eyes, etc My health guarantee and purchase contract are intertwined together as one. While a puppy is a living breathing wonderfully joyful loving creature that should give you years of laughs and warm fuzzy feelings, the PURCHASE of the puppy IS a business transaction. The piece of paper is there to protect both the client and the breeder. The LR is there, in my mind, to protect the breed from unethical breeding practices.

I can see nothing awkward about buying a puppy on LR and having a contract to lay out the stipulations of the purchase and what is needed to be done in order to reverse the registration to full. Any reasonable person should understand my reasoning for selling on LR. Unfortunately we live in society now days that you can?t just trust someone if you shake hands on it. As and established, responsible breeder, I don?t expect my potential clients to trust me because of the piece of paper, I expect my potential clients to trust me because of my good reputation and numerous word of mouth referrals that they have received. The piece of paper is there to give them the guarantee IN WRITING. One thing I have learned is that you get any kind of agreement IN WRITING?. Put it in black and white and spell everything out so there is no misunderstanding later. Folks that know me know that there are no gray shady areas?. Things are black or white and I make that perfectly clear from the get go. If a potential client doesn?t trust me and they don?t like my contract, they can walk out of my office door and there will be no love lost, chances are those are folks I don?t want to deal with anyway. 

Please remember that the vast majority of the homes my puppies go to are PET homes with folks having NO intention of breeding at the time the puppy is purchased. I have been doing this long enough now that I have run across a few of those owners that did decide to later breed their dogs with NO CLEARANCES. This was after they VERBALLY agreed to have clearances done when they purchased their dog from me as a puppy. 

As responsible, REPUTABLE breeder it is my DUTY to do what?s best for the breed. I feel that selling on LR is the only way to make sure that folks do the clearances. Again I have no issues with folks wanting to breed a puppy from my bloodlines. I am not saying that is a bad idea to breed a carrier of EIC, CNM, PRA or RD/OSD. What I am saying is if you are going to do it, DO IT RIGHT and DO IT RESPONSIBLY. I am able to sleep at night and get up in the morning and look at myself in the mirror because of my high standards.

I?ll be sure to let you know when the first client (that would have provided a wonderful non breeding home) refuses to buy a puppy from me because I am selling on LR. So far the clients that have come out to meet me, take a look at my dogs and read over the contract feel that it is very fair and covers all the bases. 

Wendy Bonello
Cresthill Kennels
________
CLC-CLASS


----------



## Cresthill (Apr 19, 2005)

Angie B said:


> Good Post Nancy!
> 
> Angie



I second that thought..... Nice post Nancy!!

Wendy
________
Chicago Assembly


----------



## sandyriver (Feb 24, 2008)

My two cents worth is that limited registration also protects the buyer. I have a pet quality lab that is a great first dog for me and working on obedience and tracking titles. Some day I will be purchasing a lab from working moderate lines that I'll be able to earn obedience titles with. As a result I'll be looking at performance labs with a MHXMH breeding would be good, don't need a high caliber field pedigree lab. 

However I wouldn't mind if any pup that I might purchase came with limited registration because this would prove to me that the breeder has taken great care in ensuring that the kennel's good reputation has hopefully been maintained and not been compromised. I've started looking at pedigrees and breeders and I do tend to shy away from breeders that do have known health risks in their lines either current or in the past....rumours do get around in the AKC event circuit. If you see a kennel name on a dog's pedigree does not mean the quality has been upheld unless the dog gets bred to same caliber dog. Limited registration just tries to maintain the kennel quality name---period--. On the other hand I could see someone that doesn't breed currently but is well known in the field trial or AKC event circuit might feel a little put off by limited registration if they felt like the breeder should be able to trust that person on their good name (reputation) also. I am a responsible dog owner and obedience competitor but my name is not known much yet that I wouldn't expect a breeder to trust me....I'd have to be able to prove that to them....best way is through Limited Registration.... I should be able to meet the breeder's criteria if I'm serious about breeding or to have the dog earn full registration. 

My current lab has some known kennel names way back in his pedigree but unknowns also just looks like a bunch of hunting buddies got together and bred their labs....he's got a lot of hunting names in there like Shotgun Annie XII, Super Barney of Witchhazel, Ducky Mayday Maggie, Gus son of Goosegetter Gert, Winchester's Rock, etc. One known kennel name in there not listed here that I was surprised to see that they would've let the stud breed with the unknown dog without clearances,etc. 

To sum things up....If the breeder has high standards than I can in turn have high standards for my future lab's breeder. If I am going to shell out anywhere from $500-1000 for my obedience lab I want to make sure that the pedigree will hold up and that the breeder will stand by my pups breeding. If I had a horrible experience with a breeder than I would never refer to them nor purchase another dog from them again. I want to stack the deck in my favor when it comes to avoiding any health issues...good sound proven healthy lineage along with trainability. Who knows if ever I earned an OTCH I might want to breed the dog if it made it through all the clearances but not likely as I am not that good a trainer. I spend good coin training and entering AKC events so I want a healthy highly trainable lab in the future. I was an ignorant joe public person before I got my lab...just get a good dog from the classifieds etc....once I got hooked on canine performance sports I've learned a lot by talking to others and reading information from various venues. If Limited Registration keeps a good quality lab out of the hands of someone that might try to breed that dog for the wrong reasons than I'm all for it.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

sandyriver said:


> ... but is well known in the field trial or AKC event circuit ...


Aren't field trials an AKC event?


----------

