# New Breeder Question: Full or Limited Registration?



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

I'd like to pick other breeder's brains a bit. I have stuggled trying to decide whether to sell puppies with a full registration or a limited registration.

What is your policy and what is your reasoning behind it?

Swack


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

swack,
i like this question, it should get interesting responses. btw i am not a breeder but i have bought most pups with full registration and two with "conditional" limited registration.(meaning there were certain requirements to meet in order to obtain full registration) i did not object to the limited registration on my pups because the requirements to obtain full registration were not unreasonable.

good luck with your decision and your breeding!
jmc


----------



## Leslie B (Jul 3, 2009)

I sell with limited registration and set reasonable expectations to have it revoked (health clearances and a basic title). 

It eliminates people who think that they can buy a girl, breed her, and make a few bucks. The people who care about the breed and are interested in doing it right are fine with the limited registration.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I won't buy one with a limited.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Leslie B said:


> I sell with limited registration and set reasonable expectations to have it revoked (health clearances and a basic title).
> 
> It eliminates people who think that they can buy a girl, breed her, and make a few bucks. * The people who care about the breed and are interested in doing it right are fine with the limited registration.*




Define your basic title ... FC ,QAA Mh, top notch gun dog , excellent family pet, service dog ?
Sorry ,you generalize to many people into that group to have any kind of ground to stand on.


I would be considered a buyer at this time in this thread , and IMO unless you want 3/4 of the cost I'm not willing to buy 3/4 of the dog ,which includes registration. With that said ,I do understand the point of limited registration on a per buyer basis. If you have FC X FC and want a very reasonable price ,but with limited registarion,myself I'm not interested because I still have a "zoo keeper" to answer to as to what I can do with my dog that I paid for.


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

Howard N said:


> I won't buy one with a limited.


I agree with Howard.....

I'll pay the breeder what they want and after that I own the dog.

When I was breeding dogs they all had full registration and written guarantees...

The OP asked for reasoning too.. Reason being the buyer bought the pup and they bought the right to do with it as they please. (of course within the law)


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

I have never raised and sold litters. If I ever do I would like to see the puppies go to working homes. Titles would be nice but I'd be just as happy seeing the puppies go to loving homes and being nothing but hunting machines. That being said, I would sell the puppies with full registration. I have never bought a puppy with limited registration and don't intend to.

Lonnie Spann


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Well, responses you get on this question will likely vary by breed. 

Limited Registration is common with Golden Retrievers and has been for quite some time. The same is true for many other non-labrador breeds. It is normal for those of us who own "Exotics" to see limited registrations, it is abnormal to see full registrations offered unless the breeder is well acquainted with you. 

I hear you Howard I kind of miss the old days when I could plunk down the asking price on a pup and from that point on, all decisions were mine alone to make without somebody looking over my shoulder so to speak. It's still the "wild wild west" with Labradors. Enjoy the freedom while it lasts.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Most of mine sell on limited, with that being lifted once they've turned two and have all the appropriate clearances. The exception would be someone I know and that I can trust will be competing the dog....and they have a history of competition. Those folks get full registration straight away. The vast majority of my pups go to hunting homes and won't be competing or running hunt tests, so their owners don't care about limited. I have done, just on the registration papers, a co-ownership, for a new person that intends to show the dog. It's on paper only. This allows the dog to compete in the ring, yet they can't register pups until I sign off once the dog is two and has the required clearances. 
My reasoning? I don't want any of my pups to end up in a puppy mill. I had one close call that way and that was enough.


----------



## Jeannie Greenlee (Apr 15, 2009)

Like Sharon I sell puppies with a limited registration with the option of turning that into full registration after the age of 2 and health clearances are obtained. I also ask that there be some kind of title on the dog but will make exceptions for hunting homes or field trial homes. I just want to know that if the dog is bred that they get health clearances and it is not just sitting in someone's backyard waiting to get old enough to make puppies. I really don't feel like I'm asking that much. All it takes is an email to me. I can look on the computer and see if they their health clearances and any titles. It's not hard for either party. I do all the paperwork.

I guess I care about the puppies I produce enough to make sure, as much as I can, that things are done right.


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

I sell all my pups on limited which--if the buyer is interested--can be changed to full with health clearances and at least a JH or a CD. 

I just purchased a pup--first time in many, many years that I have bought a pup (rather than a started dog). The breeder does the same as I do. She offered me full, and I told her I am fine with limited because I am more than willing to get health clearances and title before full reg. 

If a potential buyer is unsure, I can refer them to clients who have purchased on limited and changed to full.

Meredith


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Doesn't it vary not only by breed, but also with bench vs field in Labs?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I personally would not buy on limited, but that's me. 

I do understand why some only sell limited, but it's not my cup of tea.


----------



## Eric Fryer (May 23, 2006)

I can understand the reasoning that you are saying in getting the health Clearances. The intentions are good. Having said that, I would not buy a limited registered pup. I pay, it's mine to do what I want with.... I have enough big brother in my life telling me, what, how and when to do something.


----------



## Richard Finch (Jul 26, 2006)

I personally never have or never will buy a pup with limited registration... You can be selective with your perspective puppy buyers without going the limited registration route... 


Richard


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

FOM said:


> I personally would not buy on limited, but that's me.
> 
> I do understand why some only sell limited, but it's not my cup of tea.


We are in the same boat...but when we did buy from breeders like Sharon V. (Pekisko) and Dr Tatum (Watermark) we were more than happy to carry on their kennel names, although they did not require it, I wish all breeders were as nice as they were, because they always wanted to know long after how their babies were..now that is classy

We sold Nola's litters with full registration...

But I fully understand those breeders that choose to sell limited, and hold no ill feelings toward them


----------



## David McCracken (May 24, 2009)

We sell all of our pups on limited registration. After age 2, if the pup has all health clearences and no physical disqualifications, we will lift the limited registration and grant full registration.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

I do understand the "I buy it, it's mine" and I won't buy on Limited myself, because, given my track record, if I can't establish a trustworthy relationship with the breeder in that regard, we aren't going anywhere together. Do people go back to their breeders with questions or problems, who's the first one gets blamed if there's a problem with pup? Then yeah, if one expects customer service or breeder accountability, one needs to hold up their end as well. It isn't pay for the pup and walk out the door, never to communicate again, (but oh how easy that would be for the breeder!), it's a two-way street. Limited Registration is a screening tool and a way to try to ensure if someone does breed, they do some health clearances. Also used to place a dog that shouldn't be bred for some reason but isn't appropriate for spay/neuter. Of course breeders aren't going to rule out performance people and anyone else with some kind of verifiable track record, like dogs on OFA or they've got entries on EE or whatever the venue of choice, that's a whole different ballgame. Limited Reg works for the average Joe hunter/companion, the unknown, the unproven, it's a tool to start the discussion and to weed out some liars and con artists. Yes, it can be argued that if I trust someone enough to place a pup, I should trust them to breed. Well, crap happens and a lot of crap can happen in a few years. With Limited Reg, they get reminded to contact their breeder about clearances, maybe get some help, etc. If something happens, divorce, job loss, they don't return dog to breeder, dog gets sold or given to someone who thinks they're going to make a quick buck off some pups, lo and behold, they need to contact the breeder if they want those pups AKC registered. It is not foolproof, not for everyone, but Limited Reg has its place and its uses. It isn't just something breeders do to be control freaks and holier than thou's, or to control the competition in the marketplace. I didn't use it for a long time, didn't believe in it, until you get burned, feel sick to your stomach, angry, and decide to try to prevent it happening again. No puppy contract is going to be iron-clad, Limited Reg is about all I have in the toolbox in that regard.


----------



## rafterbm (Oct 11, 2011)

The first dog I owned and trained myself I bought when I was sixteen. I didn't know about health clearances and bought the best dog i could afford. At age 4 he developed hip problems. The money I spent on the cost of the puppy didnt hurt near as bad as the loss of all the blood sweat and time into making a good retriever. Clearances on the parents do not prevent this from happening but it has to help. I sold all my puppies with limited registration. All I require is to have hips,eyes and elbows done prior to breeding. This is to help protect other people from the same problems i have had. Not everyone in the world are as responsible or knowledgable on this as most of are. Limited regestration keeps them more responsible. I do also see the point if you own a dog you should be able to do what you wish with it and it should be no concern to me after I sell it.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Howard N said:


> I won't buy one with a limited.


Agree and am putting together a couple of titled bitches to breed in the future. I won't sell with limited either. If I think there is a chance of indiscriminate breeding, maybe I'm naive and will have half a litter left over but... I won't sell to that owner.


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

Howard N said:


> I won't buy one with a limited.



Me either. Too much invested to have to count on the breeder to convert to a full. For example right now I have a well bred female all health clearances and a SH with a couple derby ribbons. The breeder is my brother, we are not really speaking anymore for a different reason but if my female was sold on a limited I doubt I could get him to convert it. 


Just my deal. If you are going to limit make sure your customers know before they put a deposit down.


----------



## Leslie B (Jul 3, 2009)

Shawn White said:


> [/B]
> 
> *Define your basic title ... FC ,QAA Mh, top notch gun dog , excellent family pet, service dog ?*Sorry ,you generalize to many people into that group to have any kind of ground to stand on.
> 
> ...


I find it hard to believe that most anyone on this forum would struggle with the concept of a "basic title". Interesting to note that you list advanced titles (QAA or MH) or no title at all (excellent family pet) but you miss any entry level title at all (JH, RN, CGC). The op asked what the breeders did and why. If you want to find out what the buyers are looking for and why perhaps you should start another thread.


----------



## PalouseDogs (Mar 28, 2012)

Not a breeder. As a buyer, I don't buy if there is a limited reg, co-ownership, or (the worst requirement IMO) a litter-back arrangement. FWIW, I don't ask for a health guarantee either, except that the puppy doesn't die of an infectious disease within a few days. I want to see certain health tests on the parents but realize that many of the health tests aren't very useful and aren't very good predictors of whether the pup will have an issue. Genetics is still a roll of the dice.


----------



## Jay Brown (Sep 14, 2009)

I was given a nice yellow lab bitch, by a young man who got deployed. The dog was from a kennel/breeder I was not familiar with. After several months the pup really begin to shine and has become a a dog I think I could run tests with. The young marine had the pup registered, but a limited registration. When I called to check on the registration, the breeder informed me that they would issue full registration for several hundred dollars more. They stated they issued limited reg. if the owner was not going to breed, and charged more for the pup if the owner was going to breed. I was not aware of this policy policy and was a little put off by it. What are ya'lls thoughts ?


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

I don't understand the needed titles.For what purpose?If folks have the time ,resources and energy to activately train and show/campaign their dog that's great. it's not everyones cup of tea. I sell to many hunters many of who never even register their dog . They are interested in a wellbred Golden that has a longline of health clearances that will make his family happy in the off season and make the hunter even happier during hunting season. I also sell my puppies limited as well to the pet folks.I'm also from the "old school' and don;'t have long involved contracts either. IMHO. Off coarse  Sue


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I can't see charging more for full registration. I want them to spend that money on health clearances...not on my holding the registration hostage.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

I wouldn't buy limited. I guess I can see why some would sell on limited.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Limited till they get their health clearances? Dang people must not be to confidant in the pups they are selling.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

What would happen if something happened to the breeder before there was time to complete the tests and get the titles? For that reason I would not buy a puppy on a limited registration if I even thought that I someday want a pup from him/her.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Sharon Potter said:


> Most of mine sell on limited, with that being lifted once they've turned two and have all the appropriate clearances. The exception would be someone I know and that I can trust will be competing the dog....and they have a history of competition. Those folks get full registration straight away. The vast majority of my pups go to hunting homes and won't be competing or running hunt tests, so their owners don't care about limited....
> My reasoning? I don't want any of my pups to end up in a puppy mill.


 Basically, this exactly.... But also, if a dog out there is being bred from, and Waterspook is on the papers(as it will be), I want to know that they have passed the clearances, I require all the same hoops that I jump through before breeding- for them to do as well. Hopefully,its enough education on them by that point that they will also breed that dog to someone with the same clearances.. Dont want to see a litter in the newspaper down the road, " AKC Lab pups- Titled hunting lines- Waterspook lines....." etc... you get the drift.....


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

duk4me said:


> Limited till they get their health clearances? Dang people must not be to confidant in the pups they are selling.


I'm quite confident in mine. And because I give a solid guarantee (and I back it up) and make sure the dogs I breed have clearances...and I guarantee the pups will be able to have the same or will be replaced by me...*I want to make sure that anyone wanting to breed from stock they bought from me have done the same things they expected from me when they bought the pup. * Anything is possible...even two dogs with OFA Excellent hips have a 3.75 percent chance of producing a pup that won't pass OFA. And if one of those should occur, I will replace it...but I want to make sure that pup does not get bred since the incidence of hip dysplasia increases significantly if bad hips are bred.

Would you buy a pup from parents with no clearances?  And would you breed dogs without clearances?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> What would happen if something happened to the breeder before there was time to complete the tests and get the titles? For that reason I would not buy a puppy on a limited registration if I even thought that I someday want a pup from him/her.


My estate (ROFLMAO...what estate??  ) is set up so that power of attorney is passed on for those purposes.


----------



## Bartona500 (May 23, 2011)

There are some very reasonable arguments on both sides! It seems to be tough to find the balance between "if you buy something, you have freedom to do with it as you please" and "I don't want just anything done with the dog, in regard to breedings, that could hurt the breed or my kennel name." Both seem valid!

In addition though, and I know people can lie and do lie, but this seems like all the more reason to do detailed screenings on buyers. In our culture, it doesn't seem that peoples' word is worth as much as it used to be, but it is still important to ask tough questions of the buyer before sending the pup home. Prevention is always better than correction.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I don't think it does anybody any good.

Sure, there are some well-intended Breeders that use it for the "right" reasons. But, there are also at least as many Breeders that just use it for leverage.

And a limited registration doesn't do a damn thing to keep a dirtbag from Breeding a dog that "shouldn't" be bred. 
They can register through APRI, or Con KC, and their buyers don't know the difference. Nor do they even care.

Or, they can just go for the big bucks, and start producing Labradoodles, Goldendoodles, Chesadors, or whatever.

It's a people problem. 
The system's only as good as the people that respect and value it. You can't enforce honesty or integrity through regulation.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Or stupidity? Sue


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

Short of running a background check on each potential buyer, and interviewing their neighbors, veterinarians, etc. there is no way to know for sure whether a buyer will follow through with what is promised...even friends can sometimes have circumstances that change the dynamic.

Limited gives some protection to the dog, owner and kennel that only dogs physically/genetically sound will be bred. Does it take care of the idiots who will breed and sell pups "not papered" or breed designer dogs? No, but it seems to thin them out a bit.

The majority of my pups go into hunting homes. According to AKC, 40% of owners from my last three litters have not registered their pups at all. So they are willing to purchase pups from me because of the health clearances, soundness and care taken in the breedings.

Meredith


----------



## mlp (Feb 20, 2009)

Howard N said:


> I won't buy one with a limited.


Me either. It's kind of like me going and buying a new truck and the dealer telling me not to haul anything in the bed of it.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

mwk56 said:


> Limited gives some protection to the dog, owner and kennel that only dogs physically/genetically sound will be bred.


 I really don't think it does.
At all.

For every dirtbag it screens, it drops two responsible buyers, that would have done the right thing anyway.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

copterdoc said:


> I really don't think it does.
> At all.
> 
> For every dirtbag it screens, it drops two responsible buyers, that would have done the right thing anyway.


How many years have you been breeding and how many litters have you bred, to come up with these numbers?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Rainmaker said:


> How many years have you been breeding and how many litters have you bred, to come up with these numbers?


 None.

That doesn't mean anything.

People are people. The things that bring your clients to your door, are the things that screen out the dirtbags. Our "world" is a very small one.

The overwhelming majority of the people buying Lab, Golden, or Chessie puppies, don't know the difference between EIC and NFC. 
The ones that do know the difference, care enough that they won't breed a dog that "shouldn't" be bred.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

copterdoc said:


> None.
> 
> That doesn't mean anything.
> 
> ...


Bottom line, you have no clue and no experience upon which to base such a statement. I have NEVER regretted selling a puppy on Limited Reg, I have on Full. I do not regret any "lost buyers" because of it. I do not lose anything because of Limited Reg, I don't have enough puppies to meet the demands I get on a regular basis, I've got 6 calls to return right now. Not all go on Limited, it is a tool, period. I don't breed to the top of the FT chain, it would be absurd for those types of breedings to be Limited Registration. But make no mistake, many breeds and breeders have sold on Limited successfully for as long as it's been available, many of us find it works for US, and we see the results when the ones we pass on go to other breeders that we know say and do anything to make that sale, have no follow up and end up giving breeders a bad name. But thanks for bringing up such interesting, um, facts, leverage and lost buyers, my oh my.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Rainmaker said:


> I have on Full.


 Why? What happened?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Rainmaker said:


> I do not lose anything because of Limited Reg,


 How do you know?
Would YOU buy a pup on a limited reg?


----------



## dpate (Mar 16, 2011)

I'm not trying to get in the middle of an argument but I do think a lot of very good potential buyers won't even look at a limited registration. I'm not a breeder but just looking at anecdotal evidence from friends and the responses on this thread tells me that. Many of the bad backyard type breeding situations seem to not be registered anyway so it really just stops someone from registering the pups, not breeding. Nor does limited registration mean that the pup will be in a good home where the dog is loved, cared for and not abused or neglected. 

I think if you're a breeder that has a few litters per year, it's almost impossible to place every pup in a good home. Some owners will not do right by the dog and the breeders may never find out. I think the best you can do is screen the buyers to the best of your ability and follow up on the dog until you're satisfied.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

copterdoc said:


> How do you know?
> Would YOU buy a pup on a limited reg?


How about reading some of the previous posts before asking what's already been answered. 

As for how I know, well, duh, I just said, I don't have enough puppies to fulfill demand, (nor am I willing to expand to meet the demand, for that matter), I get the prices I need and the homes I want, I rarely have leftover puppies. Pups I bred earned 60+ HT ribbons in 2012, plus some AA points and one QAA, a couple run BDC stuff successfully. Lots more got to hunt and be great companions. It's all good, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're cared for and loved. The bad are few and far between, but that comes with experience and developing, as someone I respect puts it, a good BS detector. There are better breeders, there are better bred dogs, there's something for everyone, that's the beauty of our dogs. I do what works for me and mine, what others do or works for them is their business, there's plenty of room for all of us. The OP was asking for opinions, he's getting plenty from people with experience, up to him to weed out the drek. Good practice for those puppy sales. ;-)


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Rainmaker said:


> How about reading some of the previous posts before asking what's already been answered.


 I did.

Don't you think that you, would be the type of person that you want buying your pups?

There's only so much that you can control. I look at limited reg kind of like gun control laws.

They are based on "good intentions". 
But, in the end they only control the folks that were already under control.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

copterdoc said:


> I did.
> 
> Don't you think that you, would be the type of person that you want buying your pups?
> 
> ...


Maybe you read, but apparently you didn't understand. If there's a litter I want, I ask about Full Registration. It's that simple. What's the worst that can happen, be told no? Big deal. Move on. There are lots of other things we need to connect on as breeder/buyer, it goes way beyond registration and future breeding rights. Since you don't breed, you have no clue about what people ask when they call about puppies. I think you'd be surprised how many DO know and ask about things like EIC, CNM, hips and eyes. They understand health clearances way better than they do HT or FT titles or pedigrees. Health clearances are usually first. Then looks and temperament and hunting ability and many expect to fill out some long questionnaire and be given Limited Registration. I've had people be surprised that Full was even a possibility. There's a group of people who have had the newspaper/BYB Lab, who want a little more for their next pup and one of the biggest things they care about is health and how that puppy is raised, how the breeder's own dogs are kept. Mostly, they don't want to breed. If someone does, we have a conversation. RTFers are a very small, specific slice of the market, what goes here is not representative of the huge middle section of buyers for Labs. Opinions about registration and breeding are skewed thusly.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Rainmaker said:


> Since you don't breed, you have no clue about what people ask when they call about puppies.


 You shouldn't make that assumption.


----------



## weathered (Mar 17, 2011)

One thing a breeder can do is to advertise or put on their website that most puppies are sold with Limited registration. And that Full registration may be considered at the breeders discretion. Or something like that. It scares away some that just want to breed and nothing else or that just want your kennel name to breed. They are afraid of all the questions the breeder might ask. Maybe then people would know Full is available, but just to ask and be expected to answer some extra questions that might not be asked of people only wanting a non breeding dog.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Billie said:


> Basically, this exactly.... But also, if a dog out there is being bred from, and Waterspook is on the papers(as it will be), I want to know that they have passed the clearances, I require all the same hoops that I jump through before breeding- for them to do as well. Hopefully,its enough education on them by that point that they will also breed that dog to someone with the same clearances.. Dont want to see a litter in the newspaper down the road, " AKC Lab pups- Titled hunting lines- Waterspook lines....." etc... you get the drift.....


Yes-- this for me too. What is driving me crazy are people who want a guaranteed all Clear pup (eg, if EIC or PRA is a possible carrier status) as a priority instead of selecting the pup that may have all the traits for trainability/structure, etc that they really should focus on. Really, you'd pick the post legged, sickle hocked, or popping hocked pup that is tested Clear (or w/ the desired color genes)? I guess it's easier to wash out the dogs that blow CCLs as pups? Scratching head here.... 

I'll stick to Limited esp w/ folks I don't know well. It's not that tough and what, $25 to convert after all the clearances are done? I also require a title and really don't think that's asking too much.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Totaly agree with Sharon Potter. Limited Reg has become the norm, rather than the exception with Goldens (as Swampcollie mentioned).


I do not charge extra for converting to full registration. However, clearances are not the only reasons for not wanting to see a dog bred. 

For conversions, I would advise breeders to sign the conversion papers & keep them in the litter file. If anything should happen to you, this will expedite things. The date can be added when needed. Same for any dogs you co-own. 

I rarely co-own dogs. Right now I just co-own one. 

Limited Reg is not infallible, but it can act as a bit of deterrent if you don't make a perfect judgment on a buyer. We are only human in making those judgments. Some people will not tell you the whole truth. Also, there are several "registries" out there that will provide anyone with a fancy pedigree certificate simply for a price. Pet buyers don't know the difference, so they equate any kind of "certificate" as equal to AKC.

With Goldens one can look on k9data and find tons of obscure pedigrees ... from breeders who are one-timers and from those who turn their bitches into puppy machines for the cash; who know nothing about clearances ... and they eventually trace back to kennel prefixes that we recognize. So, I'd rather do everything I can to avoid my puppies ending up in such a situation.


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

I won't say I never will, but to date, I have not bought a limited registration pup. Had quite a discussion with a breeder that I wanted a pup from. I told him that he should not sell me a pup under any circumstances if he thought I was that irresponsible. I do understand the reasdon for LR, but I'm not doing it...


----------



## Jeannie Greenlee (Apr 15, 2009)

> I told him that he should not sell me a pup under any circumstances if he thought I was that irresponsible.


I wouldn't sell a puppy to someone that I perceived as irresponsible, but I don't personally know most of my puppy buyers. It may be easy to "court me" and make me believe somethings that may not be necessarily true with the amount of contact that I have with someone before they buy a puppy. Limited Registration is my safety net. I just want to make sure people do the right thing before they breed a puppy that has my pedigree.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

I'm old school. I have never bought a dog with any type conditions placed upon my ownership(nor do intend to) and to be fair I don't pay attention to breeder guarantees.
I have found it interesting that many breeders that do limited registration also insist on their kennel names being on the registration. 
As a buyer it is my responsibility to choose a breeder and breeding of quality, health and otherwise. As a seller I likewise have a duty to place puppies appropriately.

JMO

Tim


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Tim Carrion said:


> .
> I have found it interesting that many breeders that do limited registration also insist on their kennel names being on the registration.
> .
> 
> ...


I always found that interesting also. Seems their "noble concern for the breed" is matched by their selfish concern for publicity. In many cases the "noble" concern also serves an {unintended Im sure} purpose by limiting competition.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I won't buy on Limited, aside from things happening to the breeder, when I get around to do health-screens and maybe thinking about breeding my dog. I just feel it questions my integrity, the care I give my dogs and my word. I can understand breeders wanting to protect their lines, and I will talk to a breeder with limited if they have an exceptional breeding, however if I cannot get the limited lifted; I'll move on to another litter. I've never had a problem getting it lifted, but hey if a breeder doesn't want to sell to someone with a history of actually working-campaigning their dogs, and is a shameless brag, too bad for them . I've bred 1-3 litters, I do not sell on limited, realistically if I ever got the feeling from a buyer that I'd have to consider limited registration, they don't need to be owning one of my pups. I'm pretty particular on where my pups go, but then I don't breed much, and I'm perfectly willing to train them up, until the proper fit comes around. Still with most buyers it's more of an issue convincing them not to spay-neuter until we see what the pups can do.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Tim Carrion said:


> I have found it interesting that many breeders that do limited registration also insist on their kennel names being on the registration.
> As a buyer it is my responsibility to choose a breeder and breeding of quality, health and otherwise. As a seller I likewise have a duty to place puppies appropriately.
> Tim


Having the kennel prefix in the name will allow one to track back on pedigrees. If one of these non-registerable dogs should get into the breeding pool (and I'm sure that some do ... look at some of the newspaper ads to see this is entirely possible), we have some way to see who might have not been so honest. Also, some of these pups may still be talented dogs & get some AKC recognition, so why not be able to see that? Not every good home is cut out to be a breeder. Not every person who loves to train for obedience or field is ready to be a breeder, even if their dog(s) may be worthy of being included in the gene pool. So, if I place a dog in such a home, is it really awful for a breeder to want to have their kennel prefix given some PR?

I only produce about one litter a year (sometimes less), but since 1979 I counted around 300 or so puppies in total. I've made some poor placements. I keep trying to learn from those mistakes. Those mistakes still bother me. I'm willing to try anything possible that might help offset any errors in judgment. We absolutely have a responsibility to "vet" buyers ... but we are not infallible. Falls into my theory that breeding dogs has a way of making one learn what humility feels like


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

Nothing against anyone in particular. It seems that selling with a limited registration is saying, "do as I say not as I do."


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

I am another one that would not buy a pup with a limited registration. We have not bred our dogs, but if we decided to do so, I would not want to have to track down the breeder and get a full registration. People come and go in the retriever games, they move, etc. over a period of time. 

If the buyer does jump through the hoops, what is to prevent him/her from breeding to any untested bitch with an owner that is willing to come up with the stud fee. How many people look at the third generation of breeding and think ill of the kennel of the first generation? I do not think it is a factor.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

John Lash said:


> Nothing against anyone in particular. It seems that selling with a limited registration is saying, "do as I say not as I do."


Not trying to be a "wiseguy", but I'm not sure what you mean by this. If I carefully monitor my breeding program, I would like to see others carry on that practice with any dogs they may decide to breed that come from me. Actually, it's more like saying "do as I do". But maybe I'm missing something here.

Going back to using the prefix, if the dog does pass all health exams, I like the idea that my prefix shows up all together on the OFA site. If anyone wants to check out the history of the bloodlines records (even after I'm long gone), they will have a good chance of finding that there are many dogs there. Most buyers who are educated enough might find that useful.



> How many people look at the third generation of breeding and think ill of the kennel of the first generation? I do not think it is a factor.


There are many of us who look back even farther than three generations in a pedigree. Breeders can often point to dogs in the pedigree even farther back and give some pretty detailed information on those dogs. 



> If the buyer does jump through the hoops, what is to prevent him/her from breeding to any untested bitch with an owner that is willing to come up with the stud fee.


Absolutely nothing. Limited Reg is not infallible, but some of us feel it helps to emphasize the responsibility one takes when deciding to breed. At the very least, at the time of the "conversion", it gives us another opportunity to stress the importance of choosing mates carefully, and how much the breeder cares about the years they have invested in building the ancestry of the dog in question. I always offer to act as a sounding board to the owner for discussing the dog's possible mates, and give them whatever information I have collected from 30+ years of involvement in the breed. 

I'd hope that anyone with a pup from me would not have trouble tracking me down  We should have kept in touch during the pup's life and shared its progress. 

I think we should also keep in mind, that the buyer is always free to say "no", and go to another breeder who will not require limited registration. Each breeder and each buyer has things they feel are "the right thing to do" from their own particular perspective. 

It also stands to reason that even breeders who use limited registration have a network of friends and fellow breeders whom they trust implicitly, for whom they don't feel the need to limit registration. When one is dealing with someone they have known very briefly, they are more cautious. Many of those on this forum are probably the kind of people who are NOT the kind of people who take the responsibility of breeding lightly. Anyone who has had a dog with health problems, or has died of cancer under the age of 10, understands the kind of responsibility that breeders take to heart ... even for those things that we really could not have anticipated, but because we know the emotional pain of losing a dog or seeing a dog in pain.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

roseberry said:


> swack,
> i like this question, it should get interesting responses. good luck with your decision and your breeding!
> jmc


i told you this would be good!;-)


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Does Mary Howley insist that you use the Candlewood name when registering your dog when you purchase a pup ?


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

BonMallari said:


> Does Mary Howley insist that you use the Candlewood name when registering your dog when you purchase a pup ?


Not directly addressing Candlewood. But it seems that there was a time when the kennel/breeder signed off giving one PERMISSION to use said name. NOT requiring that you use it.

The Kennel names were registered and protected, not forced as a purchase agreement..

No contract, handshake deal regards


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Have no idea if this is the case or not, but with a AKC registered Kennel Name, the registered owner of that name HAS to sign off/give permission on each registration form in order for the puppy buyer to use that name. 
This is different than 'requiring' or requesting it be used in your contract. The AKC really doesn't care what you request in your contract. 




Rnd said:


> Not directly addressing Candlewood. But it seems that there was a time when the kennel/breeder signed off giving one PERMISSION to use said name. NOT requiring that you use it.
> 
> The Kennel names were registered and protected, not forced as a purchase agreement..
> 
> No contract, handshake deal regards


----------



## txrancher (Aug 19, 2004)

I'm with you Howard, when I buy one I buy all of it and I will not be told what I can name it, call it , feed it or if I am allowed to breed it. If you are buying one with limited registration you may want to reconsider just what you are buying?


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Howard N said:


> I won't buy one with a limited.


I agree with Howard.


----------



## jeffstally (May 2, 2013)

IMO when you buy a dog, you own the dogs and the rights to it. I would not purchase with a limited registration, even with no plans to breed.


----------



## j towne (Jul 27, 2006)

I wont buy on a limited. I also dont sell on a limited. What happens if the breeder dies or something happens and you can get a hold of the breeder to get it lifted. the breeder I bought my dog from I was tryignto find them to tell them how good the has been but they went through some personal issues and their house burned down. I cant find them at all. That would have sucked if I bought my dog on a limited. 

then people want to throw arond the arguement that once they get the titles and clearance they will lift the limited. So they trust you enought you take your money for the dog but not enough to be responsible. 

Also you cant show a dog with a limited registration.


----------



## ripline (Jan 12, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> I really don't think it does.
> At all.
> 
> For every dirtbag it screens, it drops two responsible buyers, that would have done the right thing anyway.


I agree. Personally, I won't even look at litters with limited registration..
I also agree that limited registrations won't stop or deter puppy mills from breeding at all. They don't give a rats arse about the pups to begin with much less a piece of paper that their clientele doesn't have a clue about.
.02


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

I only purchase puppies with full registration. I have done CERF and OFA on my older dog and will have the same tests performed on my others when they are old enough. If I choose to breed my dogs I think that it is MY decision and MY decision alone. If I do breed, I would like to sell the puppies to loving homes and hopefully to owners who will use the dogs for hunting, HT, etc. However, when someone pays me for a puppy and drives away with it, it is their baby and they can and will do with it as they please.

You can screen potential buyers, make them sign contracts, etc. but you cannot control the future. Someone who you think will be the perfect owner of one of "your" puppies could end up be a horrible owner.

I personally think many folks have a "holier than thou" attitude when it comes to breeding their dogs. After all how many of these breeders are geneticists? I would guess very, very few if ANY.

How many of these breeders considered the pedigree of their spouse before marrying and producing their own offspring?

Flame away.

Lonnie Spann


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

So when you purchase a dog on full, do you expect a warranty for hips, elbows, eyes? Do you expect the breeder to be there for you in a couple of years if something goes wrong? Will you follow the breeder's recommendations for feeding, exercise, etc. based on their years of experience?

Or is it buy the dog and walk away?

Meredith


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

Lonnie Spann said:


> I personally think many folks have a "holier than thou" attitude when it comes to breeding their dogs. Lonnie Spann


lonnie,

i know a few breeders who i can say for sure are "holier than *thou*"!

i even know a few who are "holier than *me*"!

jmc


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

The pups I have sold on limited registration (to pet/hunting homes), I have in the contract that AKC may change the registration to full after clearances are done with passing results on OFA in the event I am unable to sign (ie death). People that are doing tests/trials/have done clearances on previous dogs, I sell on full registration. I see it as a tool to encourage people to do the clearances that may not know about them or how to do them...I'll give them all the information needed to get those clearances. I'm not trying to keep people from breeding, but if they're going to do it, do it responsibly by doing health testing and not end up breeding dogs with hip dysplasia or produce dogs that are EIC/CNM affected.


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

mwk56 said:


> So when you purchase a dog on full, do you expect a warranty for hips, elbows, eyes? Do you expect the breeder to be there for you in a couple of years if something goes wrong? Will you follow the breeder's recommendations for feeding, exercise, etc. based on their years of experience?
> 
> Or is it buy the dog and walk away?
> 
> Meredith


When I purchase a puppy I only purchase a puppy whose parents have good hips, elbows and eyes. Warranty, I dont need a warranty. Warranties vary by breeder, some warranties require that the genetically unsound puppy be returned to the breeder, who wants to give Fido away after they have bonded with him for presumably two years? Most warranties state that the breeder will replace with a puppy of similar breeding. Why would I want a puppy from the same breeder from a similar breeding if said breeder has already sold me one genetically unsound puppy? Maybe, hopefully, I have the only puppy from the litter that has exhibited these poor traits and it was just my bad luck.

In my opinion the breeder did all that they could do when they bred two genetically sound dogs and produced the litter. Some dogs, regardless of their breeding, will end up with bad hips, bad elbows, or bad eyes. If this wasn't true we wouldn't still see this happen from time to time in some dogs from what many would consider very selective and well-planned breedings.

I would certainly contact the breeder and inform them of any defects discovered in the puppy. 

I don't need the breeder's recommendations for feeding, exercise, etc. 

Pretty much for me, its buy the dog and walk away. I research the litters before making a purchase and I make the decision to purchase from a particular litter. Therefore, if something doesn't turn out exactly as planned I feel like I should shoulder some of the blame. If the breeder makes misrepresentations that would be a different matter.

Lonnie Spann


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> However, when someone pays me for a puppy and drives away with it, it is their baby and they can and will do with it as they please.
> After a couple of poor placements early on, I decided that my responsibility extended further than this. These were living, breathing things, not like a truck or a piece of furniture. They came into the world as a decision I made (good or bad), and I am responsible for doing that; and for trying to get them the best home possible. So, any of my puppies are returnable, for any reason, at any age ... and there is a refund (on a sliding scale based on age), but never less than $100.
> 
> I am not holier than thou ... but I have a responsibility to each of those living things, in my mind, at least.
> ...


Sorry, humans are not dogs. Humans, for the most part, are far less interbred that our purebred dogs. When European royalty tried linebreeding, it didn't work out that great for them. Yet, linebreeding is not uncommon in dogs. There are also father/daughter breedings, etc. Dogs v. humans is not really the best comparison. My own son is a "mutt" ... 1/2 Italian and 1/2 Irish/English


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

> _Many years ago, I took a bitch back when she was three years old. The owners had neglected training her, and they called her incorrigible. She was so filthy that I had to give her two baths. After the first bath, the water was literally black. She also had hookworm. God bless her "bombproof" personality. I chose to co-own her with some good friends. She had one litter ... and from that one litter she became my first GRCA Outstanding Dam (one MH**, one MH***, one UD; along with one CD, WCX, and one CD, WC)_


 What does that have to do with limited registration?

Limited registration does not do anything to ensure that the dog will be well taken care of.
Limited registration does not prevent the owner from breeding the dog.
Limited registration does not prevent the owner from breeding the dog to another dog that you would not approve of.

All it does, is prevent the owner from being able to register the litter with the AKC. That's ALL that it does.

For those of you that sell on limited, what would you do if a bitch you sold got accidentally bred on it's second heat while in training with a Pro?

Would withholding full registration at that point, accomplish anything that you consider beneficial? 

No, it wouldn't. 
And because of that fact, all that your clients would have to do to get their limited registration lifted, is breed their dog "accidentally" to another quality dog that just happens to be AKC registered.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Lonnie Spann said:


> You can screen potential buyers, make them sign contracts, etc. but you cannot control the future. Someone who you think will be the perfect owner of one of "your" puppies could end up be a horrible owner.
> 
> I personally think many folks have a "holier than thou" attitude when it comes to breeding their dogs. After all how many of these breeders are geneticists? I would guess very, very few if ANY.
> 
> Lonnie Spann


True to a degree, but since there "probably" isn't a "perfect" pedigree out there, wouldn't you want to know as much about that pup as possible before you breed? To me, this is what Limited helps me do. It helps me get to know the owner (since I probably don't know how genetically savvy they are about dog breeding in this case) during those first couple years. Most folks really DONT know much about genetics, but I would hope your breeder would know a bit about his/her lines in particular. Wouldn't you want to know that your pup's great grandfather may have produced "xyz" disorder that we don't have a genetic test for yet, so that you can be extra diligent to try to avoid it? 

Maybe you don't need puppy care and feeding tips, but wouldn't you want to have a good enough relationship w/ that breeder to help make some more informed decisions? I'm into my own lines 6 generations now and I still have been known to go back to a stud owner for suggestions on breeding the pup that came from their stud, just so I can learn more about that side if need be. 

A good example is a person posting on another Lab chat board the other day. His pointing Lab from a well known kennel (no name attached) was being neutered and began to have heart issues. Ends up the dog has TVD. Now, how many of you in the field world are doing Cardiac testing even in the basic sense (beyond your regular vet listening)? Wouldn't you want to know if there was a cardiac issue behind your lines so you could at least go get an Echo done? 

No, limited doesn't prevent everything, but it's better than nothing.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

If the AKC registration papers say "Limited" on them there is one safe bet.

It's someone else's dog.

All or nothing regards

Bubba


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> What does that have to do with limited registration?
> 
> Limited registration does not do anything to ensure that the dog will be well taken care of.
> Limited registration does not prevent the owner from breeding the dog.
> ...


It has nothing to do with limited registration, per se, but rather addresses the "responsibility" issue for a breeder. Limited registration is simply one of the resources that I feel helps me fulfill my responsibility to the pups that I produce. And, in this particular case, being responsible in that way, can sometimes turn out to be worth the effort.

Yup, they could snooker me, and ignore all the education I try to give them before lifting the limited registration. I converted a registration last year to full. My relationship with the owner is such that I believe the owner is thankful that they will be able to pick my brain about any breeding prospects. 

I've also been around enough years to know that even breeders whom I highly respect will choose some breedings that I might not do myself (and I may do some breedings that they would not choose to do). Yet, in the end, because those breeders are truly worthy of respect, I have found that I may later draw upon the results of some of the breedings they have done in the past. So, even with my advice an owner may choose a breeding that I would not have chosen myself. As they progress through getting the health examinations, I get the chance to educate them along the way. Then I leave them to their own conscience.

Limited registration is NOT a substitute for any of the things a responsible breeder should do for the owners of ALL the pups in a litter. For owners with previous experience in the breed, who have knowledge of health, mental and training issues, the task is pretty easy. For those who are starting out from square one, more time and effort is needed.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Limited reg. is more for the "Pet Population" NOT folks who are active in the sports of dogs. Most folks that are active Retriever nuts know how to take care of a puppy, ect.................... I for one hate long contracts. If with one or two conversions you as a breederpotential seller of a puppy can't figure me out and still need me to fill out a long drawn out contract that asks me allot of dribble questions than " I'm Out". Some breeds are worse with contracts than others. My 2cents on a cold raining day. Sue


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

Puppy purchase contracts...reckon how many of these:

1. Were drafted by an attorney;
2. Are enforceable;
3. Contain language that is ambiguous.

The few that I have viewed contained major legal loopholes. Have any of you EVER been a party to a legal action envolving your written guarantee?

Lonnie Spann


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

I'm into my own lines 6 generations now and I still have been known to go back to a stud owner for suggestions on breeding the pup that came from their stud,

How long is a generation? Just curious.


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

I will be glad to furnish to the breeder the names of everyone I have ever bought a pup from. That is fair. I want pups from a breeder that places responsibly. However, I will not buy on limited registration.


----------



## sick lids (Sep 25, 2012)

BonMallari said:


> Does Mary Howley insist that you use the Candlewood name when registering your dog when you purchase a pup ?


No. She gave me permission to use her kennel name, and sold with full registration. She said that she doesn't like to buy things with strings attached and wouldn't expect other people to either. She also had no problem selling to a guy that knew nothing about the games but wanted the best hunting dog possible.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

John Lash said:


> I'm into my own lines 6 generations now and I still have been known to go back to a stud owner for suggestions on breeding the pup that came from their stud,
> 
> How long is a generation? Just curious.



John, 
What is the interval between you and your parents? Or you and your children (if you have any kids). That is one GENERATION. For my Labs, that interval is anywhere from 3-7 (at the most) years. So really, 6 generations could be done in 18 yrs here. At most, well, that's not yet determined.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

Yeah, that's what I thought. Just wondered if it's 25 years in people is it 2-3 years for dogs, or 3-7.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Howard N said:


> I won't buy one with a limited.


X2, neither would I


----------



## red devil (Jan 4, 2003)

j towne said:


> Also you cant show a dog with a limited registration.



Convinced me right there.......


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

John Lash said:


> Yeah, that's what I thought. Just wondered if it's 25 years in people is it 2-3 years for dogs, or 3-7.


How about 2 to 5? For physiological reasons, I wouldn't favor breeding a girl later than 5; probably prefer around 3. For males, they may not attract attention until they are around 5 and have begun to show their mature capabilities; though some might be precocious and show solid promise earlier.

I have 8 generations (#8 is 3-1/2 now) ... with the first generation whelped in 1979 ... that would be 34 years ... so each generation works out to be about 4 years. That's only breeding mostly about once/year; sometimes longer between breedings. Might have had more generations, if I had not had to start over with new genes after one litter in 1971. But some failures like that can also factor into the generation span.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Just wanted to wrap a ribbon around this thread and thank you all for your strongly felt opinions! 

In the original post on this thread I said that I had struggled with this issue in my own mind. I can see both sides presented.

I believe I will continue to sell puppies with full registrations unless there is a good reason one should not be bred (like a puppy I sold years ago with a limited registration because the vet ophthalmologist found some retinal folds).

Swack


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Yes, it's an old thread. I found it interesting. On the remote possibility anyone cares, here are my comments.

Limited registration has been very common, probably the norm, with Goldens for many years now. Has it benefited the breed? I think not.

The intent behind LR may have been good but the results are not. The most common result (and sometimes intent) is the only accomplishment of a dog that gets bred is, it was the one the breeder kept. This obviously would not fly with field trial folks which is why many Lab people are not very familiar with limited reg and how it works.

The only way I will ever consider buying a pup on limited registration would be with an iron clad, legally binding contract for release upon obtaining health clearances and stated performance goals. In reality, even with that, I would probably just get pissed off at the breeder for not trusting me and walk away.

Now for the "do as I say not as I do" part.
When looking for a pup, be very diligent in your research of pedigrees, health clearances and of the breeders reputation. If you don't, you could end up getting a pup from a breeder who is not interested in "the betterment of the breed", is certified as mentally unstable and is a convicted criminal.

The gene pool of talented field trial Golden Retrievers is shallow and shrinking.
Here is one that isn't in it thanks to limited registration.










Maybe he could be the poster boy for a campaign against limited reg?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Problem is, breeders also have to screen buyers. Lots harder to do, because most don't have any sort of record on EE, and they tell you they are going to try trials, when they really mean hunt tests, and then they never try that either. The people shopping for a competitive dog is probably less than 5%, meaning 95% go to hunting and pet homes. My contract states I will lift the limited once health tests are done at age two. But there is no way I'm letting puppies go to basically unknown people with full registration. If the Labrador folks were more diligent about limited, there wouldn't be so many good dogs ending up in dilute pedigrees as well.


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

I have used limited since AKC introduced it. Most litters no one is interested in breeding so it is a non-issue. I have a litter that turned two in June and three out of eight of the pups have gotten hips, elbows and eyes done per contract (my parents are all DNA clear for EIC, CNM, PRA, RD, DD, etc.). One has earned her CD and a JH; one is working on CD and the other on JH (both delayed by COVID). 

I agree with Sharon. It is super hard to find good competition homes, so most go into hunting homes or active pet homes. Most people are totally unprepared for raising a litter and if they do think about it, the limited makes them think about it a little harder. More than happy to assist when they have met the terms of my contract.

Meredith


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

So Sharon and Meredith, would you not sell a pup to me with full registration rights? Or would your knowledge of me, personal or via EE, exempt me from the limited reg clause? I have never bought a pup on limited, it wasn’t even mentioned. I guess my question for those of you that do require it, how often do you waive it?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

2tall said:


> So Sharon and Meredith, would you not sell a pup to me with full registration rights? Or would your knowledge of me, personal or via EE, exempt me from the limited reg clause? I have never bought a pup on limited, it wasn’t even mentioned. I guess my question for those of you that do require it, how often do you waive it?


Carol, my question back to you would be based on what you do with your dogs, why would you need full registration? You don't need it to run field trials or hunt tests, and you don't show in conformation dogs shows. If you told me you intended to breed at some point, I'd say no problem, when the dog is two and you have all the health testing done, I'll lift the limited. Not sure why that would or should be a problem.
I had one guy beg for full because he wanted to show. I said OK. What I should have done was co-owned. Why? Because he never did show and then bred her on purpose at not quite a year old....and then again at a year and a half. And never did any clearances of any kind.
Everybody claims good intentions. I've yet to meet a person that claimed otherwise.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Also, I have waived it for anybody who sends me proof of the health testing. That's all I require. I think I've done four of those. The rest don't care one way or the other, because they don't plan to show or breed.


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

I have lifted limited on all clients who have come to me with terms of the contract met. I have had maybe a couple people say, “She’s a really nice dog. Do you think I should breed her?” Because their friends and family like her and they all want puppies. And I remind them of the contract. They never pursue it.

And I echo Sharon. If you have good intentions and plan to do the minimum of what we should for our breed, why would you have a problem with getting hips, elbows, eyes done to lift limited? You can get a JH in two weekends, a CD in one. And the “what if something happens to the breeder” argument isn’t valid because the person with power of attorney is obligated to meet the terms of my contracts. If my pup doesn’t pass clearances, my contract has allowances for that as well.

Meredith


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

I appreciate that there are good breeders that place the betterment of the breed above everything. Sadly there are many that do not.
Instead of an agreement with a breeder, that may or may not be honest or even sane, I would be in favor of an automatic change by the AKC to full registration when breed appropriate health clearances are passed and a level of performance is achieved. In field events that could be QA2, MH.....? I am not familiar with the titles of other venues but maybe some should also be included.



Sharon Potter said:


> If the Labrador folks were more diligent about limited, there wouldn't be so many good dogs ending up in dilute pedigrees as well.


Have to hold the AKC accountable as well. They could deal with it like the UKC has.

Look at the marketing of "English Cream" Goldens, LR has not prevented that. I would argue it has made it worse. 
There are not enough Golden pups to meet the demand so prices are very high. The shortage has created ridiculously high prices which attracts the worst kind of breeders.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

This dog is not in the Golden gene pool due to Limited Registration. 
Everyone I know (minus one) thinks he should be bred.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Yes, it's an old thread. I found it interesting. On the remote possibility anyone cares, here are my comments.
> 
> Limited registration has been very common, probably the norm, with Goldens for many years now. Has it benefited the breed? I think not.
> 
> ...


Before I jump to conclusions, I'd want to get more info on why the breeder has refused to lift the limited registration. I can't imagine why this would occur with a responsible breeder. I'd sincerely be interested in knowing why full registration was refused.

Did the breeder die, and is not able to convert to full? Personally, I fill out those forms shortly after the litter is sold, in the event of my incapacitation. I would be happy to do that in the presence of the buyer and place the form in the hands of someone both of us would trust to remit it to the buyer when due.

My contract would also give a way for the buyer to approach the AKC to do the conversion. My contract is predicated only on health screenings. The contract is clear that I commit to converting the registration with proof of health screenings. Of course, now it has to include DNA screenings as well. That said, I also "retired" from breeding two years ago. That meant that my last litter could no longer include the replacement option. For replacement, I only required proof of neutering. The owner did not have to return the dog if they wished to keep it.

My contract also requires a lot of me as the breeder to support the buyer.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I guess it’s a moot point as I have been able to buy the dogs I want with full registration. But I will not concede the decision making to the person I am buying from. If I choose to breed my dog because he has the performance traits and health certs, then to be denied because he has not achieved a certain title (could be many reasons, injury, change in owners situation or health, etc.) would not be acceptable. Basically, I have no intention to share a dog I have bought. I understand the concept but disagree with it.


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

Yes, Drunkenpoacher why won’t the breeder lift the limited status? What were the terms of purchase?

Meredith


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> I'd want to get more info on why the breeder has refused to lift the limited registration. I can't imagine why this would occur with a responsible breeder. I'd sincerely be interested in knowing why full registration was refused.


I and many others share your curiosity.
This is the best answer I can offer.


drunkenpoacher said:


> Now for the "do as I say not as I do" part.
> When looking for a pup, be very diligent in your research of pedigrees, health clearances and of the breeders reputation. If you don't, you could end up getting a pup from a breeder who is not interested in "the betterment of the breed", is certified as mentally unstable and is a convicted criminal.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

mwk56 said:


> why won’t the breeder lift the limited status? What were the terms of purchase?


Verbal, hence the "do as I say not as I do" part.


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

Well I don’t think you can condemn all limited agreements because yours went awry. Mine is clearly spelled out in a written terms of sale and I have honored it every time.

Meredith


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

mwk56 said:


> Well I don’t think you can condemn all limited agreements because yours went awry. Mine is clearly spelled out in a written terms of sale and I have honored it every time.
> 
> Meredith


Not condemning all and not saying there aren't many honest breeders, especially in the field trial world. Outside of the field trial Lab realm it's a different story, IMO.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Would it not be prudent to research the breeder...as you mention...before buying a puppy? It would seem it was easy to discover the mental issues and conviction...so why buy from that?


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Sharon Potter said:


> Would it not be prudent to research the breeder...as you mention...before buying a puppy?


Yes, that is why I said this;


drunkenpoacher said:


> When looking for a pup, be very diligent in your research of pedigrees, health clearances and of the breeders reputation.





Sharon Potter said:


> It would seem it was easy to discover the mental issues and conviction...so why buy from that?


Both occurred after I got my pup.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

A post worth repeating.


Lonnie Spann said:


> Puppy purchase contracts...reckon how many of these:
> 
> 1. Were drafted by an attorney;
> 2. Are enforceable;
> ...


----------



## Phil Cross (Jan 1, 2019)

From what I have seen almost all PERFORMANCE breeders sell with full registration. I think this is because they are selling mostly to performance homes to experienced people who should know when to breed the dog and when not to. They know that their client plan to title and heath teat their dog. It would have to be a pretty special breeding to get my money with limited registration. I would ONLY do it with written contract guaranteeing full registration when very specific criteria are met.


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

I don’t think you can make that sweeping assumption. I don’t raise show dogs—I do hunt tests and obedience. It is a personal decision, based on what I feel I have to do to sleep at night when placing pups. There is no way to know everyone inquiring about puppies and lots of people just flat-out lie about their intentions. And some people are just clueless.

Meredith


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

drunkenpoacher said:


> This dog is not in the Golden gene pool due to Limited Registration.
> Everyone I know (minus one) thinks he should be bred.
> View attachment 87023
> 
> ...


I generally think limited registration could be a good idea.... theoretically..... in certain instances.....in an ideal world.
Unfortunately an "ideal world" doesn't exist.
The above post can be used as an example of what can go wrong.

I don't know the exact circumstances, but assuming Jake is a healthy breeding candidate without any genetic defects, he would be an extremely valuable addition to the gene pool of performance goldens, where you have far less successful FT performance dogs capable of being competitive in AA stakes than you do with Labs.
I personally would never buy a pup with limited registration, and as such would not sell a pup to anyone who I felt the need to impose limited registratioin.


I would imagine in an "ideal world" a rational breeder of a dog like Jake would have no problem releasing the "limited registration" status
In an ideal world, everybody makes rational decisions.
The reality is we don't live in an ideal world The future is never guaranteed.
You can do everything right and meet all criteria imposed by a breeder to release the limited status. But life happens breeders can go crazy, die, move or seemingly fall off the face of the earth, etc etc.
If a breeder wouldn't give me full registration, I would go elsewhere; and if I didn't trust a buyer of a dog enough to give full registration then don't sell it to em.

DP, hopefully this issue can be resolved, as Jake would be a very valuable addition to the Golden gene pool


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I'm curious as to how many of the people completely opposed to limited registration have raised several litters of puppies? If a breeder has, let's say, three litters a year, that is around 25 puppies. All 25 of those puppies...every year, not just one year... are going to be sold to people you know well enough to guarantee they will always do the right thing when it comes to breeding?


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

mjh345 said:


> DP, hopefully this issue can be resolved, as Jake would be a very valuable addition to the Golden gene pool


Thanks Marc
Hate to say it but the reality is, the situation with Jake will not likely be resolved. Very unfortunate for the breed, Jake is both healthy and talented. He could and should contribute to the breed that is starving for good studs.


----------



## birddogn_tc (Apr 24, 2015)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Verbal, hence the "do as I say not as I do" part.


I agree that Jake would be great for breeding. Seems odd the breeder is taking this stance. They should be proud that they bred Jake?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Thanks Marc
> Hate to say it but the reality is, the situation with Jake will not likely be resolved. Very unfortunate for the breed, Jake is both healthy and talented. He could and should contribute to the breed that is starving for good studs.


That is sad, and it sure sounds like Jake would be a great addition to the gene pool. One bad apple doesn't mean all breeders are like that.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Sharon Potter said:


> One bad apple doesn't mean all breeders are like that.


Defiantly not implying that.
LR, the way it is now, can and often is being used simply to restrict competition and keep prices high. It does not contribute to the betterment of the breed IMO.

This is my suggestion if the betterment of breeds is truly the objective;


drunkenpoacher said:


> I would be in favor of an automatic change by the AKC to full registration when breed appropriate health clearances are passed and a level of performance is achieved. In field events that could be QA2, MH.....? I am not familiar with the titles of other venues but maybe (certianly) some should also be included.


I think it takes everything but health and the exceptional qualities of a dog out of the equation and would contribute to "the betterment of breeds". If anyone disagrees or has other ideas, please post.


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

AKC is simply a registry. It is up to the individual national breed clubs to establish requirements for registration and breeding. Several pointing breeds require the dog to complete a field situation test in addition to health clearances before being allowed to breed, but Goldens and Labradors have never done such a thing. Heck, the Labrador club can’t even get rid of “silvers.”

Techincally, one cannot “improve” or “better” the breed once the stud book is closed because you cannot introduce any “new” blood. We as breeders can only strive to maintain the breed standard for soundness, conformation, health and working ability. 

Meredith


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Defiantly not implying that.
> LR, the way it is now, can and often is being used simply to restrict competition and keep prices high. It does not contribute to the betterment of the breed IMO.


Yes, there are those who use limited to restrict competition, and I also believe those who do so are more interested in profit as their primary motivation. And I would run far and fast from any breeder who says a puppy costs $XXX on limited but will give you full right away if you pay more money...that's just a money making scam by a breeder who really doesn't give a damn about the breed.

I use limited for one reason only. I want to make sure my lines are continued with health testing being done and not bred randomly just for profit. That is, at this point in time, the only way I have to assure that, at least in the one generation I pass on down with each puppy.

There is no way to screen every buyer with absolute certainty. Limited is all a breeder has. And anybody who is serious about breeding dogs understands this and has no problem with it. Those who claim the dog "isn't really theirs" because it's on limited are the people I wouldn't trust. If requiring a few hundred dollars worth of health testing is too restrictive, I'd find that concerning.

I'm sorry you are unable to use Jake for breeding...that is wrong and tragic. And if it were me, I'd be letting people know who that breeder is.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Sharon Potter said:


> I'm sorry you are unable to use Jake for breeding...that is wrong and tragic. And if it were me, I'd be letting people know who that breeder is.


Roselyn Wilson, Wildfire Goldens

She uses Jake for advertising on her web site to sell her puppies, in spite of a cease and desist from my attorney. Even has a stupid digital "painting" she made of Jake on her home page. Bunch of crap on FB as well. 
Feel free to ask her why she's keeping Jake out of the gene pool, but don't expect a sane answer.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Roselyn Wilson, Wildfire Goldens


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

The link you posted list breeder as M. Bezler. Related?


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

2tall said:


> M. Bezler


Say it out loud.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Say it out loud.


How did you do that????


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

2tall said:


> How did you do that????


When you add a dog on EE there are two boxes after "Breeder". If they are left blank you can't complete the entry.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

mwk56 said:


> AKC is simply a registry.


I have heard this many times. If it were true, the AKC could be replaced with a phone app.



mwk56 said:


> Techincally, one cannot “improve” or “better” the breed once the stud book is closed because you cannot introduce any “new” blood. We as breeders can only strive to maintain the breed standard for soundness, conformation, health and working ability.


To me "Better the breed" means pairing dogs with desirable traits to produce offspring that combine those traits to become better than either parent.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

mwk56 said:


> Heck, the Labrador club can’t even get rid of “silvers.”


The AKC could if they wanted to.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Here are a few random observations on this topic from someone with a half a century perspective.

1) as a breeder one of your goals is “to improve the breed”. Unless you are producing hundreds of dogs every year your impact on the breed is negligible, to think otherwise is well, laughable. If you are truly concerned about “improving the breed“ do not breed your JH female with an unimpressive pedigree to one of the top sires and sell the puppies for a premium price based solely on the sire’s accomplishments, and do not choose hair coat color as your first criteria.
2) if you want to sell me one of your premium priced puppies don’t put restrictions on the purchase or I am not a buyer
3) the issue with Jake is emblematic of a long standing problem with GR breeders who have always been too concerned about physical appearance and not concerned enough about performance. Over the years I have seen a handful of Goldens I would have been proud to own, at the top of that list was a smallish physically unimpressive ball of fire with utilitarian hair coat. FC-AFC Windbreaker’s Mighty Mo, who should have been the most sought after stud at the time, but as far as I can tell was not bred all that much apparently because he was a small male, physically unimpressive with a utilitarian hair coat but damn he was talented. Sadly his owner, a fine gentleman named Stan Heiner, passed while Mighty Mo was still in his prime.

Take the above for what it’s worth, and no, I’m not interested in a debate.
Good night😴


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

EdA said:


> 1) as a breeder one of your goals is “to improve the breed”. Unless you are producing hundreds of dogs every year your impact on the breed is negligible, to think otherwise is well, laughable. If you are truly concerned about “improving the breed“ do not breed your JH female with an unimpressive pedigree to one of the top sires and sell the puppies for a premium price based solely on the sire’s accomplishments, and do not choose hair coat color as your first criteria.


I'd triple "like" this post if I could. There are breeders (Golden breeders in particular) that brag about "Field Champion Lines" when there is one JH in a five generation pedigree. The AKC would be helping the breeds if the JH title was dropped, but that will never happen.
I was happy to see the QAA designation dropped but I know some are still in tears over it.



EdA said:


> the issue with Jake is emblematic of a long standing problem with GR breeders who have always been too concerned about physical appearance and not concerned enough about performance. Over the years I have seen a handful of Goldens I would have been proud to own, at the top of that list was a smallish physically unimpressive ball of fire with utilitarian hair coat. FC-AFC Windbreaker’s Mighty Mo


Mighty Mo is Jake's great grand sire. I know people that trained with Mo when he was a young dog. From what I've gathered Jake was lucky enough to get everything from that dog. Mo was bred about 30 times but only produced one dog with a prefix title, FC Ruby Redfish Mo's Mountain Gem. Golden bitches with field trial talent are just as scarce as studs are. 
One person that knew Mo said he was the most beautiful dog she ever saw, another said he was the fastest dog on land he ever saw. These are, of coarse field trial folks.


----------

