# Thought on the AKC move to Remove limited registration?



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

So it might be trolling on Facebook, but it seems to have gotten a few breeders up in arms. That the AKC is purposing to get rid of limited registration, because this will increase the # of puppies that are registered with them. I think their premise is wrong, if people aren't registering dogs it's not because they have limited registration, its because most people don't care about giving AKC $$ to get AKC papers, which realistically if your not gonna breed and your not gonna run events why would you need them? If the AKC wants more $$ on registrations offer people something for their $30, besides a piece of paper .

What are everyone's thoughts? I'm on the fence I don't particularly like limited registration, and wouldn't buy a dog with it. But I can also see how it might be nice for a breeder to keep track of owners and ensure their stock has minimum clearances before anyone breeds them. Completely against those that only give limited registration and will not remove it for any reason (non-show quality screams of this), also don't like the give me more $$$ for full registration either.


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

I LOVE limited registration and would hate to see it removed. Limited is not why people do not register their dogs--they just see no point in paying the money when the dog is only a companion hunting dog.

I get emails from AKC telling me how many of my pups are not registered in my litter(s). I don't care whether my clients register their pups. The only one who benefits is AKC. If my clients are interested in competitions, then they register their dogs. Heck a lot of my clients don't even bother to register their dogs' microchips. I have gotten a couple of calls where a dog has been found and they call me as the original owner of the chip, then I look up who owns the dog.

Meredith


----------



## TODD SCHMADL (Sep 14, 2016)

I think limited is just plain BS and would never ever consider buying a pup with this. When I buy a pup I buy the gonads and all. Just who are these breeders that think they have something SOOOOOOO special that they have to control the papers? Limted DOES NOT prevent breedings, back yard breeders going to do what they going to do no matter what.

If people would stop buying limted pups the issue would resolve on it's own with or without AKC. To the breeders who do try to sell limited if you are SOOOO concerned about the welfare of "YOUR" line with a customer then don't sell the pup to them but again $$$$$$$$ at the route of all.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

TODD SCHMADL said:


> I think limited is just plain BS and would never ever consider buying a pup with this. When I buy a pup I buy the gonads and all. Just who are these breeders that think they have something SOOOOOOO special that they have to control the papers? Limted DOES NOT prevent breedings, back yard breeders going to do what they going to do no matter what.
> 
> If people would stop buying limted pups the issue would resolve on it's own with or without AKC. To the breeders who do try to sell limited if you are SOOOO concerned about the welfare of "YOUR" line with a customer then don't sell the pup to them but again $$$$$$$$ at the route of all.


Well you told us!


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I like limited registration, just a tool to help keep it responsible. I bought a limited registration pup, saved about 25% and if after health clearances I wanted to breed, I could pay the difference and get full registration.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

People weren't registering pups even before limited registration. AKC needs to reduce all the VP executives and streamline the organization.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

ErinsEdge said:


> People weren't registering pups even before limited registration. AKC needs to reduce all the VP executives and streamline the organization.


What she said!!


----------



## championretrievers (Feb 7, 2008)

Limited registration is not the problem with AKC registrations. With that being said, limited registration does not prevent people from breeding. I can understand limited under the condition of getting health clearances. I do not understand limited from the perspective of not wanting others to breed your lines. After all someone sold these individuals a dog at some point to start their breeding program. I hear of it more in the show world than in field trial/hunting lines and have never understood it. Maybe someone could shed more light on the rationale. With the exception of undesirable traits and enticement to get health clearances , why else would you need to limit registration?


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

I use limited to make sure the basic health clearances are done and the dog has some sort of performance title. I have lifted limited to full on several dogs that are MH now. Some have been bred, some have not. Some do all the clearances and never ask for full.

Meredith


----------



## PalouseDogs (Mar 28, 2012)

From what Ive heard (not from AKC, so don't know how true it is), AKC doesn't like them because of the headaches of dealing with disputes between buyers and sellers who disagree about whether the limited part should be removed or breeders that can't be located, or have died, when the buyer wants full registration, etc. (Personally, I would never buy on limited registration for those reasons, and others, but lots of puppy buyers seem to be willing to do it.)


----------



## Dazed (Apr 7, 2013)

I have bought 2 pups with limited registrations. The first pup, i didn't really care, as i didn't originally purchase her for anything other than a companion. Long story short, i got involved with hunt tests. Because she had excellent health clearances, the only thing i originally cared about, and great ability running hunt tests, i decided that i would like to breed her with another good dog. As i started researching breeding lines, and talking to breeders it became very apparent to me, that for the most part, breeders put a lot of thought, time and effort into their breeding programs. Their attention to the smallest breeding detail, really opened my eyes. I then decided to get a male, as my SO decided that they would like to run hunt tests too. Again, we really researched our choice before me made it. Unfortunately, we were not able to breed our female, and ended up having her spade. Because we were ready for 3 dogs, we decided to purchase another female, again with limited registration. Both breeders gave me the option of open registration once i titled the female, which is fine, and has been a very easy process for the first female. Our male came with an open registration because the breeder knew of our plans for him. I am just getting started with our second female, but i have no doubt that i will get an open registration on her next year. 

I had made up my mind that if i had bred my first female, i would have sold those pups with a limited registration out of respect for the time, energy, and work that the breeders of my first 2 dogs committed themselves to. Having some kind of control over their long established breeding programs, that are the result of years of hard work, seems very reasonable to me. It wasn't until i temporarily put on the "Breeders" hat, and saw the circumstances from the other side, did i understand the Limited registration, and understand the meaning behind it. There are many top notch breeders out there that are committed to passing on only the very best traits in their litters, traits that make it possible for me to purchase a wonderful pup with a lot of promise. It seems like a small sacrifice i can make, for a little extra paperwork. Just my .02cents.


----------



## TODD SCHMADL (Sep 14, 2016)

Dazed said:


> I have bought 2 pups with limited registrations. The first pup, i didn't really care, as i didn't originally purchase her for anything other than a companion. Long story short, i got involved with hunt tests. Because she had excellent health clearances, the only thing i originally cared about, and great ability running hunt tests, i decided that i would like to breed her with another good dog. As i started researching breeding lines, and talking to breeders it became very apparent to me, that for the most part, breeders put a lot of thought, time and effort into their breeding programs. Their attention to the smallest breeding detail, really opened my eyes. I then decided to get a male, as my SO decided that they would like to run hunt tests too. Again, we really researched our choice before me made it. Unfortunately, we were not able to breed our female, and ended up having her spade. Because we were ready for 3 dogs, we decided to purchase another female, again with limited registration. Both breeders gave me the option of open registration once i titled the female, which is fine, and has been a very easy process for the first female. Our male came with an open registration because the breeder knew of our plans for him. I am just getting started with our second female, but i have no doubt that i will get an open registration on her next year.
> 
> I had made up my mind that if i had bred my first female, i would have sold those pups with a limited registration out of respect for the time, energy, and work that the breeders of my first 2 dogs committed themselves to. *Having some kind of control over their long established breeding programs, that are the result of years of hard work, seems very reasonable to me.* It wasn't until i temporarily put on the "Breeders" hat, and saw the circumstances from the other side, did i understand the Limited registration, and understand the meaning behind it. There are many top notch breeders out there that are committed to passing on only the very best traits in their litters, traits that make it possible for me to purchase a wonderful pup with a lot of promise. It seems like a small sacrifice i can make, for a little extra paperwork. Just my .02cents.


Just WOW!
You do have control you are SELLING the pups correct? Look if YOU feel YOUR line which really it is not, is so special YOU need to control it then do not breed. Great if you find people to pay you money with limited good luck with that. 

What is your point in breeding? What to you bring to the Labrador breed? Are you breeding for $$$$$, or do you have a FC bitch that needs to be bred to better the breed. If people are SO concerned about their lines then do not sell them, seems like simple solution.


----------



## TODD SCHMADL (Sep 14, 2016)

mwk56 said:


> I use limited to make sure the basic health clearances are done and the dog has some sort of performance title. I have lifted limited to full on several dogs that are MH now. Some have been bred, some have not. Some do all the clearances and never ask for full.
> 
> Meredith


 So if the pups come back with bad hips are you going to spay your bitch because she did throw the pups with bad hips then???? because if n fact that you want to be sure about healthc clearances would make sense then to spay the bitch that threw the bad hips.


----------



## championretrievers (Feb 7, 2008)

A lot of breeders put careful thought behind their breeding programs and don't sell dogs on limited registration. I have bought some of the best in my opinion and have never had one breeder put their litter on limited registration. In your case, it is an incentive to get the necessary titles and it helps their program look better if they can get more buyers to title their dog. There is no real benefit to the buyer of hunting/competition Labradors when there are a lot of excellent breedings that don't require this. Being a breeder that puts dogs on limited registration for the purpose of getting more titled pups does not make someone a better breeder. Not trying to be controversial, just my own personal opinion


----------



## taeicher (Jun 25, 2017)

TODD SCHMADL said:


> So if the pups come back with bad hips are you going to spay your bitch because she did throw the pups with bad hips then???? because if n fact that you want to be sure about healthc clearances would make sense then to spay the bitch that threw the bad hips.


Well said Todd!! As a consumer I won't purchase limited registrations. I also could care less about "puppy guarantees...oh and include our kennel name to be valid"...failed hips, lack of drive, timid, whatever, why would I want another pup from that breeder???? First time shame on them, second time shame on me....


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

Obviously you have your reasons to justify not buying or selling on limited; I in turn have my reasons for using limited. I am sure I will not change your minds as you will not change mine. Happily there are people out there who will sell you the dog you want and I have lots of repeat clients who confirm for me that they are happy with the way I manage my litters.

Agree to disagree. Either way, AKC is only interested in making more money. The elimination of limited will not ensure that all puppy buyers register their pups. Some people just do not care. They are buying from a breeder to hopefully increase their odds of having a healthy, happy dog suited for their needs. The extra piece of paper means nothing.

Meredith


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

TODD SCHMADL said:


> Just WOW!
> You do have control you are SELLING the pups correct? Look if YOU feel YOUR line which really it is not, is so special YOU need to control it then do not breed. Great if you find people to pay you money with limited good luck with that.
> 
> What is your point in breeding? What to you bring to the Labrador breed? Are you breeding for $$$$$, or do you have a FC bitch that needs to be bred to better the breed. If people are SO concerned about their lines then do not sell them, seems like simple solution.



If I had an FC bitch I would be breeding for money - and lots of it...... - putting a bitch through pregnancy and giving birth is a big risk... you lose time training and campaigning....not to mention potentially might have a bitch that comes away from a the pregnancy a 'different' dog (ie non competitive). Obviously, anyone breeding an FC or AFC bitch is going to be wanting the best possible stud to compliment their bitch's qualities...so breeding to better the breed would be a moot point... and that whole argument/discussion always baffled me anyway... anyone who trains or runs or owns competitive or working dogs that are used in a breeding program is gonna want to produce litters that meet the criteria 'they' deem best?

When it comes to limited registration... I would not buy unless there was a stipulation that the dog could be fully registered when health clearances were done...and it seems a bit strange to think that a breeder with the best intentions for their pups in mind is going to have issues attracting the type of buyers they want.... but to each his or her own....I get the reasoning but I would never utilize it if I was a breeder...


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

I agree. All pups here were sold on a limited registration with the option to convert to full registration at no cost. All the owner had to do was basically demonstrate the health of the dog and the value it would be to the gene pool. For those who didn't agree with this, I was happy to send them elsewhere. In 20 years and something like 11 litters, no one objected and only one converted to full registration. As it happens in our breed, most do use this approach.

I wonder what faulty logic the AKC is using. I can't see any situation in which a person would buy a cat instead of a dog if the dog was to be under limited registration.


----------



## TODD SCHMADL (Sep 14, 2016)

Eric Johnson said:


> I agree. All pups here were sold on a limited registration with the option to convert to full registration at no cost. *All the owner had to do was basically demonstrate the health of the dog and the value it would be to the gene pool. *For those who didn't agree with this, I was happy to send them elsewhere. In 20 years and something like 11 litters, no one objected and only one converted to full registration. As it happens in our breed, most do use this approach.
> 
> I wonder what faulty logic the AKC is using. I can't see any situation in which a person would buy a cat instead of a dog if the dog was to be under limited registration.


Again if YOUR bitch threw the bad hips you had better spay that bitch but I doubt breeders would so they would be hypocrites in MHO, while demanding papers be limited because hips are bad but would continue to breed the bitch that threw them.

I have a solution to that..........OFA should list the bitches that threw bad hips on there pups so all of us can see where the bad hips came from! Now you still want limited on your pups?

Second point of value to the gene pool, "what" the dog came from your breeding!  Perhaps next limited unless the dog makes AFC or FC. The market will take care of this, many would never buy on limited myself being one. I have sold a couple litters all with FULL, when I agree to sell my pups, I agree the placement is a good home, I agree to take your money, and I AGREE ITS YOUR DOG after payment. The $$$$ exchanging hands says it's your dog.


----------



## chocolabguy (Jan 3, 2003)

TODD SCHMADL said:


> I think limited is just plain BS and would never ever consider buying a pup with this. When I buy a pup I buy the gonads and all. Just who are these breeders that think they have something SOOOOOOO special that they have to control the papers? Limted DOES NOT prevent breedings, back yard breeders going to do what they going to do no matter what.
> 
> If people would stop buying limted pups the issue would resolve on it's own with or without AKC. To the breeders who do try to sell limited if you are SOOOO concerned about the welfare of "YOUR" line with a customer then don't sell the pup to them but again $$$$$$$$ at the route of all.


I completely agree with you!


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Todd


How do you know ot was the bitch that threw the bad hips?


----------



## Peter Balzer (Mar 15, 2014)

TODD SCHMADL said:


> Again if YOUR bitch threw the bad hips you had better spay that bitch but I doubt breeders would so they would be hypocrites in MHO, while demanding papers be limited because hips are bad but would continue to breed the bitch that threw them.
> 
> I have a solution to that..........OFA should list the bitches that threw bad hips on there pups so all of us can see where the bad hips came from! Now you still want limited on your pups?
> 
> Second point of value to the gene pool, "what" the dog came from your breeding! Perhaps next limited unless the dog makes AFC or FC. The market will take care of this, many would never buy on limited myself being one. I have sold a couple litters all with FULL, when I agree to sell my pups, I agree the placement is a good home, I agree to take your money, and I AGREE ITS YOUR DOG after payment. The $$$$ exchanging hands says it's your dog.


Why are you under the assumption that it's the bitch that "cuased" bad hips? Those pups are only genetically half from the female? You can breed Excellent x Excellent and still get displyasia and there's a reasonable chance that the bitch has been bred or even retired before you find out that a statistically relevant # (read this as more than 1) of pups suffer from HD or maybe just grade out at "Fair". 

Further, a limited registration protects from further re-sale to a less reputable person. If Meredith did her research on her puppy buyer and sold them to a responsible home, what's the protection or insurance that they won't turn around and sell to a less reputable person or were acting as a broker. Limited registration is basically the only protection she or any other breeder has against it. 

Personally, it would depend less on the registration given, more on my desire to have that breeding. If I want that pup bad enough I'd like be fine with a limited registration. 

In the end . . . . health > titles every reputable breeder desires healthy well adjusted puppies over titles


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Well ... there's no evidence that says that "my bitch" produced the bad hips rather than your dog. My bitches all have OFA Excellent hips save one which is OFA Fair. And then ... we have a bitch that is emminently breedable except that I won't breed her. She has EPI and there is no evidence that it is or is not genetic. There being no test that would clear her, we've elected to not breed her.

I try not to be too hard on others. The Toller breed has 15 conditions (and 2-3 more being developed) for which there is some form of genetic test for flaws in a dog. That has tempered my view of breeding and buyers who would be breeders. While there are these 15 tests, the tests cost about $2500 to run the full panel. Would be buyers are aware of this before they buy.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Actually, I'm more interested in how Todd can figure out how the Bitch throws bad hips. That's a miracle! Actually, I'd like to switch it up a bit and have him tell me which dogs and bitches throw bad elbows so we can spay or neuter all those suckers and eliminate a problem in the breed. Can you imagine how many AFC FC CH OTCH MACH animals would have been altered? 

For the OP. I use limited. I screen my buyers heavily. In general, those who I know and those who I trust and come with recommendations from people I know get a pup on full. Puppy people get a FULLY REGISTERED DOG, before they leave my house, on limited. Why? Too many people I know with as stringent screening policies have dogs that can fall through the cracks. What does that mean?

Illness in the family-Dog gets placed/sold. Owner dies-Dog gets placed/sold. I have a contract with a must return to breeder policy. You know **** happens. It is a TOOL. We have enough BYB junk out there now. And even though many of use have contracts drawn up by lawyers some argue that they're not worth the paper it's written on.

I believe that my screening process is key, BUT it is still a tool. Just like EIC and CNM and Echos, etc....are. I use it to make sure what I have has a lower possibility of being bred by someone who wants to make a buck. I hope it doesn't go away. 

Saying limited registration is stupid is just as ignorant as saying you won't breed an EIC clear to an EIC carrier. 

Harsh....but passionate about protecting the breed. The people who will do harm do not frequent places like this. I'm with Meredith and Eric. I'll use all the tools at my disposal if I'm going to take on the responsibility of bringing these dogs into the world.

Sue Puff


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

I'm with Meredith. I've bred 25 litters, 23 of which were sold on Limited reg to those unproven or not personally known well by me at the time. I've been asked to (and have) converted 3 registrations to Full over the years. I know of one who badgered another friend of mine to "talk to me" (about converting their dog's reg to Full) AFTER they made the decision to breed him to another buddy's girl w/o clearances. Nope, nada, no way. They knew what I required, and it's no more than I do w/ my own girls here so it's not as though I'm being a Nazi about it. 

All one needs to do is read some of the breeding / repro posts (Facebook has a couple very enlightening groups) to realize not that enough people really understand enough about breeding and genetics to benefit the breed. In fact, many are jeopardizing the life / health of their bitch and haven't a clue how much money they could *spend* by doing it right. 

The limited option allows the breeder (and stud owner) the time to help these people learn the ropes, get all the needed clearances and tests done (along w/ titles etc that may be required), and help them choose a good stud that will compliment the bitch. The limited option also helps our pups from falling into unethical peoples' hands to a degree. JMO. Anne


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

And though many times I'm not happy with some of the things that AKC is doing, THIS is one of the reasons why ALL my puppies leave my premises registered, full or limited. I belong to TWO clubs, LRC and DOTC Lynchburg, that helped make these trailers possible for disaster relief:


https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=b76e198db807d2cc4d6fb7ed8ac4c50c&oe=5A240159

If it doesn't pop up, go to the LRC Facebook page.

Sue


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Just checking in...been reading on the AKC "logic" if you can call it that..Basically dog registrations are down and conformation showing entries are down. Most show people sell on limited oftentimes requiring spay/neut. and will never change a dogs status for dogs they consider "not show" potential; even if you put titles on them or do health clearances (resulting in conflicts). Well unless you pay a whole bunch more $$$. In conformation showing you can not show an altered dog nor a limited registration dog; pretty much the only venue which you can't . So Conformation entries are dwindling, meanwhile all the "inclusive" performance venues are gaining entries (OB, HT, tracking, barn-hunt etc.). So basically one way of looking at it the show type are using limited as a tool, cut out stock, keep themselves as the only suppliers and also to keeping competition down in their events; by choosing the only small set that can compete. AKC "logic" get rid of limited, more dogs can run conformation, to run conformation you must register your dog; thus registrations go up. AKC might even have a point in regard to the show set; but if they get rid of limited; it does stop a check system that some breeders use to ensure health clearances. Now most of us, will do the health screens anyway it's required to sell pup to the kind on people we want to sell them to. But we still have that subset that breeds with no thought and then those that breed and breed and breed.

Basically a few Takers are just ruining a good tool for everyone and for AKC it's just easier to get rid of the tool.

My solution; simply give everyone, Full registration minus breeding, until the dog has completed the breed club recommended health testing; and then allow registration of the dogs off-spring.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I'm all for freedom of choice. A breeder has the freedom to determine his or her own criteria for limited or full registration. A puppy buyer has the freedom to go elsewhere if they don't like or agree with the breeders terms. The reality is breeders really pick and choose who they will sell a pup to anyway.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

They aren't going to listen to anything we say anyway so... no point in spending brain power on it.


----------



## Peter Balzer (Mar 15, 2014)

DarrinGreene said:


> They aren't going to listen to anything we say anyway so... no point in spending brain power on it.


Then the entire premise of an internet forum is useless. If you truly believe this you might as well stop coming here.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> I'm all for freedom of choice. A breeder has the freedom to determine his or her own criteria for limited or full registration. A puppy buyer has the freedom to go elsewhere if they don't like or agree with the breeders terms. *The reality is breeders really pick and choose who they will sell a pup to anyway*.


This is exactly the point. There are still lots that only do full registration. Patronize them, please! 

Long time ago, when AKC started to give out limited, they had a situation where a buyer claimed he was never told he was getting limited registration because it was new. In that case, because the breeder did not inform the buyer, the registration was reversed. They said breeder must inform buyer in writing, that the registration will be non-breeding. I always have the buyer also initial in the guarantee they have been informed this is limited. If they stuck to that, they wouldn't have problems. If the breeder died, that document could serve as a form of proof if they got the health certs done the registration could be reversed instead of being stuck.

With all the DNA tests, and more that are being developed, I prefer to give out limited. Many people have no idea about genetics, or inheritance of lets say EIC or PRA. It's a method of education not to produce affected puppies.


----------



## championretrievers (Feb 7, 2008)

Peter Balzer said:


> Then the entire premise of an internet forum is useless. If you truly believe this you might as well stop coming here.


Darren is right, the AKC is a business and are only interested in what lines their pockets. You need look no further than the issue of dilutes in the Labrador gene to see that it is true


----------



## dorkweed (Apr 14, 2009)

The main criteria for everything the AKC does is $$$$$$.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Peter Balzer said:


> Then the entire premise of an internet forum is useless. If you truly believe this you might as well stop coming here.


If the premise of the internet forum was to effect change with the AKC, you would be correct.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

The idea of buying a dog on limited registration does not appeal to me, but I cannot say I would never do it. I would be more likely to do it on the condition that I could get full registration with proof of health clearances and a specified title, that sort of thing. I'm not a breeder although of the 4 labs I've owned, one did sire 3 litters. I turned down others because of lack of health clearances, etc. I don't buy to breed but I guess I bristle at the idea of not being able to choose what to do with my dog (like the poster who said he buys the dog "gonads and all"). I certainly would not buy a puppy with the stipulation that I must spay/neuter as I am not convinced that those are the most healthy choices for the dogs and also because I reject the idea that the only way I can prevent unwanted litters from my dogs is to have them altered.

I'm generally a free market proponent so my tendency would be to let the market decide whether breeders can succeed with limited registrations...clearly some can.

Having said all of that, if the AKC does get rid of limited registration, I will revel in the fact that it would piss off Mike Stewart!


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

It's been somewhere around twenty years since the American Kennel Club began offering Limited Registration. It's probably time to get the various parties (Breeders, Owners, Competitors, AKC ) together and take a long hard look at the policy and evaluate the outcome produced. 

What was the original intended purpose for the policy? Was the original intended purpose achieved? What were/are the unforeseen ramifications of the policy, both good and bad? Should the policy remain? Should the policy be revised? Should the policy be ended?


----------



## TODD SCHMADL (Sep 14, 2016)

Tobias said:


> Todd
> 
> 
> How do you know ot was the bitch that threw the bad hips?


You are correct could have been the sire, how about we keep OFA registry on pups out of sires with bad hips or bitches that threw bad hips. The thought of limited is just foolish IMHO, I have never bought a pup that the breeder even mentioned it. Then of course I do not buy from professional breeders that only title the bitch QAA then is a brood bitch, it is nothing but a business for those type of breeders. Not saying anything wrong if that is what they do for a living I just will not buy from them. All my dogs have come from top Field Trial people who do not breed as a business, they breed when they themselves are looking for the next FC.

That's probably why the never ask for limited. Hey if people are willing to buy your pups on limited so be it. The two litters I raised I screened where the dogs were going because I cared about my pups. I would not ask for limited because those buyers would do the right thing without me FORCING them to.

Now the professional breeder do you think for one minute they will stop breeding a bitch that they have spent thousands with a pro trainer to get the bitch "breed ready" are going to stop breeding her because she maybe the issue throwing the bad hips....I doubt it.

As others have said follow the money! Be it AKC or breeders it is the money.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I wouldn't paint all professional breeders with the same broad brush. For over 20 years I've received excellent pups from Jackie Mertens, and she's a professional as there is. The first pup was sold on limited registration with the understanding that if I did hips and eyes, no elbows back then I could pay the $250 difference and get full registration. I was a newbie and she didn't know me from Adam, after I proved myself with that dog, it was never an issue again.

Like I said, to each their own.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Regardless of whether one agrees with Limited or not, I don't understand AKC's reasoning that it is reducing registrations in a significant way. People who buy on Limited don't intend to breed, or if they do, they go with a contract for full upon completion of certain terms. Or they go with a breeder who sells on full in the first place, that's the most common in field Labs anyway, not exactly hard to find. If breeders aren't disclosing Limited, I can see headaches for AKC but there are reasonable solutions for that. Otherwise, I just don't get it. Or why some are so outraged that some breeders choose to use Limited (and somehow yet again make it clear it is also bad to use a pro), when it has no impact on them personally, no one forces anyone to buy on Limited and it isn't causing any harm to the dogs. Fine if someone doesn't like it or agree with it, but does that mean no one else should be able to when it is working for them and their clients? Again, the logic escapes me, when it is nothing more than a personal choice that only impacts the breeder and buyer. And I guess AKC's registration numbers.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I would imagine Limited is a real time killer for the AKC employees. People calling in not totally understanding what the got themselves into or people breaking contracts and then getting AKC involved legally. Who knows. I would bet its about time and money for AKC. It's a business which always looks at a way to cut costs.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Thomas D said:


> I would imagine Limited is a real time killer for the AKC employees. People calling in not totally understanding what the got themselves into or people breaking contracts and then getting AKC involved legally. Who knows. I would bet its about time and money for AKC. It's a business which always looks at a way to cut costs.


That's what makes more sense vs it impacting actual registration numbers. Unless they plan on some kind of campaign to get everyone full registration, then register, then breed. Since they already have tried pushing/enticing breeders to get all pups registered and apparently it isn't working well enough. Many buyers just don't care. They will pay for the pedigree and health clearances and want this and that but aren't going to breed or participate in any kind of AKC events, so why pay to register, it offers them nothing but a piece of paper, is how they look at it.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Honestly just let the buyer decide. If you only want full registration then that's what you buy. If you want a certain breeding then agree to the terms including limited. 
This is the least of the recent AKC money grabs. As someone who competes in ob and rally I am much more upset about MUTTS allowed to compete. Oh another AKC money grab. CGC , pay the AKC $20 and they will make it a back end title on your dog. Evaluators just do an open book on line test and now some hand it out like candy. That CGC comment is from a disgusted evaluator. 
I'm happy my teenager is on limited. That may sound crazy to some. It ends any and all approaches. It's not fun to enter a trial try to compete and then deal with garbage because your dog is listed in the premium.
At least I grew up with the family lab being searched out due to kennel name 40 years ago


----------



## HappilyRetired (Sep 4, 2017)

I'm new here, so forgive me for my potential ignorance. In my previous life, I worked in human medicine, attended law school also. I'll admit I'm an overeducated nerd. Personally, lifting limited registration is great. Less paper work. Maybe an more intact pedigree since it is so easy to circumvent the 'limited' and register dogs anyway. Given what I've seen 'breeders' do to prospective buyers with 8 page contracts, dictating everything from dog food to spay/neuter and the sanctimonious attitude of them 'allowing you to adopt their fur baby', it thrills me to see limited taken away. Show breeders are the worst. I'm horrified at the number of them that cannot do a basic Punnett Square to identify colors. And don't get me started on what they don't understand about health testing. I didn't invent the Labrador Retriever. Nor am I so conceited that I don't think someone who did want to breed could not educate themselves properly. Limited registration means nothing to an owner. Why pay for it? In all honesty, people who don't care about 'papers' for the family pet won't pay to register the full registration either. AKC does waste a lot of time changing registrations from limited to full, reviewing bills of sale to see if the buyer was told the registration was limited, etc. Financially, it makes sense to lift it.


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

What proof do you have that AKC spends a lot of time changing registrations from limited to full or reviewing contracts? I have seen nothing stating how many limited regs they handle, whether there are more complaints about limited than there are breeders who promise papers and do not deliver, or other disputes.

As most of us have stated, AKC is just looking for ways to make more money. Those who do not register their papers now with limited or full will not register their papers if limited goes away. AKC is misjudging why pups do not get registered.

Meredith


----------



## HappilyRetired (Sep 4, 2017)

A few weeks ago in taking to the consumer relations folks, the gal told me they have three full time people dedicated to the changes and buyer's sales contracts/not understanding limited. Have no idea on the not getting papers. I don't know anyone who had that issue. In reading the minutes, I don't remember seeing how they actually came to the conclusion this would increase registrations. Everything is about increasing revenue. But I agree with you that I don't know how they are equating changing to full registration only as increasing registrations overall. You're right, if people don't want the papers, they don't want them.


----------

