# Has the time come for more limited registrations?



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Last week I noticed a lot of puppy adds for spring litters going up, having a spring litter planned myself, I was rather curious what was "out there".....

It has borderline appalled me what I have found on the various facebook pages... from no health clearances ( well we don't have any of that in our lines, when the grandsire is a known carrier on one side at least) to advertising "great bloodlines, "great grandpa was....." " multiple "hunting champions" in the five generation pedigree". To top it off anytime an attempt is made to point out that this is a rather "not great" way to breed dogs the admins of the more "popular" pages boot people for repeatedly asking if litters have health clearances. Then you see a "my female is in heat, I need a chocolate stud near...." it makes me cringe, esp when the first response is I have a chocolate and he carries DILLUTE.....

So is it time that a serious effort is made to put the brakes on some of the BYB's (or at least there ability to use good lines in their trainwrecks) by putting limited registrations on more pups? If I was the owner of that "great grandpa" I would be cringing to have my dog mentioned in that add. Like wise if I had sold a pup to that lady looking for a chocolate stud the thought of "my line/name" getting tied up with a DILLUTE gene would freak me out!

Limited registrations are common on the show side of things. I think they have other motives to do it as well, but maybe they are doing it the right way. BYB's are always going to be around, no doubt about it, but it bothers me that dogs from Great lines are being haphazardly bred and sold to un or at least under informed public..... 

3/8 of my last litter were sold on limited registrations. I sold them for less, but to people that would have likely bought a BYB bred dog if I had not done what I did. All are happy and amazed with the pup. So far this litter 4/7 deposits are for limited registration, again, at a discount but it is worth it to me to be putting pups in to a good home without worrying if the guy that just wants a hunting dog, will change his mind and decide to breed the heck out of it. And I will be damned if I put a carrier pup into someone's hands that I don't know with full registration....



Thoughts?


----------



## Gatzby (Dec 16, 2010)

I bought my last dog "limited". When I started seeing some "greatness" in this dog I talked to the breeder. After she researched his performance history and I proved his health clearances were in place she released full registration. This worked out great, of course she is an ethical breeder that I trust.... Might not work so well with some


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

Gatzby said:


> I bought my last dog "limited". When I started seeing some "greatness" in this dog I talked to the breeder. After she researched his performance history and I proved his health clearances were in place she released full registration. This worked out great, of course she is an ethical breeder that I trust.... Might not work so well with some


And this is how it is supposed to work!!!!


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

I have used limited registration since it became available. NO exceptions other than co-own. If the owner is interested in full, my contract states that after clearing hips, elbows, eyes--and CNM status if pup is out of CNM carrier--and earns a JH or CD, I will change limited to full. (All of my dogs are clear of EIC). It has worked well and I have changed status on a handful of dogs over the years. 

I state clearly on my website that all pups are sold on limited. It weeds out people looking for breeding dogs with no intention of getting clearances or titles. Some people don't like it, but that isn't my concern. I have to do what I feel comfortable with when it comes to placing dogs out in the world.

Meredith


----------



## downbirds (Jan 19, 2012)

I've thought about this a lot too. With a planned litter, hopefully coming up this spring, my thoughts are to go limited reg., to be moved to full when the dog has, one gotten it health clearances, Hips, EIC, will be CNM clear by parentage, and CERF. Two is also titled in HT, SH or above, (or equiv. in other org.), derby points or better in FT. My girl is EIC clear but stud is carrier, I don't care for me, because I'll test, and breed accordingly, if the pups I keep show merit. I see all the crazy breeding's out there, no health clearances, no titles, but damn sired by FC AFC whom ever, sire, sired by grandson of FC AFC. They are not proving their dog has anything to add to bettering the breed, just riding on the distant shirt tails of whom ever. And no health clearances, with the technology available today why risk it. Way back when before testing I bred my NFC Granddaughter to a NFC son and ended up with a couple of EIC affected pups not only did it eat me alive spading and neutering the whole litter, then placing two affected pups, but it was heart breaking to see the little fellows with so much drive and potential,l not physically be able to do it. I feel as a breeder that I am not only responsible for my sire and damn choices, but also for the pups they produce, and not just up till they leave for their new homes. Placing them in a good, responsible home is one of my duties as a responsible breeder.


----------



## huntinlabs (Aug 4, 2009)

downbirds said:


> I've thought about this a lot too. With a planned litter, hopefully coming up this spring, my thoughts are to go limited reg., to be moved to full when the dog has, one gotten it health clearances, Hips, EIC, will be CNM clear by parentage, and CERF. Two is also titled in HT, SH or above, (or equiv. in other org.), derby points or better in FT. My girl is EIC clear but stud is carrier, I don't care for me, because I'll test, and breed accordingly, if the pups I keep show merit. I see all the crazy breeding's out there, no health clearances, no titles, but damn sired by FC AFC whom ever, sire, sired by grandson of FC AFC. They are not proving their dog has anything to add to bettering the breed, just riding on the distant shirt tails of whom ever. And no health clearances, with the technology available today why risk it. Way back when before testing I bred my NFC Granddaughter to a NFC son and ended up with a couple of EIC affected pups not only did it eat me alive spading and neutering the whole litter, then placing two affected pups, but it was heart breaking to see the little fellows with so much drive and potential,l not physically be able to do it. I feel as a breeder that I am not only responsible for my sire and damn choices, but also for the pups they produce, and not just up till they leave for their new homes. Placing them in a good, responsible home is one of my duties as a responsible breeder.


So are you saying if a person doesn't run in some type of test they are irresponsible? I can see clearances but getting some type of title? Come on. I am getting a pup and she will have full registration with no stipulations. However I am going to run her in both ft and ht and she will have clearances so doesn't matter to me one bit. I just think that saying if you don't get such and such on your dog you can't breed her. Some people have families and sometimes life happens to where a guy can't run test. So now he can't Breed his female even if she was the best dog he ever had done his research and had all clearances?


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Nope won't buy a puppy with limited reg., I bought the dog , I own the dog...


----------



## huntinlabs (Aug 4, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> Nope won't buy a puppy with limited reg., I bought the dog , I own the dog...


That's exactly how I feel we will talk. If uou don't trust me to hold up my part then why should I trust that you will hold up your part on the guarantee?


----------



## downbirds (Jan 19, 2012)

I see ads galore with, (she /he is the best hunting dog I've ever seen) That may be true but, maybe they haven't seen very many mallard munchers. And I know, I think my girl is fantastic, but really she has flaws. Someone once said "the greatest dog out their is, everybody's". What are we really getting. By titling to a standard or beating someone in competition, shows that the dog has at some point, has proven it has the minimum skill sets, to be a good, or better, retriever. I'm not saying they are not all irresponsible. But so many of them are out there to make a quick buck, no titles, no health clearances, just the best dog I've ever seen. I feel responsible for my pups. And by putting some limitations on their breeding, is one way of protecting them from those that are less than good owners/families. If you don't like it, there are hundreds of full registration, best dog I've ever owned, litters out there. Some of them are great, roll the dice and go for it. Mine has proven that she can run multiples, and blinds. What skills does best dog ever have, found the duck stood over it till I got there, but it was in tall grass I'd never found I without her? I don't want to sound nasty but I get tired of the attitude, when a person takes the time to get the clearances, title their dogs to prove it's worth, big deal I can get old such and such with full registration for a third of the price, why don't you sell yours the same way.


----------



## DropinBack (Sep 24, 2012)

I think that more people/breeders are getting clearances than ever before vs. 10-30 years ago...


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

because the guarantee is in writing? Yes some people still fall out of it, but why would you not trust the breeder who is conscientious enough to worry about what their puppies produce, not just what they become would not stand behind them..... The limited is the guarantee to the breeder that you will only breed it if you have been responsible... both sides are "protected" My limiteds sell for a significant discount, so if you are buying on at that price you are buying roughly half the dog, at full registration you are buying the dog AND breeding rights. As for not having time or whatever to run tests...... ok fine, but then why are you breeding her... If you don't have time to test you don't have time to raise a litter, if you don't have funds to test you don't have funds to health check and have an IN CASE OF EMERGENCY fund..... Are you just breeding to get a replacement? aren't your odds of getting a similar dog better if you go back to the breeder and buy one of the same breeding? If you do health tests you are probably close to half of the price of the next puppy that is similarly bred? What types of homes are the puppies of an unproven dam going to end up in..... 

So for the two saying no way would they buy a limited..... so lets say you raise a litter. pretty proud of it. great breeding, guy calls and wants to send a deposit. He mentions he has a kennel, you google it and it is a silver kennel.... are you going to sell the pup? In my case I am going to have some carriers..... Absolutly nothing wrong with them I KNOW, and one guy on full has said he would consider a carrier, and all of the people that end up with a carrier will be very well informed of what they are getting and what limited reg means.... and what it would take for me to turn it to full. I am not afraid of carrier puppies, but I am afraid of carrier puppies ending up in uneducated hands. Just because I educate my buyers, what abou the next generation.... if they are selling 500 dollar puppies are they goin gto pay to have the litter tested. 

I did not state selling ONLY limited registrations. But selling them


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

downbirds said:


> I see ads galore with, (she /he is the best hunting dog I've ever seen) That may be true but, maybe they haven't seen very many mallard munchers. And I know, I think my girl is fantastic, but really she has flaws. Someone once said "the greatest dog out their is, everybody's". What are we really getting. By titling to a standard or beating someone in competition, shows that the dog has at some point, has proven it has the minimum skill sets, to be a good, or better, retriever. I'm not saying they are not all irresponsible. But so many of them are out there to make a quick buck, no titles, no health clearances, just the best dog I've ever seen. I feel responsible for my pups. And by putting some limitations on their breeding, is one way of protecting them from those that are less than good owners/families. If you don't like it, there are hundreds of full registration, best dog I've ever owned, litters out there. Some of them are great, roll the dice and go for it. Mine has proven that she can run multiples, and blinds. What skills does best dog ever have, found the duck stood over it till I got there, but it was in tall grass I'd never found I without her? I don't want to sound nasty but I get tired of the attitude, when a person takes the time to get the clearances, title their dogs to prove it's worth, big deal I can get old such and such with full registration for a third of the price, why don't you sell yours the same way.


Sure wish people would use there real name instead of a "handle" hint hint.. Yep health clearences are a must but, titles not so much anymore for me, Iv'e seen plenty of MH, SH, that I would never want a puppy out of, seen some FC/AFC dogs that I wouldn't want a puppy out of, and have seen and trained with some non titles dogs, ( that will never be titled) that i would jump at the chance of a puppy out of them. Bottom line you need to know the dog, just recently a pair of littermates from a very solid breeding were sold one was a SH and one had derby points, judged one of them 4 times from derby through the Q, the other one I knew very well. Both dogs have since been bred by there new owner, and the description of both dogs in the add was not even close to what I personally knew of them.. Id'e much rather know the dog than know what titles it has.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

and yes I think more people are getting clearances then ever before, but there are still A LOT that aren't.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

I love that when someone is breeding a dog and selling pups they are knowledgeable and responsible. When I may set out to do the exact same thing I will somehow be irresponsible...


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

A Limited Registration doesn't stop anybody from breeding the dog.


----------



## downbirds (Jan 19, 2012)

Mr. Lash no one said you where irresponsible. And I'm assuming from your post, that if you plan on breeding your dog, you will be a responsible breeder. So then you would get the health clearances, and possibly title your dog, so people that may not have been fortunate to see your dog work a couple of times, would have an Idea what your dog is capable of. So when you complete the health clearances, and titling, and the breeder moves the registration from limited to full what is the problem? How is it implied that you or anyone who wants to put some time and money into their dog are being irresponsible. We are not saying you can't ever breed your dog just put a little time into it, to show it's merits. When I bought my girl the breeder talked about limited registration, I was fine with it. Big deal I wanted to do the health clearances, and prove she had at least a little to offer. I was willing to do that and then give her a call prove her worth to the breeder and get the registration switched to full. My breeder and I talked and she gave me full registration, her decision. I think rules need to be tempered with common sense. If a well know breeder wanted one of my pups I'd probably not worry about a limited registration. But then again it would depend on the person.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I wonder if the Breeders that believe that a Limited Registration prevents unscrupulous/unethical breedings from the dogs they have sold in the past, also believe that a "No Guns Allowed" sign prevents armed robberies.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Limited Registration has been the normal approach in Golden Retrievers for a long time. (The world didn't come to an end.)


----------



## cocdawg (Mar 9, 2013)

I'm not a breeder...never will be. However, instead of blaming the byb, why not put some of the blame on the owner of that FC/AFC that's adding to the problem by allowing his/her sire to be used?


----------



## downbirds (Jan 19, 2012)

Your right Copterdoc, and making it illegal to rob a bank doesn't stop some from doing it. So if we stopped making robbing banks against the law, many would still not do it, due to their moral convictions. But some would do it if it weren't illegal. Some times we have to install regulations so to speak because, sad as it is, some would not have the ethics that we would like. Also no matter what you do, some unfortunately will still ignore the rules, and do as they see fit. We have to do what we can to make sure, as many as can, will conform to what we perceive as right. Those that would conform on their own will still do so, a few that would not will due to the rules, some that won't will just go else where, and some will cheat. I really don't want to throw up my hands and quit due to a few. And I guess I don't see where a few health clearances and some titles should be such a hurdle for so many, that are so excited about having a litter.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

There are lots of "rules", that only control those people that were already well under control.

If you are worried about what the people that you sell to, will do with what you sell them, the problem is with how you are vetting your clients.

Or, you are just a control freak.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I personally feel that any Breeder that is selling a litter that I'd even be looking at in the first place, on Limited Registration, is most likely a control freak.

And I won't buy a puppy from a control freak.


----------



## downbirds (Jan 19, 2012)

I guess my question is why. Why are you so opposed to limited registrations that can be changed to full. You say I'm a control freak by having a set of standards for clients before I sell them a pup. And yet you say I should vet my clients. isn't that part of what we are doing. We are vetting them a little longer term than a phone call or three. But it is still making sure they live up to a home, that we are comfortable placing our dogs in. Do you want a guarantee on hips and other genetic disorders when you buy a pup. Are you a control freak if you do. I don't see where this is over board, meet the minimum requirements get a full registration. Please educate me why this is a bad thing.


----------



## Dan Tongen (Nov 19, 2005)

Never have bought with limited and never will. Plenty of good litters out there

Dan


----------



## downbirds (Jan 19, 2012)

But why? Please someone maybe I'm missing something, why.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

downbirds said:


> I guess my question is why. Why are you so opposed to limited registrations that can be changed to full. You say I'm a control freak by having a set of standards for clients before I sell them a pup. And yet you say I should vet my clients. isn't that part of what we are doing. We are vetting them a little longer term than a phone call or three. But it is still making sure they live up to a home, that we are comfortable placing our dogs in.......


 The controls that best vet your clients, are the very things that bring them to your door.

You are worried about a lot of things that you have absolutely no ability to control. 
That will only drive you crazy.





downbirds said:


> .....Do you want a guarantee on hips and other genetic disorders when you buy a pup......


 No.

I want a Breeder that I can trust. That's the most important thing.
Period.

I cannot imagine a possible scenario where I could benefit from a Health Guarantee.

If the health problem is something that the Breeder couldn't have prevented, I couldn't possibly hold them liable for producing it. Even if they cover it with their Health Guarantee.

If the health problem was something that could have been prevented through Health Clearances, it was my fault for buying a pup from a breeding that didn't have those clearances.

It's not always black and white though. And for the gray areas, I need to know that I can trust the Breeder to do the right thing, just as I would hope that I would do the right thing.

If a Breeder doesn't trust me, I can't trust the Breeder. 
And a Breeder that sells on Limited Registration, is basically putting "I don't trust you." in writing, and then signing it.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

What he said......................






> No.
> 
> I want a Breeder that I can trust. That's the most important thing.
> Period.
> ...


----------



## huntinlabs (Aug 4, 2009)

X2 for me as well^^^^


----------



## Tank137 (Dec 30, 2014)

I personally would not buy limited registration. I absolutely agree with the health clearances that's a no brainier. Just cause a dog is titled doesn't make it great. Let's look at the dog that is a just a great hunter, great friend and has a great attitude, best a guy ever had and just wants to have a puppy from his best dog. 


I had three litters in my day. Did the responsible thing as any breeder should. In addition, met with and talked to all new owners. I never had any intention to be a breeder just liked what I saw in the dogs and passed it on. I enjoyed the pictures I got of the dogs with ducks, pheasants and the kids they made smile. One little guy competed nationally on agility test and had a wall full of ribbons. 


Its been a few years since I did hunt test due to work obligations and my guys getting older. I'm looking forward to running a few dogs this year. I've been reading the ever growing problem of even getting a dog entered in a hunt test. Heck, just read five minutes ago entry was full in three minutes. How does the average guy compete with that. I love working dogs, have so since I saw my first Richard Wolters seminar when I was about ten at a local sports show. I enjoyed the hunt test for many reasons and hope the issue can be resolved. 


To me appears like limited registration is potentially a way to limit the playing field as well. 


One other problem which could develope is the switching of papers or duplication of papers. If someone can copy a 100 bill with all the technology that goes into the process, anything is possible. 


Just my thoughts, respect all views on this matter


David.


----------



## downbirds (Jan 19, 2012)

So you can't respect or trust someone that cares enough to do all the test, so they can breed without any genetic problems. Then spends a lot of time and money to test and or trial their dog to show what they can do. And then on top of all that, they care enough about the breed to have some simple requirements, that should be basic requirements to ensure future generations are healthy and good retrievers. well health testing anyway should be a minimum requirement, the titles are for future buyers of the puppies offspring. Maybe I'm not a good judge of character, I've trusted people before and been burnt. I don't have any problem with someone wanting a little insurance. If I have nothing to hide take a look. Like I said I was more than willing to do limited registration, I had ever intent of meeting the breeders requirements, and I did. Oh and then some. Didn't hurt my feelings or feel my integrity was being questioned. Just a breeder wanting to safe guard the breed she loves. We love. Just say no to silvers.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

gdluck said:


> And this is why the common sense Folk don't buy the BS.
> 
> The titles are FOR YOU. You like to play the dog games. Titled parents raise the price of the pup. Heard it a thousand times " I spend a lot of time and money to prove my dog is worthy" and as said earlier titled don't always mean should reproduce. Just as untitled doesn't mean not worthy. Get a stick, throw it, if dog retrieves till you can't throw it no more = good retriever.
> 
> If you playing your games to prove the dog were valid then wouldnt that be a business expense? No need to pass the costs on to the buyer it's a write off when you claim the pup income on your taxes.


And all titles are not the same, a dog that has failed more JH than it has passed and or never finished a derby or Q but still has a title of sorts maybe a SH, again looks good on paper but a quick search on EE tells the tale.. Again I would rather know more about the dog than the " titles" it holds, when purchasing a puppy...


----------



## Clint Watts (Jan 7, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> What he said......................


I am on board with this, some of the best dogs out there have never seen a HT or a trial but are the best hunting dogs in the field and great family companions.


----------



## Clint Watts (Jan 7, 2009)

I am not a breeder and have no plans to be one, but I will skip over breeders that use limited registrations because when I buy the dog he is mine with no strings attached.


----------



## Bruce MacPherson (Mar 7, 2005)

It boils down to this for me. Exactly what is the breeder protecting? I believe with some it is about control although with the number of dogs available that seems a little silly. With some it is about genetics and that I can understand better. Unless it's a breeding that is just to spectacular to pass up I probably won't buy limited but if I did, and I have, it will be with an agreement to switch to full after a certain set of criteria have been met Frankly unless I have an above average dog I can't quite figure out why I would breed them anyway. It's certainly not that I need to witness the miracle of birth again, my own children broke me of that.


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

The problem sometimes lies with the breeder selling his pups to any moron with the cash. Place a contract with that person. And ask them to let you approve any future breedings. Offer your stud pro bono. Or even pick of litter. That would improve the chances of quality pups even with back yard breeders. 
And another problem lies with stud dog owners. Not approving bitches. Look over the pedigree. If it isn't going to be a good match pass on the cash. Send them to someone else that would match nicely.


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

downbirds said:


> I guess my question is why. Why are you so opposed to limited registrations that can be changed to full.


These are just some that come to mind:

Ebonaceae Princess
Doxie Gypsey Taurus
Dales Double Hope
Candlewood's Tiz Too
Candlewoods Delta Dash



Don


----------



## huntinlabs (Aug 4, 2009)

DSemple said:


> These are just some that come to mind:
> 
> Ebonaceae Princess
> Doxie Gypsey Taurus
> ...


Excuse me for my ignorance but what do these dogs have to do with this? Were they sold on limited then the breeder would not change to full?


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

huntinlabs said:


> Excuse me for my ignorance but what do these dogs have to do with this? We're they sold on limited then the breeder would not change to full?


He's referencing the fact that some would change the Limited to Full upon completion of contract requirements that include health clearances and obtaining a title of some sort on the dog before being bred. And that titles are not necessarily an indication of whether a dog should be bred or not. Plenty of untitled bitches have thrown titled offspring, is the point.


----------



## huntinlabs (Aug 4, 2009)

Ok thank you


----------



## ks_hunting (Dec 10, 2013)

copterdoc said:


> A Limited Registration doesn't stop anybody from breeding the dog.


This. And it can lead to the dreaded Craigslist ad: "Purebred labs... parents could have been registerred but never were." "Best huting dogs ive ever scene" (spelling errors on purpose)


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I have had a dog with limited before, no big deal. I would generally prefer full, but if it was a pup I really wanted and that was the only way, I would do it again, but there are lots of litters to choose from.

Health guarantees or somewhat of a credible commitment from the breeder, but I generally feel about them as I feel about the extended warranties they sell on cars. Sound nice but are of little practical value. Most things that would be an issue are polygenic, so if the breeder disagrees about cause, what do you do? Besides, I don't see myself giving back a two year old dog. I put more value on trust in the breeder than the guarantees.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

I do not normally breed my dogs but I definitely want the unfettered right to do so. I would not consider buying a dog with an unlimited registration. Five years down the line there could many roadblocks to obtaining a full registration including trying to find the original breeder after moving, their death, incompetence or stubbornness. 

Overall, I do not think that limited registrations have had an overall effect on the retriever gene pool. There are about a million registered Labs. Only a minute percentage come from limited registrations. I have owned healthy hunting dogs from backyard breedings in my younger days. I believe it is on the breeder to research the buyer. Limited registration are often used to limit the competition as seen in the "British" and Pointing Lab realms.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Todd Caswell said:


> And all titles are not the same, a dog that has failed more JH than it has passed and or never finished a derby or Q but still has a title of sorts maybe a SH, again looks good on paper but a quick search on EE tells the tale.. Again I would rather know more about the dog than the " titles" it holds, when purchasing a puppy...


Anyone that runs and enters a dog on EE knows how to do this...it's not rocket science. Who wouldn't want a stud dog that went 6 for 6 in MH at 2 years old vs a 7 or 8 year old dog that goes 5 for 20? So, how are you going to research a puppy if the stud and/or bitch didn't run hunt tests or trials? 

OP - on the discount/limited registration....does the buyer have to pony up the difference of the puppy price if they meet your conditions to get full registration? Or do they just have to meet your conditions of running hunt test and health clearances...because if I could get a discounted price for limited, then the dog pans out, health clearances good, and hunt test titles obtained, and I got approval for full registration, who wouldn't buy a limited in that case.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Limited Reg is not widely accepted in field homes, at least for Labs. I'd not accept one myself and I don't expect anyone else who runs their dogs to accept one either. I used to think Limited was the answer, and it works in plenty of situations for lots of people. But, I think the dilutes and BYB and millers are just too good at lying and scamming and getting what they want regardless. I'm just not devious enough to keep up with them. So, I mostly just don't sell to someone who gives me a hinky feeling and I am there to mentor those that want to do it responsibly, within the parameters of health clearances anyway. Online personas can be vastly different than talking to someone on the phone, that's where you go with your gut. The Internet can yield a wealth of background information. I belong to lots of retrievers groups on FB, I had no idea there were so many, I don't want to sell on many of them, I want to get names of those I really don't want to sell to. And sometimes, you're going to be wrong, no matter what. 

If I don't want my pups in the hands of dilute breeders or BYB or whatever, then I need to screen very carefully, or spay/neuter before I send them home. Limited does not prevent breeding, it just means my name isn't showing up on AKC-registered litters down the road. Changing a limited to full after the owner meets the requirements does not mean those offspring aren't going to end up who knows where, does not prevent carriers or affecteds a generation later, does not prevent that dog changing hands when the original owner has a life change. Contracts sound fine & dandy, but, once that registration is full, then there is nothing legally you're going to be able to do after that, I don't care what kind of contract you have. Good luck enforcing one. While I deal with stud contracts, and offer one with my guarantee, ultimately, we're all only as good as our word.

I due my due diligence on my dogs. I expect everyone else to do the same. If they do not, that's on them. I lost my god complex on thinking I'm the only one who can and will do it right. I don't even believe I do what meets every single person's goals. I breed for me and mine. I don't like puppy mills or dilute breeders either, because I think they are, by definition, perpetuating a scam and don't have the health and welfare of the breed at heart. But there are plenty that do do clearances and I think their dogs still aren't well-cared for, and don't fit what I want in a home. Screen, talk, go with your gut. 

I find it more effective these days to explain breeding to people who call, and the whys and wherefores of what, how and why I do what I do, and if we don't come to a mutual agreement, go our separate ways. They've been given the basics on what to look for as far as clearances, pedigrees, etc, the rest is up to them. Very, very few gundog/companion homes are interested in breeding. They are fine with Limited. Telling them up front that they are good enough to have a puppy but too dumb and irresponsible to breed it later, however, just doesn't work for me anymore. As long as there are buyers that are uneducated or unwilling to pay for a decently bred dog with clearances, as long as there are buyers for dilutes and doodles and whatever else comes down the pike, there will be breeders to fill that niche. Educating and providing people with a decent puppy is one of our weapons. So is Limited for some. But I don't see it flying with HT/FT folks.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Labs, nope

one of the limiteds from last litter went to a new guy to the retrieving world. he and his girlfriend turned into a good members for a rebuilding club that just had the largest training day they can remember. Good reports from friends in that club tell me they are doing great. He has worked every test they have had.

One of the limiteds in this litter I HOPE can be the same thing for my own dyeing club..... if that happens and he gets involved it will be well worth the price difference to me.

I am not FORCING limited registration on anyone, though I have turned some people away, turned some people away that only wanted limited registration, and one that was insisting on full. I look at it that if I can get new owners to turn into Good owners by getting them a good pup to start with that is worth a lot to me. An established person in the dog world that wants full, no worries. And yes I know that people can be slick and change papers and all of that. I know I cant control if they ACTUALLY breed the dog, but I can control if my name ends up on the dogs produced. There is a son of my (carrier) male near me..... that litter was bred before the test came out. People around me knew my dog, they knew the son was there.... son was never tested, the better my dog was doing the more the son got bred. sired a handful of "local litters". So part of my concern is that I know there is a good chance that son put quite a few carriers into hunting homes near me. I am content with selling my carrier pups this go around into local hunting homes (back to the maybe get a club member/training partner or two out of it) but I am not willing to risk that pup getting bred with other "local hunting dogs" knowing what I know about the pedigree of some of them....


did not realize I was starting a storm ;-)


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

The beauty of it, Fritz, is you can choose to sell on Limited or any way you want, and do whatever works for you. Nobody should be castigating you for doing so. Anymore than those who don't use limited should be blamed for the ones that don't do right by their dogs.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Kim I think we agree a lot..... like I said, I am not forcing limited on experienced people in the HT world. My limited deposits this go around are a hunting buddy, a family wanting a companion/assistance dog for a son, a patient of mine, a nephew of a friend looking for a good hunting dog, and a guy getting his first dog interested in maybe doing hunt tests. They will most likely end up with EIC carriers. The people who have put deposits on full registration females are looking for a dog that will likely get bred. One is requesting a clear, the other Prefers a clear. The price difference pays to test the litter. I do not have a full registration male yet, have wait listed three people who wanted to buy it, two as limited, one as full (not to breed just because she wanted pick). Decided I would rather hang on to that last deposit for a while....

I am not suggesting EVERY litter EVERY puppy be sold on limited.... not at all, but as Kim said, limited is a TOOL that can be used. why not use it sometimes.


----------



## westksbowhunter (Jan 24, 2005)

downbirds said:


> I've thought about this a lot too. With a planned litter, hopefully coming up this spring, my thoughts are to go limited reg., to be moved to full when the dog has, one gotten it health clearances, Hips, EIC, will be CNM clear by parentage, and CERF. Two is also titled in HT, SH or above, (or equiv. in other org.), derby points or better in FT. My girl is EIC clear but stud is carrier, I don't care for me, because I'll test, and breed accordingly, if the pups I keep show merit. I see all the crazy breeding's out there, no health clearances, no titles, but damn sired by FC AFC whom ever, sire, sired by grandson of FC AFC. They are not proving their dog has anything to add to bettering the breed, just riding on the distant shirt tails of whom ever. And no health clearances, with the technology available today why risk it. Way back when before testing I bred my NFC Granddaughter to a NFC son and ended up with a couple of EIC affected pups not only did it eat me alive spading and neutering the whole litter, then placing two affected pups, but it was heart breaking to see the little fellows with so much drive and potential,l not physically be able to do it. I feel as a breeder that I am not only responsible for my sire and damn choices, but also for the pups they produce, and not just up till they leave for their new homes. Placing them in a good, responsible home is one of my duties as a responsible breeder.


So if the dog doesn't have the ability to achieve derby points, SH or above does the owner get their money back?


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

John Lash said:


> I love that when someone is breeding a dog and selling pups they are knowledgeable and responsible. When I may set out to do the exact same thing I will somehow be irresponsible...


Exactly. 



Don


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Actually I know people that will take a pup back for any reason with in a time frame.... I know I would. I would rather have an extra dog in the house for a while then to have one of "mine" end up someplace it is not wanted.... or worse


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

As was just mentioned I will take one of my dogs back even as an adult if the owners can no longer keep it. I have only had to do it a few times in twenty + years but stuff happens. I can also refer potential clients to clients who have achieved full registration with one of my dogs so they can see that I meet the terms of my contract.

What it boils down to is what do you feel comfortable with as a breeder placing pups, or as a buyer? Then that is what you do.

Meredith


----------



## ks_hunting (Dec 10, 2013)

limiman12 said:


> Last week I noticed a lot of puppy adds for spring litters going up, having a spring litter planned myself, I was rather curious what was "out there"
> 
> .....
> 
> Thoughts?


All in all, I think your heart is in the right place Fritz, although I don't know if limited registration will really fix the breedings that aren't necessarily bettering the breed. What clearly would do that is to be more selective in where the pups go after 49 days. 

Which leads me to a curious question - how many people reading this thread use some sort of application or interview process to "approve" a buyer? Or do we just cash the check and smile?

The same argument could be made for stud dogs... most all adds say he's available to "approved bitches," but does that mean she's approved if she has a pulse and the stud fee check clears?

It's a big (in size) problem and I don't think anything will resolve BYB and dilute gene breeding, but I agree limited registration could be one tool to help.


----------



## ks_hunting (Dec 10, 2013)

mwk56 said:


> As was just mentioned I will take one of my dogs back even as an adult if the owners can no longer keep it. I have only had to do it a few times in twenty + years but stuff happens. I can also refer potential clients to clients who have achieved full registration with one of my dogs so they can see that I meet the terms of my contract.
> 
> What it boils down to is what do you feel comfortable with as a breeder placing pups, or as a buyer? Then that is what you do.
> 
> Meredith


Honest question, Meredith - do you offer this service for free to the owners or do you offer to pay them for the dog?


----------



## huntinlabs (Aug 4, 2009)

ks_hunting said:


> All in all, I think your heart is in the right place Fritz, although I don't know if limited registration will really fix the breedings that aren't necessarily bettering the breed. What clearly would do that is to be more selective in where the pups go after 49 days.
> 
> Which leads me to a curious question - how many people reading this thread use some sort of application or interview process to "approve" a buyer? Or do we just cash the check and smile?
> 
> ...


I just placed a deposit on what should be an awesome female out of running with the devil from summit labs. When talking to here there was an interview like portion before she said I could purchase one.


----------



## Clayton Evans (Jun 26, 2008)

downbirds said:


> But why? Please someone maybe I'm missing something, why.


I too will never buy a dog on limited its just another money grab from AKC to change to full. Been there and done it twice.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Dan Tongen said:


> Never have bought with limited and never will. Plenty of good litters out there
> 
> Dan


I had a similar response by a caller who had contacted our kennel club's Breeder Referral rep recently, looking for a Chocolate male to breed his Yellow female to. I asked what health clearances the guy had in place on his yellow girl. After the usual "Vet says she's healthy", he had to admit he had done None, but said she's already been bred once (2 yrs ago) so felt that wasn't necessary. I asked why he didn't use that dog now. Owner got him neutered.

I told him I was not interested nor willing to work w/ anyone who wasn't doing all of the clearances, and good luck. 

His response was there were "plenty out there". 

Hmmm, and that would be why he was calling strangers looking for studs and his bitch was already in season???


----------



## misarskennels (Mar 25, 2010)

I guess I didnt realize pointing lab breeders were such purists In the lab world, lol


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

ks_hunting said:


> Honest question, Meredith - do you offer this service for free to the owners or do you offer to pay them for the dog?


Not Meredith but I too offer lifelong return policies. So far, I've taken back 3. 2 were already 7 yrs old, so owners (one was just put in a nursing home, the other divorced) just asked me to please find good new homes for them, which I did. I did not charge the folks I re-homed those 2 to because I had very good references on them thru friends. The other dog was also a victim of marital issues, only 18 mos old, had had nice training, and earned a JH leg just a couple months prior, so I was able to sell him to a very good hunting home. I returned all of the proceeds to the original owner in that case because I felt he did his absolute best for the dog and shouldn't be on the losing end. I will do that for my owners just so I know WHERE my dogs are. I'd hate to learn of any that ended up in rescue or worse, unscrupulous hands.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

So what makes a dog worthy of breeding?


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

I take the dog back and do whatever I have to "fix" the dog and rehome it. In one instance, they created a fear biter, in another instance the dog had separation anxiety issues because of too many hours abandoned in the garage or crate. In both instances the dynamics in the family had changed and the dogs became expendable.

I did not pay the owners for these dogs--I took the dog that they perceived as a problem off their hands and they walked away. After rehabilitation, I rehomed the dogs and I can happily say they are both living wonderful lives.

I took a puppy back after just a few weeks. The pup was terrified to be with the new owners, but was fine around me. I have NO idea what happened in that home but in that instance, I refunded their purchase price and after making sure the pup was ok, sold it to a client who already had one of my dogs. He is also living happily as a companion hunting dog.

So, it depends on the circumstances, but I do ask my clients to contact me FIRST if they can no longer keep the dog.

Meredith


----------



## gdluck (May 27, 2005)

ks_hunting said:


> All in all, I think your heart is in the right place Fritz, although I don't know if limited registration will really fix the breedings that aren't necessarily bettering the breed. What clearly would do that is to be more selective in where the pups go after 49 days.
> 
> Which leads me to a curious question - how many people reading this thread use some sort of application or interview process to "approve" a buyer? Or do we just cash the check and smile?
> 
> ...


I agree that the folks here are doing what they think they can to make improvements because they care. No one should look down upon that. Some may be doing it because of ego but no point in addressing that. 

Know that old saying about the leak in the dam? What is the # of labs that we are talking about, the ones that play the game, as a percentage of the total labs? Yeah, I don't know either but safe to say a VERY small percentage. So in effect, these limited reg breeders will make no effect at all.

The next issue is your statement " bettering the breed". Well what is that? Who defines that? There are threads here recently about this issue. Some people have no qualms about breeding a 40lb bitch that looks like, as someone else said, a whippet. Breed her to a 50lb male, cause he wins ribbons, and you might get a couple 35 pounders. The test game only uses ducks. What if they win too? But can that dog pick up a limit of giant Canada's for 4 people efficiently?

The next one was the "approved bitches". I don't follow dogs as much as a lot of folk here but I have seen quite a few litters from MH titled and above studs to bitches that lacked clearances or no titles and no pedigree or all 3 above. On paper it looked like a $ only breeding. Maybe she was an exceptional bitch just didn't run tests. I don't know.

In any case they are your pups and this is America. Sell them as u see fit.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I've seen limited go wrong, namely a dog with all the health clearances, all the titles etc. etc. When it came time that they wanted to breed; Breeder could not be found, turns out breeder had died, and heirs had no interest in dogs or limited registrations. So no papers, big hindrance on a very nice female. I believe he bred the dog anyway without papers, sold dogs to hunting homes; who could careless whether they had papers or not. Heck I have a bunch of hunting buddies that have well bred dogs, who never even bothered to get papers. Anyone ever have to go back and prove an unbroken line for a couple generations years later; so you can get paperwork on a planned breeding, out of your own lines? (It's a MAJOR pain, Thank god they all were given full registration; intially) Unless you neuter-spay them right out the gate; there's no guarantee someone won't be selling "pure-bred" puppies from "proven" field lines with or without registration. I'd rather my pups have the registration, and censor the buyers; makes it easier when I have to get in and find registrations on dogs for owners that "thought they had sent them in". Had one guy, give me the never used puppy paperwork as registration on a 10 yr. old dog, with 4yr. old pups .


----------



## Ahooge (Dec 27, 2014)

mwk56 Its people like you that make me just want to.... HUG YA. I know there are a lot of people out there that buy puppies and don't know what they are getting themselves in to when they do so. Im glad there are responsible breeders out there like you that have an understanding of whatever the situation may be. i would do the same thing and for that i thank you and anyone else that would do the same. I would rather keep a puppy then find out that it ended up in a shelter. I havn't red this whole post but what i have red has given me a better understand the purpose of the limited registration and whatnot.


----------



## Dan Tongen (Nov 19, 2005)

What does limited have to do with health clearances ?
Dan


windycanyon said:


> I had a similar response by a caller who had contacted our kennel club's Breeder Referral rep recently, looking for a Chocolate male to breed his Yellow female to. I asked what health clearances the guy had in place on his yellow girl. After the usual "Vet says she's healthy", he had to admit he had done None, but said she's already been bred once (2 yrs ago) so felt that wasn't necessary. I asked why he didn't use that dog now. Owner got him neutered.
> 
> I told him I was not interested nor willing to work w/ anyone who wasn't doing all of the clearances, and good luck.
> 
> ...


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

THANKS Ahooge. I will always take a a hug  I do what I have to do to sleep at night.

I spent 40 years in Iowa and just moved last June to WA.

Meredith


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

I have a person designated in my will to take care of the dogs. She knows where all the files and registration papers are, so in the event that something happens to both me and my husband, there will be someone who has the knowledge and information to take care of any dog business.

Meredith


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Question: I know that a breeder can darken in the limited registration box on the pup's AKC registration form but what happens if the buyer registers the pup on-line?

To me, limited registration is simply a tool that some breeders want to use to prevent others from $elling pup$ which really only limits competition for $ale$. Generally has little to nothing to do with protecting the breed.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

stonybrook said:


> ......To me, limited registration is simply a tool that some breeders want to use to prevent others from $elling pup$ which really only limits competition for $ale$. Generally has little to nothing to do with protecting the breed.


 It is fairly effective "anti-piracy" protection.

What I find really ironic, especially considering the gist of the original post, is how many Silver Lab breeders are selling on LR.


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Exactly. Those idiot dilute breeders use LR to prevent others from following in their ridiculous footsteps. I guess that could be considering a "silver lining" in that there will be less of them.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

No pun intended?


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

stonybrook said:


> Question: I know that a breeder can darken in the limited registration box on the pup's AKC registration form but what happens if the buyer registers the pup on-line?
> 
> To me, limited registration is simply a tool that some breeders want to use to prevent others from $elling pup$ which really only limits competition for $ale$. Generally has little to nothing to do with protecting the breed.


When you register online, you need the number that is in the Full registration box, that's the point of blackening it out so the number can't be read. When people just started holding it up to the light to read the number through the ink anyway, then breeders started cutting out that little box and obliterating the number completely. A breeder can also lock the registration status online, before the pup gets registered by the new owner.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> A Limited Registration doesn't stop anybody from breeding the dog.





stonybrook said:


> Exactly. Those idiot dilute breeders use LR to prevent others from following in their ridiculous footsteps. I guess that could be considering a "silver lining" in that there will be less of them.


You guys just got done saying that LR doesn't prevent people from breeding dogs....why would would the LR on silver produce less of them?


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

It is a shame when the same idea can be had on an open facebook page with 5000 members about breeding a carrier and putting limited registrations on carrier pups except to the buyers he really knows and the guy is perhaps disagreed with but not accused of being a control freak, just in it for the money, or overall a Crappy person. I started the thread with three points, I did not want my name in the pedigree of a silver and hated seeing nice dogs lines slipping into silver lines. 

That I hated seeing dogs being bred without clearances. I did not want one of my pups being put into a byb situation and being bred before he or she had their clearances.....

Thirdly it was a way to perhaps spark interest with some local people to maybe save my dog club.

And I get wise ass remarks indicating that it is a gun control idea...... for the record no a sign doesn't stop an armed robbery. Doesn't mean I am going to sell a gun to a guy in a mask. 

A pot shot that because my dog points I evidently don't have a clue what is in the best Interest of the breed. Btw she has two other master titles working on the third and is a therapy dog at the age of four. Take out the point and it is still a nice litter. In facty of seven deposits only one is concerned about point. Breeding her to a Norman son out of a female that is the product of an FC X NFC breeding that happens to be a carrier.

Which brings me to my last point. If any one that honestly thinks money and "controlling" my market is anywhere in my top ten lists of concerns go back and check how much money I have put into several different dog clubs through the years. Check the fact I donated a $1250 puppy to a service dog organization last litter and talked with the guy again for this litter. Between having plenty of puppies in his program right now and this litter having a touch more go then the last I offered him cash value of the pup instead...... and found him a new foster. This is not at all about money to me. It is about wanting to breed to a very nice dog that is not being bred because folks who are JUST concerned about money and convenience don't want to mess with carrier pups. I feel responsible for the puppies produce. And for the puppies they produce..... If that makes me an ego maniac that is money hungry so be it. I have been called worse. 

Like I said a shame a decent conversation about an idea can't be had without pot shots towards character of someone with a different idea.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Labs said:


> You guys just got done saying that LR doesn't prevent people from breeding dogs....why would would the LR on silver produce less of them?


It may not produce less of them, but at least it means less will be AKC registered. Although most people buying them don't know the difference between AKC papers and all the bogus registries out there that will register a goat as a Lab as long as there's a check enclosed, as long as the dog has "papers".


----------



## chanman77 (Aug 25, 2014)

As the breeder you are free to handle your registration as you choose, however I would not be interested in a purchase, way to much hassle


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Btw... as to pointing pot shot.... Grady threw a pointing dog out of a non pointing qaa.... ammo is out of a very nice pointing dog. And many of her sibs point..... so.maybe pointing lab females shouldn't be automatically discounted or the pups they produce.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Julie has a good point. "AKC registered" adds to the price, and the gray Lab folks--as well as others-- want that cachet, since they're swimming upstream as it is. 

My pups sell almost all on limited registration, unless it's to someone I know/know of who is involved enough to trust with full. All it took for me to go to almost all limited was the following:

One of my Lab pups, back when I was raising Labs, ended up in a silver program (and they were horribly disappointed that she wouldn't produce silver--Yay!) because they weren't upfront with me when they bought the pup and there was no info available on them that would clue me in to their intent when I researched them.

And then one guy wanted full on a Chessie pup because they planned to show her (which they never did). I insisted the only way I'd give him full was to co-own her until her clearances were done at age two, which he agreed to, but I foolishly sent him the paperwork filled in that way when I should have registered her myself. He registered her on line and left me off, and proceeded to have two back-to-back litters out of her at a year and then a year and a half old, with zero clearances of any kind.

I care too much about my program to just toss puppies out there willy-nilly, with no guarantee they will be used responsibly.

And for those who say limited doesn't prevent breeding, you're right. But it does prevent AKC registration of the resulting puppies.

Edited to add: Unfortunately, the few bad apples have made it harder to trust people I don't know. And a lot of folks can portray themselves as good folks, even if they aren't trustworthy. Not a chance I'm willing to take. Selling them a car or a sofa? Sure. But not a dog.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

And I want to learn from others mistakes instead of making them on my own...... ^^^^^^^ thanks Sharon.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

From a Breeders stand point, selling dogs to the common public; I can understand limited. However if I call up on anyone's litter I expect Full Registration; as would most on this site. Of course most on this site are not the common public, and have the credentials to prove it. I've never been turned down on any litter for full registration; after talking to the breeder including show litters (who always want LR) of breeds; I'm not usually associated with. Alas I've been around buyers that should only have limited, not sure I would sell to these type. It's a good tool that a breeder can decide on an individual basis to use or not. Still if I were to be turned down for full registration after talking to the buyer; I'd find another litter; I just don't need the hassle, I already have a record of health testing; performance titles; very few if any litters; all of which can be looked up (online). If that's not enough; The breeder can sell to a Pet home and I can campaign, title and give credit to some else's lines.

Interesting thing is, I always insist on Full Registration, even on dogs that are most likely to be fixed. I like the option and I consider it a honor-trust thing btw me and the breeder; which is highly important to me. As a buyer I'm trusting you to provide a healthy pup, with potential; and guarantees that you'll stand behind; as a breeder your trusting me to take care of that dog and make the proper choices for that dogs lifetime. To me LR puts into question your trust of me, while I'm trusting you; people questioning my honor and my ability to know what's right for my own dogs just doesn't work for me. I also like blue and not red registration papers, they look better in the book even if the dog is "fixed" .


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

I appreciate hearing the viewpoint of various breeders. I can understand the mindset of going with limiteds. I don't agree with some of the methods though. 

As a purchaser, I looked at several kennels offering limited at one price and full at another. I didn't see that as a discount for limited. I saw it as a cash grab for full. I took it as, "I don't trust you to breed but if you pony up $300 more, you must be an outstanding human being." 

I don't want the hassle of going back to a breeder, things change, people move etc. I stayed away from the litters I mentioned and went with one that was full across the board.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Dan Tongen said:


> What does limited have to do with health clearances ?
> Dan


Dan, your statement of "plenty of good litters out there" and the guy who called me saying their were "plenty of chocolate studs out there" are pretty much on par. In the end, people have choices. I may not agree w/ those choices but I will protect my own breeding program. Read Sharon Potter's post, which was very good. Echoes my sentiments exactly. There are an awful lot of LOSERS out there.


----------



## ks_hunting (Dec 10, 2013)

limiman12 said:


> Like I said a shame a decent conversation about an idea can't be had without pot shots towards character of someone with a different idea.


For the record, this post was the topic of conversation last night with my wife over dinner - literally. It did stir up some good conversations about how to progress with our little kennel. 

I've enjoyed the conversation immensely even if I've only commented a few times.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

My pups are priced the same, male or female, limited or full. Makes no difference. I'm also not a fan of the staggered price structure depending on level of registration, pick order, or anything else. The pick order is one I really get a chuckle out of. To a lot of folks, "first pick" means "best puppy" for some strange reason.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

brian breuer said:


> I appreciate hearing the viewpoint of various breeders. I can understand the mindset of going with limiteds. I don't agree with some of the methods though.
> 
> As a purchaser, I looked at several kennels offering limited at one price and full at another. I didn't see that as a discount for limited. I saw it as a cash grab for full. I took it as, "I don't trust you to breed but if you pony up $300 more, you must be an outstanding human being."
> 
> I don't want the hassle of going back to a breeder, things change, people move etc. I stayed away from the litters I mentioned and went with one that was full across the board.


For one, the AKC seriously opposes selling puppies for more w/ papers vs w/o. I would think differing prices based on Full vs Limited would be portrayed the same too, but I don't really know. 

I remember when this topic came up years ago here and one of my litters was being planned or was on the ground. An RTFer who opposed Limited initially on similar grounds (what if something happened to me in the meantime, etc), ended up buying a male (my pick male). Had BIG plans for him.... show, obedience, hunt tests, and even field trials.... He's probably the only puppy in that litter that did not even get registered, let alone titled or health cleared. He had an "oops" litter early on (which I forgave because accidents happen and the owner was very forthright w/ the information), is a loved family companion, but I can't help but be disappointed. I can think of a few more examples of people wanting Full, saying they'd do this and that, and it was all talk. Once you sell that pup on Full reg, that's it.... you have just lost any control on the situation.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

windycanyon said:


> He had an "oops" litter early on (which I forgave because accidents happen and the owner was very forthright w/ the information), is a loved family companion, but I can't help but be disappointed. I can think of a few more examples of people wanting Full, saying they'd do this and that, and it was all talk.


Devil Advocate, I'm assuming the male was offered with Limited Registration. What if one of the owners of a pup from that opps litter, has trained that dog, and eventually wants to get papers on his pup. Say the mom is registered, and this new owner comes to you after a few years and asks you to register-remove limited from the sire? Say this new owner has got addicted to these retriever games, might have NAHRA-HRC titles; looking to run AKC, said dog is a female, with health clearances that he might want to breed later? Would you remove the Limited, thus making any of the pups from a Limited registered dog, registrable?


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

My philosophy and Sharon's are the same. I screen heavily and I sell on limited. I sell on full to people I know and trust and also other times. I sell at the same price regardless of sex, color, carrier or not, limited or full. By doing otherwise insinuates that there is something 'wrong' with the lower prices pups. I take dogs back. I'm about to do so with a devastating congenital problem puppy from my last litter. 

Breeding is hard. Just like everything else in this world there is NO one size fits all policy. We have to make the right decisions for the puppies we breed. It may be different for you and for me. I want to make sure my dogs go to homes where they are healthy and happy. That is the bottom line. 

Sue Puff


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Devil Advocate, I'm assuming the male was offered with Limited Registration. What if one of the owners of a pup from that opps litter, has trained that dog, and eventually wants to get papers on his pup. Say the mom is registered, and this new owner comes to you after a few years and asks you to register-remove limited from the sire? Say this new owner has got addicted to these retriever games, might have NAHRA-HRC titles; looking to run AKC, said dog is a female, with health clearances that he might want to breed later? Would you remove the Limited, thus making any of the pups from a Limited registered dog, registrable?


My contract is with the owner of the dog purchased from me. To change his limited to full with him not keeping up his end? No. But if he gets the needed clearances on the dog he got from me, I'd change it to full, no problem, and then he would get the fun of trying to get that "oops" litter registered after the fact, assuming the owner of the female would also cooperate. If he wouldn't hold up his end...which I would hope the owner of the "oops" puppy would push or even pay for if it were that important...then I'd still say no. Lesson learned. Don't buy unregistered puppies from backyard breeders. I'd certainly feel bad for the guy, and probably offer him a good deal on a registered puppy since he's showing strong interest and wants it...but I won't reward the other guy who won't follow through.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

limiman12 said:


> It is a shame when the same idea can be had on an open facebook page with 5000 members about breeding a carrier and putting limited registrations on carrier pups except to the buyers he really knows and the guy is perhaps disagreed with but not accused of being a control freak, just in it for the money, or overall a Crappy person. I started the thread with three points, I did not want my name in the pedigree of a silver and hated seeing nice dogs lines slipping into silver lines.
> 
> That I hated seeing dogs being bred without clearances. I did not want one of my pups being put into a byb situation and being bred before he or she had their clearances........


 Limiman, what difference does it make, whether a pup is a "carrier" or not?

The answer is that it doesn't make any difference at all.

Either the client is going to do the health clearances, or they aren't. 
Either the client is going to breed to another dog that has the health clearances, or they aren't.

Carrying a single Recessive Allele in one single specific locus of the 9th chromosome, is the only thing that is "different" that you are looking at when you see the results "EIC-carrier".

There's a whole lot more that's "wrong" in the DNA of a dog.
*ANY *dog!!!!!!

And we have a test for this one problem, that means we can avoid producing this one problem, by doing a simple buccal swab, or blood draw and sending it in for less than $100. 

OFA hip and elbow X-rays are a lot more expensive. And even then, the OFA can't guarantee you that you won't produce any dysplastic offspring.

You are tripping over mouse turds. 
Actually, not even turd_*s*_, but one single turd.

There is no discernable difference between a carrier or a clear pup in your litter. 

Certainly not a difference so significant, that the "clears" should go on a Full Registration, but if the same guy buys a (gasp!) "carrier", it has to go out on a Limited.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

People have got to get over this carrier stuff. Thank god we have the test to PREVENT disease!!! I would buy a carrier pup from a good breeding any day!! You can breed around it. AND I would EXPECT to pay full price!


----------



## SPEED (Jul 12, 2013)

I started doing limited registrations on pups years ago but if the person makes an honest effort to title the dog I will release it. I also will let them go without the limited to people who have dogs competing, titling and doing well or people I know personally to be responsible people or even friend of people I know and respect who give me the high sign. I started doing that when I started getting people wanting to buy them and do nothing else with them except have them sit in a kennel popping out puppies. IE "I see you have one chocolate female left and I want to buy her". I ask, "What are your plans for the dog?" Their response, "To use her for a brood bitch". (at least they were honest). I ask, "Do you plan on training or hunting her?" Their response, "No, just breed out of her". My response, "Sorry, that won't work for you because I am selling her on a limited." That pup I later sold to a family home where she will never have any pups and they now have over 50 titles on her - I would have happily sold her to the last person without the limited registration. The reason I do the limited is to keep my dogs in homes with people who will train them and do something with them - anything... just go throw balls for the dog... I do it to get my dogs with people who will appreciate them. I don't want to see my dogs end up sitting in a kennel looking at the world through chain link - popping out puppies and that is the only world they would ever know. I like my dogs far to much to have them end up like that. So, just posting the limited requirement helps weed them out.

A couple years ago I had a guy call me to tell me he bought one of my dogs from somebody else and wanted to know if I would release the limited - he had an HR title on her already. I released it - he got an HRCH title on her and I believe an MH. Actually that has happened a couple times. I don't have a hard fast rule for the limited status.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

The only seemingly valid arguments supporting LR, are always going to be easily broken down into an issue of control.

That's what LR is all about. 
But there are lots of things that can "happen" that we can't control.

Lots and lots of things. 
No matter how much we wish we could, we just can't.

And that's probably a good thing. Because, a lot of people are nuts.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> The only seemingly valid arguments supporting LR, are always going to be easily broken down into an issue of control.
> 
> That's what LR is all about.
> But there are lots of things that can "happen" that we can't control.
> ...


For me, it's not about control. 

It's about responsibility. I am responsible for the dogs I bring into this world. And I hate that I have to be responsible for them after they leave my hands simply because someone else may not be as responsible.


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

I'm pretty much in the same boat with Sharon, Sue, and Julie. It has NOTHING to do with control, EVERYTHING about responsibility. Again, someone "in the game" that I can see titles and clearances on their dogs, ok'd by another trusted breeder because a friend, etc, I go ahead with full registration. If I don't know you, can't find anything on you, you can't show me a dog in your name with clearances, it's on limited until clearances and titled, I even have it in my contract AKC can change it on my behalf in the event of my death, can't be located IF no failing OFAs and a title is achieved. A JH title isn't so hard that the average person shouldn't be able to train the dog to do it and it doesn't cost "that much" in the grand scheme of things, a lot of times it can be done in 2 weekends. IF there was a documented injury (ie broken leg that didn't heal to be good under the stress of training, not worth the dog's long term orthopedic soundness) that prevented further training, I would take that into consideration or if they made a bona fide attempt (ie if they started in Master, had a couple of passes, since it's hard to get in, I understand those things), so I covered the buyer if something were to happen to me and everything with the the dogs had not been settled with my estate. 

AKC will send a letter to get a response if someone sends an unsigned application. I had a lady contact me a couple of years ago that bred to a male I sold on limited registration that was born a good bit of time before EIC testing was available. I KNOW his dam was a carrier, she produced an affected puppy with another sire. I also learned his sire "could" have been since his grandsire produced affected offspring. Didn't know these things at the time of the breeding, but now there's a test for it. FFW, this lady was contacting me because she had a litter of over 10 that she wanted to register. I told her the requirements for the puppy I produced and HIGHLY recommended that she do the same. Apparently, the owner of the male said he wouldn't because the next thing I know, she unfriended me and had sent the application to AKC. I checked OFA for a few weeks and then called AKC and said no go. I hate it for her, but if there was chance of being EIC affected puppies, the buyers "should" be informed before purchase. In my opinion, it reflects on me as a "breeder with a kennel" if it's produced by the offspring...EVERYONE and their brother brags of "Candlewood lines" even if the dog that came from Mary isn't even on the papers anymore. She was able to find me even though I had remarried, all different phone numbers, e-mail addressies, etc, only thing the same was a couple of my dogs and where I lived...she called me before e-mailing. I had another client that bought a puppy, at 15 months or so when she went in heat, his male tore through 2 layers of chainlink to get to her. I had him do prelims after they were born, he actually did them when the puppies were 5 or 6 weeks old, they came back excellent/normal, CERF clear, he already had 2 passes on her JH, I changed it to full. He has since put her SH on her and done finals at just over 4 years old that came back excellent/normal, still hasn't bred her again, I actually asked because I had someone looking for what she would produce.


----------



## WWoolley (May 27, 2014)

For those of you responsible people wanting to do limited registration.... Was your first lab under limited registration? Would you have purchased it this way? I think you do the best you can to place your pups in the homes of responsible people. After that its up to them. I personally would not buy a lab with limited registration.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

huntinlabs said:


> So are you saying if a person doesn't run in some type of test they are irresponsible? I can see clearances but getting some type of title? Come on. I am getting a pup and she will have full registration with no stipulations. However I am going to run her in both ft and ht and she will have clearances so doesn't matter to me one bit. I just think that saying if you don't get such and such on your dog you can't breed her. Some people have families and sometimes life happens to where a guy can't run test. So now he can't Breed his female even if she was the best dog he ever had done his research and had all clearances?


So what's the big deal? Just buy YOUR pup from someone who doesnt do limited registration. Don't rail at he ones that do.


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

yes, I bought a field bred pup two years ago--today is his second birthday--on LIMITED registration from a breeder who does basically the same as I do. She offered me full, but I told her I was fine with her terms and the requirements of changing limited to full. Got two JH passes last fall, has his eye exam next week and hips and elbows the following week. I will get his last two JH passes the first local test this spring and the requirements will be met. Then on to SH.

Meredith


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

2tall said:


> So what's the big deal? Just buy YOUR pup from someone who doesnt do limited registration. Don't rail at he ones that do.


Exactly. Plenty of room for everyone, there is no need to castigate those who choose to use Limited any more than there is to say that those who don't are breeding irresponsibly. Works both ways.


----------



## DFB (May 5, 2014)

I see putting limited reg on carrier pups as a good thing. I bought a female non carrier a couple years back that turned out to be the best dog I've ever ran, hunted with, rode with, watched tv with, or anything else. The dam had full reg and all health clearances. The sire had limited until hips and elbows could be done. Fellow has to go out of town for work leaves wife to watch bitch in heat and the limited male to make sure they don't get together. Ole boy didn't think about his kids. The kids get home from school and let the dogs out to play, and play they did. Result is a litter that can't be registered AKC but thankfully can be UKC registered. Stud winds up passing all clearances and is now full registered. The result of all of this is I have a bitch that could have done well in derbies and akc test but can't play. She has never failed a hrc test, is a perfect companion, is absolutely perfect breed standards, has all her health clearances, and can't contribute to the gene pool.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

DFB said:


> I see putting limited reg on carrier pups as a good thing. I bought a female non carrier a couple years back that turned out to be the best dog I've ever ran, hunted with, rode with, watched tv with, or anything else. The dam had full reg and all health clearances. The sire had limited until hips and elbows could be done. Fellow has to go out of town for work leaves wife to watch bitch in heat and the limited male to make sure they don't get together. Ole boy didn't think about his kids. The kids get home from school and let the dogs out to play, and play they did. Result is a litter that can't be registered AKC but thankfully can be UKC registered. Stud winds up passing all clearances and is now full registered. The result of all of this is I have a bitch that could have done well in derbies and akc test but can't play. She has never failed a hrc test, is a perfect companion, is absolutely perfect breed standards, has all her health clearances, and can't contribute to the gene pool.


I don't understand your point. You got a pup from a litter that you knew wasn't AKC registered, sounds like the breeder was up front if you know the details re; the oops breeding. So, after the pup turned out to be a great dog, now it is somehow on the sire's breeder for selling that pup on Limited in the first place, so your female can't have AKC registered pups now? And what does carrier have to do with any of this? I'm confused.


----------



## DFB (May 5, 2014)

Oh I'm not complaining either way. He was up front and the only thing I regret is not being able to help the breed by passing on the numeral desirable traits in my dog. I don't really have an opinion either way, I was just sharing the situation with limited registration I had been involved with. As far as the carrier thing, I've talked to some breeders that sell eic carrier dogs under limited reg only. I can see the logic in that I guess. I wasn't trying to lobby either way and apologize for any confusion. As I said I was just sharing an experience.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

DFB said:


> Oh I'm not complaining either way. He was up front and the only thing I regret is not being able to help the breed by passing on the numeral desirable traits in my dog. I don't really have an opinion either way, I was just sharing the situation with limited registration I had been involved with. As far as the carrier thing, I've talked to some breeders that sell eic carrier dogs under limited reg only. I can see the logic in that I guess. I wasn't trying to lobby either way and apologize for any confusion. As I said I was just sharing an experience.


Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

DFB, the breeder "may" still be able to register the litter. It will cost more because they are over 6 months done. Personally, I would at least try. Others have been able to get the dogs registered because there's an unbroken line of AKC registered dogs. You may have to do DNA testing on your dogs and the breeder of both of the parents, but you could offer to pay it if it's worth it to you to get the AKC papers on your dog. The oops breeding that happened with my client, they were able to register the litter (granted the puppies were still young, so no extra charges).


----------



## DFB (May 5, 2014)

I am in the process of getting it all worked out now. I already have my dogs DNA test and it's good, just need to find out what all AKC needs. I'll keep you updated.


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

DFB said:


> I see putting limited reg on carrier pups as a good thing. I bought a female non carrier a couple years back that turned out to be the best dog I've ever ran, hunted with, rode with, watched tv with, or anything else. The dam had full reg and all health clearances. The sire had limited until hips and elbows could be done. Fellow has to go out of town for work leaves wife to watch bitch in heat and the limited male to make sure they don't get together. Ole boy didn't think about his kids. The kids get home from school and let the dogs out to play, and play they did. Result is a litter that can't be registered AKC but thankfully can be UKC registered. Stud winds up passing all clearances and is now full registered. The result of all of this is I have a bitch that could have done well in derbies and akc test but can't play. She has never failed a hrc test, is a perfect companion, is absolutely perfect breed standards, has all her health clearances, and can't contribute to the gene pool.


If the stud dog now has full registration, the breeder can absolutely now register the litter. As others have said, it will cost more.


----------



## saltgrass (Sep 22, 2008)

So just curious. .. I have all the health clearances on my female but don't run hunt test. Due to not enough time to train enough and can't afford to leave her with a trainer during the test season. She picks up 200-400 birds a year. Her dam is out of FC AFC Howdy ND a GHRCH,MH, QAA female. That was used the same way and spent time with a pro. She also has spent time with a pro. her sire is FC AFC Kicker. 
Because I don't run test and have a title on her I shouldn't breed her is what I am getting from some of you?


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Devil Advocate, I'm assuming the male was offered with Limited Registration. What if one of the owners of a pup from that opps litter, has trained that dog, and eventually wants to get papers on his pup. Say the mom is registered, and this new owner comes to you after a few years and asks you to register-remove limited from the sire? Say this new owner has got addicted to these retriever games, might have NAHRA-HRC titles; looking to run AKC, said dog is a female, with health clearances that he might want to breed later? Would you remove the Limited, thus making any of the pups from a Limited registered dog, registrable?


 Read my post again. This dog was never even registered by the owner. The resulting puppies were sold to people w/ full knowledge that they were unregisterable, by that person's choice.... not mine. I have conversion options in place. The owner must do all the required health testing, regular vet visits (and cleared of anything that would put it out of the breeding pool) and put at least one title on the dog. I think I'm pretty easy to work with.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

DFB said:


> I see putting limited reg on carrier pups as a good thing. I bought a female non carrier a couple years back that turned out to be the best dog I've ever ran, hunted with, rode with, watched tv with, or anything else. The dam had full reg and all health clearances. The sire had limited until hips and elbows could be done. Fellow has to go out of town for work leaves wife to watch bitch in heat and the limited male to make sure they don't get together. Ole boy didn't think about his kids. The kids get home from school and let the dogs out to play, and play they did. Result is a litter that can't be registered AKC but thankfully can be UKC registered. Stud winds up passing all clearances and is now full registered. The result of all of this is I have a bitch that could have done well in derbies and akc test but can't play. She has never failed a hrc test, is a perfect companion, is absolutely perfect breed standards, has all her health clearances, and can't contribute to the gene pool.


The male / stud has to first get the conversion to Full. Since it was the kids at fault, he'd probably be forgiven for the "oops" breeding. So that happened. NEXT, the BREEDER(of the Oops litter) would have to late register the litter. That can be done. Then the owners would get their paperwork from the owner of the Ooops breeding. That is how it can work.... OTOH, if you bought this pup w/ full understanding that your pup was unregisterable w/ AKC, get over it. I bet you got a discount price that smelled pretty good at the time too.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

saltgrass said:


> So just curious. .. I have all the health clearances on my female but don't run hunt test. Due to not enough time to train enough and can't afford to leave her with a trainer during the test season. She picks up 200-400 birds a year. Her dam is out of FC AFC Howdy ND a GHRCH,MH, QAA female. That was used the same way and spent time with a pro. She also has spent time with a pro. her sire is FC AFC Kicker.
> Because I don't run test and have a title on her I shouldn't breed her is what I am getting from some of you?


How are you going to afford the breeding part (time and money aspects both) if you can't afford to put a title on such an outstanding bitch? It is a concern I have. I have told any and all who I've sold on Full to (or converted) that they need to have $5000 in savings that they can afford to loose before doing a breeding. Because, **** CAN happen. And I hope to heck they spend a little time trying to understand the basic genetics in advance too. I can't believe how many don't even understand basic puppy care, let alone genetics. Sorry but there are far too many breeding (even great pedigrees) to trust everyone anymore. And yes to whomever asked about the first puppy bought--- mine was back in 1992 before Limited Reg. And YES, many of us made mistakes w/ our first. At least some of us were quick studies and limited the issues quickly but I am not sure I can trust just anyone, even friends, anymore. Live and learn because mistakes bite you in the butt more often than not.


----------



## DFB (May 5, 2014)

Windcanyon, I have nothing to get over.


----------



## saltgrass (Sep 22, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> How are you going to afford the breeding part (time and money aspects both) if you can't afford to put a title on such an outstanding bitch? It is a concern I have. I have told any and all who I've sold on Full to (or converted) that they need to have $5000 in savings that they can afford to loose before doing a breeding. Because, **** CAN happen. And I hope to heck they spend a little time trying to understand the basic genetics in advance too. I can't believe how many don't even understand basic puppy care, let alone genetics. Sorry but there are far too many breeding (even great pedigrees) to trust everyone anymore. And yes to whomever asked about the first puppy bought--- mine was back in 1992 before Limited Reg. And YES, many of us made mistakes w/ our first. At least some of us were quick studies and limited the issues quickly but I am not sure I can trust just anyone, even friends, anymore. Live and learn because mistakes bite you in the butt more often than not.


Didn't say I couldn't afford to put a title on her. well I guess not being able to afford paying a pro to take her and run her 6 months out of the year is just that. I would love to run test but I may only get 1 to 2 days training most weeks at best and that to me is not enough training to go run test.

As far as affording the breeding that's not the problem. And time for pups isn't either. have a wife, daughter and my vet lives pretty much next to me. yes cap can happen been there done that. I have had two litters with my last female. these two are not my first one have had 5-8 litters before that , witch 16-20 yrs ago. Before I knew anything about clearances. 
Thanks for your response, just what I was expecting. ...


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

windycanyon said:


> Read my post again. This dog was never even registered by the owner. The resulting puppies were sold to people w/ full knowledge that they were unregisterable, by that person's choice.... not mine.


As the breeder of unregistered stud dog, you could register said dog. If you as breeder register said dog you could also register any litters stud dog has had. I did read the post and assume as you "understood an oops breeding" that you might've given the dog full registration so the pups could be registered, of course you might've required health testing on the stud. IF that didn't happen I can understand not lifting limited on an unregistered dog. Still if a puppy buyer came to me later and has health tested on an oops pup, titled the dog and will pay all the late registration fees. I would most likely register the stud and the litter.,which one can do as the orginal litter owner. As I like my offspring to be legitimate, and will bend over backwards for those who have put in the effort, I might wait until the orginal sire has been fixed or to is to old to breed but I wouldn't punish someone who bought a dog, maybe even knowing it couldn't be registered, if they invested the time & commitment to work & title that dog. Yes I have done this very thing, registered a sire, Then register-approved a litter, so they could get full registration on a female; with titles & health cerf. so they could get a single breeding and run AKC tests. Perhaps I'm one of those rare people-breeders that could be trusted with limited registration; However i don't believe in it, people will do what they will do, I hope that I'm intuative enough to screen buyers so my pups don't end up in a situation where I regret giving full registration. But If I choose entrust the owners with one of my pups, I trust them to make the best choices for those pups, without me micromanaging them.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> .........of course you might've required health testing on the stud. IF that didn't happen I can understand not lifting limited on an unregistered dog........


 Why?

What happened, actually happened. And nothing can be done to "fix" what happened.

What "good" can possibly come from making an entire litter of otherwise eligible, and even perhaps "well bred" puppies, *not *be eligible for registration?

Whether or not the Sire has his health clearances, or has titled, is irrelevant. That ship has sailed. The time to "save face" has passed. In fact, the time for the Breeder to save face passed at the time that the Breeder sold the Stud as a puppy. That's all water under the bridge. There's no going back.

So, what good does LR do? 
Ever?

The fact is that it doesn't. 
Breeders use it for leverage. And that's really and truly all that it's actually and honestly "good" for.

Even if the Breeder's heart is in the right place (and I'm not saying that it is, because I really think that it usually isn't), using LR ultimately means that their head is not in the right place.

They are trying to control things that they have no ability (or responsibility) to control.


----------



## pat addis (Feb 3, 2008)

I have never bought a dog with the idea of breeding and don't breed them but I don't think I would buy a dog with limited registration. to me it would be like buying a car and being told you could never race it. I might never do it but I might


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

pat addis said:


> I have never bought a dog with the idea of breeding and don't breed them but I don't think I would buy a dog with limited registration. to me it would be like buying a car and being told you could never race it. I might never do it but I might


Yeah, but you would still have to meet certain requirements in order to race, pay fee, belong to a club, etc etc....pretty sure you're not going to put a Pinto on the track....=).


----------



## Golden6824 (Mar 28, 2010)

DFB said:


> The result of all of this is I have a bitch that could have done well in derbies and akc test but can't play.


She could still run AKC hunt tests, although she would have to be spayed.


----------



## Golden6824 (Mar 28, 2010)

For those breeders who charge more for full registration, is there any kind of refund if the dog turns out not to be good breeding quality? My thought when I've seen that advertised is I can't imagine paying hundreds of extra dollars for a "possibility" of breeding.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

WI'm in favor of allowing breeders to keep the Limited Registration option as a tool. It's free enterprise, they can limit the registration and buyers can go elsewhere if they are uncomfortable with that deal. 

The reality is breeders aren't worried about people like us, they are worried about the uneducated or unethical. It's easy to say they should vet their buyers better, but that would have prevented me as a nobody from buying my first 'good' dog, despite my declaration of good intentions over the phone. Thankfully I was able to buy a pup on limited registration at a discount, and over the years prove myself to the breeder. I never needed or wanted to breed that dog (see my avatar), but by the time I was ready for another pup I had earned credibility and the breeder was anxious to sell me a full registered pup with a discount.

But that's just me, nobody is twisting your arm and making you buy somebody's pup.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

pat addis said:


> I have never bought a dog with the idea of breeding and don't breed them but I don't think I would buy a dog with limited registration. to me it would be like buying a car and being told you could never race it. I might never do it but I might


Most breeders discount the price on limited registered pups and will switch to full registration once you have proven yourself. You typically have to pay the difference in cost, but is negotiable.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

This was in my home town paper today. 

 
 Beautiful registered 
 *Ad placed on 1/24/2015
*  »Enhanced from Albany Herald«
 *Ad ends on 2/8/2015
*  Beautiful registered labradoodle puppies, shots & wormed $450 xxx-xxxx or xxx-xxxx
 Price: $450.00  
 


----------



## sick lids (Sep 25, 2012)

From a purchasers standpoint, pups sold on limited registration, with strings attached show a lack in confidence and quality in their stock. It also conveys an air of arrogance and contempt towards the purchaser. I will never buy a pup on limited registration, nor will even consider one from someone willing to make an exception for me.

Responsible breeders do not want the government intruding on their practices why would they want to do so to those purchasing from them.

Just how much is AKC registration worth when they allow silvers to be registered? Buffoonism at its best.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I'm noticing a trend here. 

The folks most against limited tend to be buyers that don't breed. 
Haven't heard as yet from anyone who regularly breeds and says "every dog goes with full registration because we don't care what happens to it after your check clears."


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

How about these girls Sharon, limited or full registration?

Bertrams Shot of Capt. Morgan
Poisett's I Love Lucy
Fireweeds Quick Draw
Kirby's Keeper
Northcreek Hardrock Epoch

Or maybe these girls:
JJ's Riverside Shelby
Clippers Dilwyn Mink
Corvette of Thunder River


Don


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Don, are you asking if they should have been sold on limited? Or if their pups should have been?


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> Don, are you asking if they should have been sold on limited? Or if their pups should have been?


If these girls should have been sold on limited. Would they have made the cut at 8 weeks of age for full registration? As you know they are all ancestors of your Toby, that while untitled somebody thought enough of to raise a litter from.

My point Sharon is that a lot of the very best dogs in all the retriever breeds have come from parents or a parent without any titles and who can say at 8 weeks which pups are going to be worthy or unworthy for breeding 4, 6 or even 8 years down the road? 


Don


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Don, I don't think anybody is making a judgement call as to breeding quality at 8 weeks.  

First, had limited even been available back then, all the dogs you list were either bred by and retained, or purchased by reputable people involved in the breed, so it's highly likely they'd have been sold (or kept) on full registration based on who was buying them and their background. It's possible that their littermates, if sold to gun dog and pet homes, may well have been on limited. Hindsight is always 20/20. And whether or not a bitch is titled means very little to me in most cases. It's what the dog is, not what their owner's hobby on weekends is, that matters to me (FC-AFC being my one exception).

Second, had the genetic testing for DM we have today been available, it's highly possible one very well known breeding may not have even happened. And with that genetic knowledge, pups sold on limited would have to be tested by their buyers should they decide to breed and change to full, so the disease wouldn't be passed along. 

I'm currently working with one of my puppy buyers from a couple of years ago who wants to have one litter and have me change his bitch to full registration, which I will gladly help him do. We're working together to get it done, since he's relying on me to guide the process. I think it's giving him a whole new respect level for what breeders do, realizing the expenses involved. He plans to keep two pups and has someone else wanting one as well. He has a friend's dog picked out to breed to, and I asked him what that dog's clearances are....it never occurred to him to ask, and now he's having to make sure that's done too, so he knows his future two hunting dogs will have a good shot at long, healthy lives.

All I want are continuing health clearances. That's it. And I'm not sure why anyone would object to doing those?


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Clint Watts said:


> I am not a breeder and have no plans to be one, but I will skip over breeders that use limited registrations because when I buy the dog he is mine with no strings attached.


Just an FYI on "limited" registration. 

You fully own the dog. No co-ownership involved.

You can train and compete in all performance events; get any titles that you and dog are capable of.

There are only two things you cannot do: you cannot compete in conformation; and your dog cannot produce AKC registerable puppies. 

If someone has no plans to become a breeder, then these two conditions are simply non-issues.

However, limited registration is one way to quickly turn off those who inquire about pups & think it is a way to earn some easy money with stud services or raising litters. 

Vetting the buyers: Some people are very good at saying all the right things, but do not always follow through on doing the right things. Being human, breeders can make mistakes in their assessment of a buyer. Just a reality.

Just recently learned of some breeder/buyer situations that did not turn out well. Basically, good people who ultimately misunderstood what each had agreed to do if the dog turned out well. As alluded to by others, sometimes a people lose objectivity in assessing a dog they love. After many years, many breeders have experienced this, and try to limit the "damage" that can be done by losing objectivity.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> Don, I don't think anybody is making a judgement call as to breeding quality at 8 weeks.
> 
> First, had limited even been available back then, all the dogs you list were either bred by and retained, or purchased by reputable people involved in the breed, so it's highly likely they'd have been sold (or kept) on full registration based on who was buying them and their background. It's possible that their littermates, if sold to gun dog and pet homes, may well have been on limited. Hindsight is always 20/20. And whether or not a bitch is titled means very little to me in most cases. It's what the dog is, not what their owner's hobby on weekends is, that matters to me (FC-AFC being my one exception).
> 
> ...


Sharon, a really good example of why breeders use limited registration.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> I'm noticing a trend here.
> 
> The folks most against limited tend to be buyers that don't breed.
> Haven't heard as yet from anyone who regularly breeds and says "every dog goes with full registration because we don't care what happens to it after your check clears."


Wish there was a "like" button 

So true. Breeders put their bitch's life on the line to whelp a litter. Yes, they do. Then breeders get to hold dead puppies; or try to save puppies that will die in spite of all you try to do. It makes one very much aware of how precious each one of those lives is, even if they will never have a bunch of titles before or after their names. It's a lot of responsibility to cause those lives to be created; one that doesn't end at 8 wks. It's about caring, not "control".


----------



## bigo181979 (Dec 3, 2013)

I purchased a chocolate out of a sister to ammo and the stud was maestro, so very well bred with limited registration. But with the agreement that once all health clearances are met I would be granted a full registration. It concerned me at first but after talking with a few "pros" and breeders they said it's a fairly common practice and I had nothing to worry about. I have already had her eic tested and she is at the pro being trained now as soon as she reaches 2 I will have the rest of her texting performed to lift the limited registrStion. It is definitely an added cost given I am just starting out with my breeding program but it is something i intended to do anyway to be responsible.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> It's about caring, not "control"


This is the truth.


----------



## Clint Watts (Jan 7, 2009)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Just an FYI on "limited" registration.
> 
> You fully own the dog. No co-ownership involved.
> 
> ...


I understand and respect your reasoning, but my position stands. As I have no plans to breed in the future, that does not mean that my dog will not someday be the next superstar with folks wanting to breed to him or her.

Let's say I purchase the pup for $1,500, invest say $20 to $30 thousand in training and incidentals (pretty conservative numbers) and decide to breed him or her. I am now at the mercy of the seller to tell me what I can or cannot do with my property. I have also heard that many breeders will release to full registration for a price which in my opinion is crooked. There are those that have the right intentions and most on this forum who advocate limited do it for what they feel is a legitimate reason. I would be willing to bet that there is a high percentage of breeders that use this as a tool for increased profits.

So my beliefs will be unchanged. Thanks

Clint Watts


----------



## motor-vater (Oct 28, 2013)




----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> Let's say I purchase the pup for $1,500, invest say $20 to $30 thousand in training and incidentals (pretty conservative numbers) and decide to breed him or her. I am now at the mercy of the seller to tell me what I can or cannot do with my property. I have also heard that many breeders will release to full registration for a price which in my opinion is crooked. There are those that have the right intentions and most on this forum who advocate limited do it for what they feel is a legitimate reason. I would be willing to bet that there is a high percentage of breeders that use this as a tool for increased profits.


I would hope that the breeder who feels limited reg. a responsible thing to do, would also not hesitate to lift the limited reg. for someone who had done all the health assessments and had a "superstar" as well. The breeder will benefit from puppies sold later as a result of that success. Your healthy superstar is worth tons in "advertising." The responsible breeder should jump at the chance to bank your good will & congratulate you on your achievements and thank you for your responsible ownership.

Most breeders I know do NOT charge anything additional for converting to full registration ... but I have heard of that being done.

I did forget that there is another reason for wanting health evals done to convert the reg. to "full". As breeders we have learned that the info on health for an entire litter is VERY valuable. I just had a litter of 8 all complete their health certs. The %-age of healthy hips & elbows looked better after the results came in on the last two. (75% normal hips ultimately) Having complete litter info like this can be quite informative, not only for me, but for others who might want to do a similar combination. Responsible owners and responsible breeders are partners in advancing the soundness of their chosen breed.

Clint, it is not necessary for anyone to change your position, but it is helpful for you (and others) to better understand why breeders use limited registration rather than assume it is just obsession with "control". It can be a demonstration of their sense of responsibility and caring for the breed. If you had a friend that was looking for a puppy, you might have an indication of the integrity of a breeder to refer them to. You would be able to explain the pros and cons to your friend. While limited reg. might not be your cup of tea, it might not be of consequence to your friend. So, it doesn't hurt to explain the other perspective on the issue.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> I would hope that the breeder who feels limited reg. a responsible thing to do, would also not hesitate to lift the limited reg. for someone who had done all the health assessments and had a "superstar" as well..........


 No, that's what someone dumb enough to buy a pup on a Limited Registration, hopes.

Reality, is something different than hope.


----------



## Clint Watts (Jan 7, 2009)

motor-vater said:


>


I am a little lost here???


----------



## motor-vater (Oct 28, 2013)

Clint Watts said:


> I am a little lost here???


After reading the OP's post (basically condoning everyone for a crime he admits to being guilty of) I figured this was gonna turn into a breed nazi thread. I cant help but love that PETA video, I hate to give them hits on it but dam its funny!


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Reflection Payback:
I had a coworker who being married but childless had a longtime terrier (AKC) die. I was the resident dog "expert" w/AKC FT-HT competition/judging/breeding. She asked me about pups and I suggested something other than terrier breeds (Lab/Golden/AWS) where I knew excellent breeders w/healthy/clearance/performance achieved stock. She tried to get an Irish Terrier and was (1995) put off by the attitude of the sellers and their vetting process not the $3000 purchase price. She is a very accomplished , strong personality individual.
I had a brainstorm due to meeting a local guy @a winter sporting show who also had some Aeridale terriers he used for rescue detection/rabbit hunting. I believe that dogs who come out of agility/hunting backgrounds demonstrate intelligence/human responsiveness and thus genetic behaviors are enhanced in their offspring which make for better live-ins. I also have an extensive sporting dog library and remembered the Aeridale line of eary 1900s cougar hunting dogs. In short, she took the Aeridale suggestion, found a local confirmation/pricey breeder but less selective as long she took a female/had it spayed w/in the first year because it was "pet quality." She did it.
Being an energetic/smart owner she followed my advice of taking it to puppy/obedience training. The pup impressed the group, she next did Obedience. She next did therapy certification. She did Agility. She was "invited" to some eastern Aeridale gatherings.On one of her trips to a nursing home and w/her other social contacts encountered a producer for Animal Planet Dogs 101.They put her and "Lilly" on a 15 minute segment and the breeder went wild. "Lily" was a spayed female and apparently beyond "pet" quality. Repeated the breeding , and "Lily" was the toast of the eastern establishment. My friend also got "evil" e-mails from other folks after the initial TV showing running down her and her "bitch." Nothing like success to poison the well.
Moral- I am not sure but sometimes one does not count their chickens before they hatch and ugly ducklings turn into swans? For Sue and Lily!


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

I think it's really important for people reading this thread who are considering buyin a puppy to understand that they have plenty of options out there- and thee is Absolutley no need to support a breeder who won't sell you a puppy with your rights as owner intact and complete. They will talk to you about ethics and Heath clearances and responsibility, they will make it sound like anyone who will sell on full registration is a puppy mill to be avoided. But it's not true. Plenty of very responsible, ethical, knowledgabke and experienced breeders out there with a good solid understanding of property rights- and that understand that with transfer of ownership also goes a transfer of responsibilities and privileges. I would no more lock myself into a limited registration than I would a purchase contract that specified what vet I had to use for clearances, etc or a contract that stated what events I could or could not compete in, no matter how much the breeder "cares." Pretty insulting. 
And this concept....
We've now corresponded by email a few times, had several hours of phone calls, and 2 face to face meetings, during which as buyer and breeder we've developed raport- and the breeder, who had had your 500$ for 3 months "on faith" is going to try to pass off the old "I trust you enough to let you take this "life I care deeply for home with you to care for and maintain" but I don't actually trust you to be very responsible with it- so... Limited registration for you."

Hey breeders- how about we see some performance incentives- rather than more limited registration.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> No, that's what someone dumb enough to buy a pup on a Limited Registration, hopes.
> 
> Reality, is something different than hope.


I guess I should have worded that more specifically, 



> _I would hope that the breeder who feels limited reg. a responsible thing to do, would also not hesitate to lift the limited reg. for someone who had done all the health assessments and had a "superstar" as well._


_
Better to have said:

A breeder who feels limited reg. is a responsible thing to do would be nuts to hesitate to lift the limited reg. for someone who had done all the health assessments & had a "superstar" as well.

Breeders and buyers should really not be in an adversarial relationship ... they really are partners in advancing the health and well-being of their breed. If the breeder has been responsible, over that course of time they have also "mentored" that buyer about the health issues and the goals of their breeding program.

It's unfortunate that some have started out in poor relationships and have reason to be cynical about breeders. _


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

Swampcollie said:


> Limited Registration has been the normal approach in Golden Retrievers for a long time. (The world didn't come to an end.)


Ha. I'll take my dogs black and unencumbered like my heart, thanks.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> it is worth it to me to be putting pups in to a good home without worrying if the guy that just wants a hunting dog, will change his mind and decide to breed the heck out of it. And I will be damned if I put a carrier pup into someone's hands that I don't know with full registration....


Back to the original OP, even though the majority against Limited Registration posting here follow the ideology what's mine is mine and they want to do with it as they wish,even though they don't intend to breed, and that's their right, silently limited registration is being used because the majority of people buying have no aspiration to breed and don't care if they receive limited registration. I do not believe in not breeding EIC carriers (I've never had CMN carriers) but because I have chosen to produce them, I feel the responsibility to educate buyers as to how to breed them. When limited registration came out I gave people the* choice *with a $50 reduction in puppy cost, and very often I only got an occasional person who wanted Full registration. When the EIC test came out, I felt I needed to do more because people lie about their intentions and they don't follow though with clearances. This is from personal experience and yes, it bothers me when I found out that several pups ended up in puppy mills. They usually said something about they lost their dog and their children missed him. They know how to word their requests. There is no way you can vet these buyers thoroughly, to know what their real intentions are. They call on cell phones and their websites can't be found with reverse look-ups. However, if they know you sell on Limited, they usually pass you by, and go to work on someone that does not. 

That is the reason, not control, but the opportunity to educate. As far as making more money, if anything it is less, and there are lots of new "breeders" that sell on Full, and it is their _major selling point_, and they are selling for much higher prices, especially for Fox Reds, than the bloodlines are worth. I will (and have) lifted limited registrations, and I will sell on Full to those I know and who have an actual record of competing. This is a personal choice and there are tons of people out there that will sell you a puppy on Full. To tell you the truth, many intelligent people that are carefully researching kennels DO recognize the reason many breeders are selling on limited, and they see it in the positive, that you care what happens to the puppies. Everyone should do the health testing before breeding, but they don't. Field breeders are pretty easy because many breeds have 20 page contracts where they do want to control what is fed, what is done with the dog, and how it is bred. That is not what this is about, it is about responsible breeding and discussing how the dog is to be bred. I had some guys that had bred Pointers, and wanted to breed Labs like Pointers, very tight and inbred. I asked the grand lady of Labrador breeding about it and she said "It doesn't work. You can't breed Labs like Pointers." I turned them down for a Full registration. If I didn't I can tell you exactly what would have happened: I would have gotten a call in a few years telling me they got all kinds of problems in the puppies and blamed the bloodlines. So the OP asked for opinions and this is mine.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I do find it interesting that while some buyers insist on being taken at their word, they refuse to give the breeders the same courtesy.  

Until you've been a breeder and found out one of the puppies you sold on full registration ended up in a puppy mill, or was bred without health clearances to the guy down the street's dog, also with no clearances, and produced a litter of EIC affected puppies because no clearances were done, you won't understand. It's your dogs and your kennel name and reputation in the background of those poor puppies. And if that doesn't bother you and you don't care, then please don't breed. 

The average puppy buyer isn't on RTF, doesn't compete or run tests, and might hunt three or four weekends a year.

My puppy contract has everything spelled out, down to the letter. And if you are known to be an active participant in dog games/have some solid history, you'll get full registration up front. It's the unknowns that need supervision.

Breeder: (to unknown buyer with no common friends, references or history of doing anything with dogs) "Your pup will be on limited registration until it turns two and health clearances are done. After that, limited will be lifted because you've proven to be responsible enough to follow through on health clearances."

Buyer (with NO track record): "I'm really excited about my new puppy and am going to run hunt tests/do agility/obedience/conformation/field trials etc." ........and then they never do. Anything. At All. Except whine that now they can't breed, because they really love their dog and want to have puppies. They call the breeder. 

Breeder says "Do hips, eyes, elbows (and any genetic testing needed) and send me photocopies of results, and I'll change it and you can breed."

Buyer: "But that's expensive! I just want to have puppies, I don't want to show or anything. And my vet says my dog's hips look pretty good."

Breeder: "That's less than half the cost of one puppy."

Buyer: "I'll never buy a puppy on limited registration again! I paid for it, and I want to do whatever I want to with it!"

Breeder: ::::sighs and shakes head::::


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

And for the record, my pups are priced the same whether full or limited. My thinking is that you're not buying less of a puppy....it's just paperwork that's different.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

ErinsEdge said:


> I had some guys that had bred Pointers, and wanted to breed Labs like Pointers, very tight and inbred. I asked the grand lady of Labrador breeding about it and she said "It doesn't work. You can't breed Labs like Pointers."


Pointers shouldn't be bred like that either, and why they haven't figured it out is beyond me. It's not working the way they're doing it. Bob Wehle did it and did it right, but he's the rare exception. I see all sorts of problems with those tightly bred pointers. Bad bites, deafness...the list is long.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

I second everything Sharon said. Breeding dogs is not for the faint of heart. Whether it comes to getting the breeding done (timing, shipping, breeding, etc), raising the puppies, screening the homes, supporting the clients....it goes on and on. If you do it right the commitment is incredible. Heartbreaking and heart lifting. All at the same time. Breeding is not black and white. You can't understand it until you've been there. Limited versus full is not a black and white decision as some would like to make it out to be either.. Neither are any of the other decisions we have to make.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> .........Until you've been a breeder and found out one of the puppies you sold on full registration ended up in a puppy mill, or was bred without health clearances to the guy down the street's dog, also with no clearances, and produced a litter of EIC affected puppies because no clearances were done, you won't understand.....


What difference would it make, if that dog was sold on a LR?

The answer is that it wouldn't make any difference.
LR doesn't protect you from what you keep insisting that you are using it for.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> Pointers shouldn't be bred like that either, and why they haven't figured it out is beyond me. It's not working the way they're doing it. Bob Wehle did it and did it right, but he's the rare exception. I see all sorts of problems with those tightly bred pointers. Bad bites, deafness...the list is long.


Good to know. They had googled me looking for a particular FC they wanted to inbreed on. I knew that the individual was pretty clean, but I did know there were bite problems in the pedigree because the owners had asked me specifically about the pups because my litter was one of his first breedings before he was an FC. See, these are the things people that want to breed, need to know before they are going to become real breeders.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> What difference would it make, if that dog was sold on a LR?


 I'm not going to argue with you but I will answer the question from what I have seen in the last 35 years. The people that want to buy the dogs and breed, want that bloodline and want an AKC number and registration on that dog to use in their breeding program. The newer puppy mills want better dogs and not byb dogs with no pedigrees. Those that want to cheat and breed the dog without papers to dilutes, poodles, etc are not the ones buying, because they will usually trip themselves up in the buying process. Anyone can get around any rule if they choose, but the reality is limited registration works a lot better than people think it should. Both puppy mills that bought from me had quite a few well bred dogs from the Midwest where I guess we are too trusting.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> What difference would it make, if that dog was sold on a LR?
> 
> The answer is that it wouldn't make any difference.
> LR doesn't protect you from what you keep insisting that you are using it for.


Let's say you see a well bred litter you really like, and want to buy a pup but limited is the only option. Under your scenario, limited shouldn't be a big deal to you, because you can still breed. Right? 


If the dog is sold on limited registration, AKC registration for the resulting puppies is off the table. Sure, it could still be bred. But without AKC papers for the puppies, it's much less likely to happen.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> Let's say you see a well bred litter you really like, and want to buy a pup but limited is the only option. Under your scenario, limited shouldn't be a big deal to you, because you can still breed. Right?
> 
> 
> If the dog is sold on limited registration, AKC registration for the resulting puppies is off the table. Sure, it could still be bred. But without AKC papers for the puppies, it's much less likely to happen.


Without mandatory DNA testing the actual parentage of the dog is only as good as the integrity of the owner, switching papers has been done for years.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> Let's say you see a well bred litter you really like, and want to buy a pup but limited is the only option. Under your scenario, limited shouldn't be a big deal to you, because you can still breed. Right?


I don't see very many "well bred" litters being sold on LR.

What I do see, is litters sold on LR that are being produced from parents that were selected for color, or appearance, or other meaningless traits, that matter way too much, to too many ignorant people. People that are more interested in what a dog looks like, than in how good it is at performing its job.

And the Breeder wants to capitalize on that large market share.




Sharon Potter said:


> If the dog is sold on limited registration, AKC registration for the resulting puppies is off the table. Sure, it could still be bred. But without AKC papers for the puppies, it's much less likely to happen.


 Registering the dog's offspring is a _good thing_. 

Regardless of how ill-advised the breeding of that dog may have been, you aren't doing God's work by preventing the registration of any potential offspring.

As far as ethics are concerned, you are only succeeding in controlling the people that were already under control.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

EdA said:


> Without mandatory DNA testing the actual parentage of the dog is only as good as the integrity of the owner, switching papers has been done for years.



Sad but true. Guess if I were to sell a puppy on Limited reg. to somebody like that, I would have made the right call giving Limited.  That's the only thing we've got.....


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> I don't see very many "well bred" litters being sold on LR.


They you aren't looking very hard or far.  And you've managed to insult quite a few people with that broad statement.



copterdoc said:


> What I do see, is litters sold on LR that are being produced from parents that were selected for color, or appearance, or other meaningless traits, that matter way too much, to too many ignorant people. People that are more interested in what a dog looks like, than in how good it is at performing its job.
> And the Breeder wants to capitalize on that large market share.


I agree, there is a lot of that from the Krazy Kolor/Designer Mutt breeders. But lumping good breeders in with that group isn't reasonable or fair. I'd like to assume that you have the intelligence to discriminate between the two.




copterdoc said:


> Registering the dog's offspring is a _good thing_.


Why? 



copterdoc said:


> Regardless of how ill advised the breeding of that dog might have been, you aren't doing God's work by preventing the registration of any potential offspring.


No breeder of any sort is doing "God's work". God gave us dogs. That, had humans left them alone, would have all looked pretty similar. Humans provided the screw-ups....some good, some not.  And I'm pretty sure God doesn't give a rat's rump about registration papers. 



copterdoc said:


> As far as ethics are concerned, you are only succeeding in controlling the people that were already under control.


Disagree. That's far too black and white. 

How many litters have you bred?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> .......
> Why?........


 Because it gives them a far better chance of being placed in good homes.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> Because it gives them a far better chance of being placed in good homes.


AKC papers in NO way guarantee good homes.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> AKC papers in NO way guarantee good homes.


 No, but it's a whole lot better than not being able to provide them.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> No, but it's a whole lot better than not being able to provide them.


So what you're saying is that as long as they have AKC papers, which seems to be the important part, it's perfectly fine to breed dogs because they have AKC full reg papers. How does that combination prevent an EIC carrier from being bred to an EIC affected (although neither dog has been health tested because the owners of those AKC papers don't want to spend the money or don't care?) And there can be a whole pile of EIC puppies sent out into the unsuspecting world to new owners who don't have any more of a clue than the cheap, ignorant people who bred those puppies.  

The vast majority of breeders want to do their best to send healthy dogs out into the world. There isn't much we can do once they leave our hands....but we use what we can, because that's all we've got.

Let's take it a step further and create an imaginary situation, since some folks believe all we're trying to do is prevent them from ever breeding their dogs and trying to "control" them. Let's pretend that there is a shot that can be given to eight week old puppies that will allow them to develop normally but renders them permanently sterile. Now let's say that we evil, controlling breeders have the choice between giving you limited registration or sterilizing the puppy with that imaginary shot. I'm willing to bet that every breeder on this thread that sells on limited would opt for limited papers in order to give that puppy every chance to go on in life, and not one would opt for the sterilizing shot. True control...eliminating market competition, etc....would without question go for the shot, right?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> So what you're saying is that as long as they have AKC papers, which seems to be the important part, it's perfectly fine to breed dogs because they have AKC full reg papers......


 No, I'm saying that preventing the registration of that dog's potential offspring does nothing "ethically" that is good for anybody, other than the Breeder that is using it for leverage. 





Sharon Potter said:


> How does that combination prevent an EIC carrier from being bred to an EIC affected (although neither dog has been health tested because the owners of those AKC papers don't want to spend the money or don't care?) And there can be a whole pile of EIC puppies sent out into the unsuspecting world to new owners who don't have any more of a clue than the cheap, ignorant people who bred those puppies.


 It doesn't. 

However whether you like what happened or not, what good can possibly come from preventing the registration of those "EIC puppies"?

Preventing registration, doesn't prevent breeding.

The only way that it would ever make a difference, is if the owner already cares enough about doing what is right, that they _won't_ intentionally produce a litter that could contain affected offspring. Even if they have Full Registration on their dog.

And if they did have an oops litter, that could potentially produce affected offspring, they would still want to register the litter. Because it's _still_ the responsible thing to do at that point.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> No, I'm saying that preventing the registration of that dog's potential offspring does nothing "ethically" that is good for anybody, other than the Breeder that is using it for leverage.


Leverage? 




copterdoc said:


> However whether you like what happened or not, what good can possibly come from preventing the registration of those "EIC puppies"?
> 
> Preventing registration, doesn't prevent breeding.


We've established that preventing registration doesn't prevent breeding. But that is not an absolute. I would wager it would certainly slow it down quite a bit. AKC registered pups are worth a lot more than unregistered....and for the irresponsible, money is the bottom line. They are gonna go for papers every time, because they make more money selling AKC registered puppies.



copterdoc said:


> The only way that it would ever make a difference, is if the owner already cares enough about doing what is right, that they _won't_ intentionally produce a litter that could contain affected offspring. Even if they have Full Registration on their dog.
> 
> And if they did have an oops litter, that could potentially produce affected offspring, they would still want to register the litter. Because it's _still_ the responsible thing to do at that point.


Responsible people will do responsible things. It's deciding who is and isn't responsible that's the challenge for breeders. And since we often don't have any other way of finding out who is responsible, we use what we've got. Nobody walks up to a breeder and says "Hi, I'm SuzyQ, and I want to raise puppies and won't do any health testing. I want to buy one of yours." Nor do they email or call and say "Hi, I'm irresponsible and clueless. Sell me a puppy." How exactly are we to decide who is or is not responsible?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> Leverage?


 Yes. That's ultimately all that LR is actually good for.






Sharon Potter said:


> .....AKC registered pups are worth a lot more than unregistered....


 No, they really aren't. I mean they really, really aren't.






Sharon Potter said:


> .......Responsible people will do responsible things. It's deciding who is and isn't responsible that's the challenge for breeders. And since we often don't have any other way of finding out who is responsible, we use what we've got. Nobody walks up to a breeder and says "Hi, I'm SuzyQ, and I want to raise puppies and won't do any health testing. I want to buy one of yours." Nor do they email or call and say "Hi, I'm irresponsible and clueless. Sell me a puppy." How exactly are we to decide who is or is not responsible?


 If they are ignorant and irresponsible, then a piece of paper that says LIMITED on it, isn't going to suddenly make them informed and responsible.


----------



## Clint Watts (Jan 7, 2009)

I am of the belief that the majority of folks are honest and want to do the right thing. There are those out there who are not and it is unfortunate that some people punish the majority for the faults of a few. I support your right to use the limited registration, hopefully you can support those who do not. There are many good breeders out there with full registration and that does not make them any less caring than you. They love the breed and want to better it and they are not on forums pushing an agenda down anyone else's throat. Screening is key, references, researching potential buyers, etc... this is not personal as I believe that folks are only trying to do what they think best. I just choose not to agree.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> Yes. That's ultimately all that LR is actually good for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, it won't make them responsible. But it is more likely to keep them from breeding irresponsibly. Not to say they won't breed anyway, without papers....but the likelihood goes down a lot.

And you're telling me that a puppy that sells for $1000 with AKC papers is worth the same amount without them? I disagree. Maybe on the $300 newspaper/craigslist puppies....but that's not the issue here.

As for "leverage"....that makes absolutely no sense at all. How is requiring a puppy buyer, who wants to breed eventually, to do the same things the breeder did that drew that buyer to them in the first place considered leverage? 

I ask again: How many litters have you bred?


----------



## Clint Watts (Jan 7, 2009)

Rainmaker said:


> Limited Reg is not widely accepted in field homes, at least for Labs. I'd not accept one myself and I don't expect anyone else who runs their dogs to accept one either. I used to think Limited was the answer, and it works in plenty of situations for lots of people. But, I think the dilutes and BYB and millers are just too good at lying and scamming and getting what they want regardless. I'm just not devious enough to keep up with them. So, I mostly just don't sell to someone who gives me a hinky feeling and I am there to mentor those that want to do it responsibly, within the parameters of health clearances anyway. Online personas can be vastly different than talking to someone on the phone, that's where you go with your gut. The Internet can yield a wealth of background information. I belong to lots of retrievers groups on FB, I had no idea there were so many, I don't want to sell on many of them, I want to get names of those I really don't want to sell to. And sometimes, you're going to be wrong, no matter what.
> 
> If I don't want my pups in the hands of dilute breeders or BYB or whatever, then I need to screen very carefully, or spay/neuter before I send them home. Limited does not prevent breeding, it just means my name isn't showing up on AKC-registered litters down the road. Changing a limited to full after the owner meets the requirements does not mean those offspring aren't going to end up who knows where, does not prevent carriers or affecteds a generation later, does not prevent that dog changing hands when the original owner has a life change. Contracts sound fine & dandy, but, once that registration is full, then there is nothing legally you're going to be able to do after that, I don't care what kind of contract you have. Good luck enforcing one. While I deal with stud contracts, and offer one with my guarantee, ultimately, we're all only as good as our word.
> 
> ...


Nothing else needs to be said on the matter, great post.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> No, it won't make them responsible. But it is more likely to keep them from breeding irresponsibly. Not to say they won't breed anyway, without papers....but the likelihood goes down a lot......


LR does keep a responsible person from breeding their dog. 
It does not keep an irresponsible person from breeding their dog. It doesn't even slow them down.





Sharon Potter said:


> .....And you're telling me that a puppy that sells for $1000 with AKC papers is worth the same amount without them? I disagree. Maybe on the $300 newspaper/craigslist puppies....but that's not the issue here.....


 AKC registration doesn't make a pup worth $1,000. It's pedigree does.

And in the $400-$800 market where most AKC registered pups are sold, there are plenty of designer mixes. Some are even selling for over $1,500.






Sharon Potter said:


> ....As for "leverage"....that makes absolutely no sense at all. How is requiring a puppy buyer, who wants to breed eventually, to do the same things the breeder did that drew that buyer to them in the first place considered leverage?........


 If you're holding a Limited on a dog that is owned by a responsible person that happens to want to breed that dog, you've got them by the balls.

That's called leverage. And there are plenty of Breeders that take full advantage of it.





Sharon Potter said:


> .....I ask again: How many litters have you bred?


 I've never owned a female. That's all that I'm going to say about that.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> LR does keep a responsible person from breeding their dog.


It most certainly does not.




copterdoc said:


> It does not keep an irresponsible person from breeding their dog. It doesn't even slow them down.


Agreed.




copterdoc said:


> AKC registration doesn't make a pup worth $1,000. It's pedigree does.


An FC x FC pup with no papers available is worth far less than one with papers. And without the papers, the pedigree is moot, since it cannot be proven.




copterdoc said:


> And in the $400-$800 market where most AKC registered pups are sold, there are plenty of designer mixes. Some are even selling for over $1,500.


I see a substantial difference between uneducated fools parting with too much money for designer mixes and someone looking for a purebred dog to run hunt tests and/or field trials with. 




copterdoc said:


> If you're holding a Limited on a dog that is owned by a responsible person that happens to want to breed that dog, you've got them by the balls.
> 
> That's called leverage. And there are plenty of Breeders that take full advantage of it.


No breeder is "holding" the registration on a limited. The papers go to the buyer, just like full. 

If a buyer goes into a limited registration without doing their due diligence...or explanation and instructions from their breeder who they have researched and chosen with care , that's no different than a buyer not asking for OFA numbers. And a good breeder will explain...and put in writing...their requirements to change to full. It's really not all that complicated. 

If someone with a dog on limited registration wants to breed, it just adds one very simple step to the process. 




copterdoc said:


> I've never owned a female. That's all that I'm going to say about that.


That explains much. It's hard to be truly objective about what you have never done, yet so easily criticize.


----------



## Clint Watts (Jan 7, 2009)

If someone with a dog on limited registration wants to breed, it just adds one very simple step to the process. 

Not necessarily true, what happens when the breeder goes out of business, retires or dies? 






That explains much. It's hard to be truly objective about what you have never done, yet so easily criticize. [/QUOTE]

I have purchased dogs before, not sure this statement makes sense to the thread. This is about the puppy buying process. Many have not bred and many will never breed, doesn't mean they can't objectively disagree with a limited registration as they are the ones making the purchase. This is not your gotcha moment, not even close. In fact if you read the threads above I think you are on the losing side of the battle. You have the right to do as you please with your business and I will stand up and support you, but I will not be doing business with you. Thanks.

Clint Watts


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Clint Watts said:


> If someone with a dog on limited registration wants to breed, it just adds one very simple step to the process.
> 
> Not necessarily true, what happens when the breeder goes out of business, retires or dies?


If a buyer keeps in regular touch with the breeder, the first two shouldn't be any problem. And for the last, there is such a thing as power of attorney, giving someone the ability to follow through with their dogs.






Clint Watts said:


> I have purchased dogs before, not sure this statement makes sense to the thread. This is about the puppy buying process. Many have not bred and many will never breed, doesn't mean they can't objectively disagree with a limited registration as they are the ones making the purchase. This is not your gotcha moment, not even close. In fact if you read the threads above I think you are on the losing side of the battle. You have the right to do as you please with your business and I will stand up and support you, but I will not be doing business with you. Thanks.
> 
> Clint Watts


I'm not sure how purchasing dogs makes you see things from the perspective of a breeder, which is what my statement "It's hard to be truly objective about what you have never done, yet so easily criticize." referred to . How many litters have you bred? 

I wasn't going for any sort of "gotcha" moment. Just trying to present a breeder's side of things and insert some rational and logical answers to questions and potential problems mentioned. I'm glad you found a post above to agree with and support...Kim/Rainmaker is a friend of mine, and I certainly respect her position. But the breeder trend on this thread has not leaned toward limited. Bottom line: it's individual choice.

I'm pretty sure the majority of folks here on RTF wouldn't end up on a limited registration list anyway. Most have a track record and are easily researched.


----------



## ChessieMom (Aug 28, 2013)

When we were searching for our chessie pup 2 yrs. ago,we didn't really run into limited reg. as a common issue. However, since I have started researching breeders for a small couch warmer type dog, I see it alot. I "think" that one of the reasons why limited registration has negative connotations with some people, is due to the large # of folks offering only limited reg. who seem to want a large amount of control over the pup after you buy it.

For example, with these pet dogs offered only on limited reg., the breeder also requires a spay neuter contract where the dog must be neutered by a particular date. Many times by 6 mos. We don't intend on ever breeding our dogs, but we also choose to leave them intact unless medically necessary due to more recent vet. research indicating that can be much healthier for the dog. That becomes an issue for us. 

The list of breeder requirements goes on from there regarding approved foods and toys and vaccinations and on and on where you get the feeling you have very little choice in the pups care. Personally, I don't really have a problem with limited reg., but it does "feel" like a flag that says you won't "really" own your dog.... I know that's not what it really means, but it comes across that way.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> I'm pretty sure the majority of folks here on RTF wouldn't end up on a limited registration list anyway. Most have a track record and are easily researched.


Except for copterdoc because no one even knows if he has ever even run a dog, but he is indeed the Answer Man


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> It most certainly does not........


 Those are the only people that it could possibly make any difference with. 

You know, the ones that care.






Sharon Potter said:


> ....An FC x FC pup with no papers available is worth far less than one with papers. And without the papers, the pedigree is moot, since it cannot be proven......


 An FC x FC pup would sell for over $3,000. With the exact same AKC registration that a $400 AKC registered pup has.

The difference is in the pedigree.

And the FC x FC wouldn't be sold on a LR.
Now the $400 no pedigree pup? Yeah, that one might be sold on LR.

It's called irony.






Sharon Potter said:


> ....I see a substantial difference between uneducated fools parting with too much money for designer mixes and someone looking for a purebred dog to run hunt tests and/or field trials with.....


 If somebody wants to make money selling puppies, it's all the same kind of money. Just more of it.





Sharon Potter said:


> No breeder is "holding" the registration on a limited. The papers go to the buyer, just like full......


 Until you lift the limited status, you are holding it hostage.





Sharon Potter said:


> ....If a buyer goes into a limited registration without doing their due diligence...or explanation and instructions from their breeder who they have researched and chosen with care , that's no different than a buyer not asking for OFA numbers. And a good breeder will explain...and put in writing...their requirements to change to full. It's really not all that complicated......


 They can say whatever they want. They don't have to honor their end of it. And they can add as many additional demands as they wish.



Sharon Potter said:


> ...If someone with a dog on limited registration wants to breed, it just adds one very simple step to the process.....


 Maybe. But there's no guarantee of that.

The "owner" is still counting on the Breeder honoring their word.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> An FC x FC pup would sell for over $3,000. With the exact same AKC registration that a $400 AKC registered pup has.
> 
> The difference is in the pedigree.
> 
> ...


Actually, not irony at all. It's called "The FC x FC will be sold to known people in the game who have already proven they are responsible, so no need for limited, the $400 puppy is likely a backyard craigslist puppy whose breeder only cares if the check clears, sold to people who are just looking for an inexpensive puppy and have done little to no research." Lots of space in between the two. 

Additionally, it's not just the pedigree....it's the titles. If you breed a full brother of that FC sire to a full sister of that FC dam but neither parent has or will likely have titles, the price is not the same even though the pedigree is exactly the same.




copterdoc said:


> Until you lift the limited status, you are holding it hostage.


Interesting spin. Considering the owner can crossbreed it with poodles, let it run loose through the neighborhood until a car kills it, starve it to death, or shoot it in the head---with absolutely no say in the matter by the breeder. It is legally the owner's dog.





copterdoc said:


> They can say whatever they want. They don't have to honor their end of it. And they can add as many additional demands as they wish.


It's a two way street. The buyer doesn't have to honor their end either. Anyone who sells a dog on limited....or buys one on limited...without a written contract spelling out the exact terms to change to full is not doing smart business. 




copterdoc said:


> The "owner" is still counting on the Breeder honoring their word.


And the breeder is supposed to blindly take the owner at their word?



p.s. I love your tag line....very appropriate!


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

Maybe it was mentioned. I didnt read all the responses yet. But say you buy with a LP. Something unforeseen happens and the breeder passes away. Now what?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

That's a question you should discuss with the individual breeder. It should be covered in the contract, and also AKC will, upon proper notice, give power of signature to a spouse, etc.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

Sharon Potter said:


> That's a question you should discuss with the individual breeder. It should be covered in the contract, and also AKC will, upon proper notice, give power of signature to a spouse, etc.


Just wondering. I have a friend who bought a puppy and owner of the dam was killed on an oil rig before all registration was signed over. It was quite an ordeal to get the paperwork fixed. Hate that it would come to that sometime. But it does. 

I've bought with LP before. Had no issues though with the breeder upholding their end. Lots of breeders in the Boykin world do it. Mainly on health but I've seen a few have performance aspects in the contract as well


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Maybe it was mentioned. I didnt read all the responses yet. But say you buy with a LP. Something unforeseen happens and the breeder passes away. Now what?


There are several downloadable forms on AKC.org. Power of attorney, incapacitated to sign.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> Actually, not irony at all. It's called "The FC x FC will be sold to known people in the game who have already proven they are responsible, so no need for limited, the $400 puppy is likely a backyard craigslist puppy whose breeder only cares if the check clears, sold to people who are just looking for an inexpensive puppy and have done little to no research." Lots of space in between the two.


 A puppy being sold on LR is being sold by a Breeder that thinks awfully highly of what they are producing. 

Even though the clientele that are attracted to what they are producing, apparently isn't of a high enough quality that the Breeder can bring themselves to trust _them_.





Sharon Potter said:


> Additionally, it's not just the pedigree....it's the titles. If you breed a full brother of that FC sire to a full sister of that FC dam but neither parent has or will likely have titles, the price is not the same even though the pedigree is exactly the same......


 Each parent contributes 50% of the genetics of their offspring. That totals 100%. 

Each dog in the first generation, has the most genetic influence in the entire pedigree.
How can you say that a puppy produced from siblings of another breeding, has exactly the same pedigree?

They are siblings. Not clones.






Sharon Potter said:


> Interesting spin. Considering the owner can crossbreed it with poodles, let it run loose through the neighborhood until a car kills it, starve it to death, or shoot it in the head---with absolutely no say in the matter by the breeder. It is legally the owner's dog......


 And again, what does LR do to prevent those things from happening?


It does nothing.





Sharon Potter said:


> .....It's a two way street. The buyer doesn't have to honor their end either. Anyone who sells a dog on limited....or buys one on limited........ is not doing smart business.....


 FIFY.

If you can enforce the terms of such a contract when the other party is resisting, _AND_ do so without it costing you way more than "winning" is actually worth, you must be a licensed Attorney.






Sharon Potter said:


> And the breeder is supposed to blindly take the owner at their word?.....


 If the selection process you used for the breeding, and for your clients is sound, then yes. 
Absolutely yes.

The things that bring your clients to your door, are what screens out the unscrupulous rotten eggs.

Selling on LR won't protect you.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

The seller can sell to whomever they want and the buyer is free to buy from whomever they want. You don't like the terms go elsewhere,* that is your choice*, and 
no where does the law say you MUST sell a puppy to a person if a red flag goes up after they were vetted, such as throwing the puppy in the back of an open pick-up to go on a 6 hour trip home because that's what he always does.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> .....Additionally, it's not just the pedigree....it's the titles. If you breed a full brother of that FC sire to a full sister of that FC dam but neither parent has or will likely have titles, the price is not the same even though the pedigree is exactly the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Actually, I can take this a step farther.

If you sell two pups from the same litter, one on LR, to an obviously "irresponsible" owner, and one on full registration, to an owner that you deem to be "responsible"; wouldn't both dogs be "exactly the same" as far as "worthiness" for breeding? Regardless of titles or health clearances?

After all, they are full siblings!

Oh the hypocrisy!


----------



## wheelhorse (Nov 13, 2005)

I really don't understand the animosity that is being generated over this topic. LR is a tool that breeders have to help control what they breed from ending up in puppy mills. Is it perfect, no. Is it all we got, yes.

If you don't want an LR pup, by all means go down the road to the next kennel and get your dog. Don't bash those that are trying to prevent, the only way they can, from exquisite bloodlines ending up in a silver kennel or worse.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

wheelhorse said:


> I really don't understand the animosity that is being generated over this topic. LR is a tool that breeders have to help control what they breed from ending up in puppy mills. Is it perfect, no. Is it all we got, yes.
> 
> If you don't want an LR pup, by all means go down the road to the next kennel and get your dog. Don't bash those that are trying to prevent, the only way they can, from exquisite bloodlines ending up in a silver kennel or worse.


 LR is a "tool" used by many Breeders that are even more unscrupulous than the clients that they are so afraid to have.

It doesn't do anything to hurt the puppy mills. Anything at all.

What LR does, if anything, is allow certain overbearing Breeders to have the leverage to put the screws to some of the "good guys".

It is being used just as much (if not more) by the "silver kennels"; as it is by the "reputable" Labrador Breeders. And they are both using the exact same arguments in support of their use of it!


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

Listen to how some of these breeders describe there apparent clientele. Talk about animosity. It's a non-issue for me- my next puppy will be from someone who knows me anyway- but seriously... They set a tone that isn't exactly welcoming. The condescension is very interesting, especially in light of the fact that there's about 1 respondent here who has bred anything that's done anything. It's like- some people are willing to pay a premium for being treated as though they are slightly less than- because they are in so doing ascending a caste, or at least rubbing elbows with a higher caste. 

LR- and all the hullabaloo that it's proponents spew is nothing more than selfagrandizement- and self indulgence- applied as an advertising campaign to the insecure. Seriously. Look at the modifiers used to describe there bloodlines and breedinns- as opposed to the way they describe there supposed clientele. Fascinating glimpse into the human psyche.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> A puppy being sold on LR is being sold by a Breeder that thinks awfully highly of what they are producing.


Any breeder that doesn't think highly of what they are producing...regardless of full or limited....probably shouldn't be breeding.



copterdoc said:


> Even though the clientele that are attracted to what they are producing, apparently isn't of a high enough quality that the Breeder can bring themselves to trust _them_.


All ranges of people can have an interest in a litter of puppies. There is absolutely NO way a breeder can fully screen all buyers. It is not possible. 





copterdoc said:


> Each parent contributes 50% of the genetics of their offspring. That totals 100%.
> 
> Each dog in the first generation, has the most genetic influence in the entire pedigree.
> How can you say that a puppy produced from siblings of another breeding, has exactly the same pedigree?
> ...


   Try again. They are not siblings. They are cousins. And a pedigree is the parents, grandparents, etc. and has nothing to do with how the genes fall. It is simply a family tree, and in the case of two littermate females from litter A, bred to two littermate males from litter B, the pedigree is identical.




copterdoc said:


> And again, what does LR do to prevent those things from happening?
> 
> 
> It does nothing.


In reference to my earlier post, where I mention somebody abusing/doing bad things to a puppy, of course limited registration does nothing to prevent abuse. I'm glad you figured that one out, since the buyer *owns* the puppy. 

Limited just makes sure the idiot....who sure talked a good game when the breeder interviewed them about buying a puppy...can't get AKC registration on resulting pups. 




copterdoc said:


> The things that bring your clients to your door, are what screens out the unscrupulous rotten eggs.
> 
> Selling on LR won't protect you.


That is absolutely just plain wrong. You're saying that a breeder who does all the right stuff, breeds good bloodlines, does health clearances, titles their dogs, etc. won't attract the "unscrupulous rotten eggs"? ROFLMAO at that one! 

I have, on two occasions, flat out refused to sell a puppy the buyer had reserved, refunded their money and sent them packing. The initial conversations went well and they seemed like decent folks, but upon actually meeting the buyers, I refused. One showed up with a beat up, rusty, flimsy old wire rabbit cage in the back of an open pickup for the pup to ride four hours home in...and this was in January in Wisconsin. When I questioned the setup, he said he didn't want the puppy stinking up the cab of his truck if it had an accident. Here's your money back, sir, and good bye. 

Another was a father and son who drove a good way to pick up their puppy, and while the father and I were sorting out the paperwork, the son was playing with the puppy when it jumped up and grabbed the ski tag on his jacket. I heard the puppy screaming, and raced around the corner to find the boy kicking it in a corner. I tossed the kid out of the pen, and the father told me that the puppy needed to learn a lesson and who was boss, and that's how you teach them. I handed back their check and escorted them to the door. It took me two months to get that poor pup back to normal.

Now, had those two situations not occurred when they came to get their puppies, and I had let those dogs go on full registration....do you really think those kind of people should be allowed to breed dogs??? No way to know their character beforehand and they talked a good game and said the right stuff on the phone.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> Actually, I can take this a step farther.
> 
> If you sell two pups from the same litter, one on LR, to an obviously "irresponsible" owner, and one on full registration, to an owner that you deem to be "responsible"; wouldn't both dogs be "exactly the same" as far as "worthiness" for breeding? Regardless of titles or health clearances?


No. Health clearances always come into play, for example. Even if both parents are OFA Excellent on hips, there is still a 3% chance of producing a dysplastic pup. Suppose Irresponsible Buyer decides to breed, without clearances, and his pup is one of that 3%.



copterdoc said:


> After all, they are full siblings!
> 
> Oh the hypocrisy!


Best thing to do when you're in a hole is stop digging.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

jhnnythndr said:


> Listen to how some of these breeders describe there apparent clientele. Talk about animosity. It's a non-issue for me- my next puppy will be from someone who knows me anyway- but seriously... They set a tone that isn't exactly welcoming. The condescension is very interesting, especially in light of the fact that there's about 1 respondent here who has bred anything that's done anything. It's like- some people are willing to pay a premium for being treated as though they are slightly less than- because they are in so doing ascending a caste, or at least rubbing elbows with a higher caste.
> 
> LR- and all the hullabaloo that it's proponents spew is nothing more than selfagrandizement- and self indulgence- applied as an advertising campaign to the insecure. Seriously. Look at the modifiers used to describe there bloodlines and breedinns- as opposed to the way they describe there supposed clientele. Fascinating glimpse into the human psyche.


I disagree.

Please point me to anything written by a breeder that is this way. I've not seen it.

If a buyer doesn't like what he's looking at, it is his choice to go elsewhere. 

If a seller gets the wrong vibe from a buyer, they have every right to refuse the sale.

I really don't see why you're sensationalizing this so much.

Sincerely, Chris


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> ....  Try again. They are not siblings. They are cousins. And a pedigree is the parents, grandparents, etc. and has nothing to do with how the genes fall. It is simply a family tree, and in the case of two littermate females from litter A, bred to two littermate males from litter B, the pedigree is identical.....


 The parents are siblings. The offspring, (being cousins) do NOT share identical pedigrees.

Even if the second generation is the same, the first (and most influential) generation is not the same.

If the two sets of parents were clones, then the pedigrees would indeed be the same. 
But siblings are not clones. They are genetically very different from their siblings.


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm no good at dissecting and reposting posts, and I'm toggling back and forth between two windows on an iPhone to try and dig up a few anecdotes from the thread- but just above^^^ or perhaps a page ago, we had someone referring to "exquisite bloodlines" we also in almost every page of this thread have breeders insinuating that anyone without an entry express account is a potential silver or (gasp) doodle breeder at worst, and at best an under informed or inexperienced buyer who in the eyes of some breeders is only worthy of a "carrier" (that overtly flawed mentality was evident in the first several pages) and limited registration. Or as per ms or mrs not sure her status / affiliation Potter's anecdotes too cruel, incompetent or indifferent. Several other choice examples, feel free to reread the thread with an eye toward them or not. The poster above the post you quoted of mine was asking about animosity on the part of the buyers. I was merely pointing out that if there is animosity here- it's certainly not one sided. 


I would have a hard time personally justifying the 26 month health guarantee with the LR in my mind if selling pups- though most of these breeders do it apparently IOT get the buyer to do the clearances. Id have a hard time
I would have a hard time looking another man in the eye and saying, "I guarantee you this is a healthy pup or I'll replace it, and I think you're a good enough guy to take one of these pups. But um, in my judgement you two need to mature a couple years- so it's LR, until I decide otherwise." I'm not expressing myself well- which probably speaks volumes regarding the signifigence I assign the topic. In that light I'll refrain from further comment, with apologies Chris.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Thanks for the reply.

I just think folks are getting way too spun up over this.

If you want to sell limited registration, your choice as a breeder is to do so. If you wind up feeding 12 week old unsold puppies, you might want to rethink your program.

If you want to buy a puppy, you have a choice as to from whom you buy and how they sell.

Chris

P.S. I have not ever bought an LR dog but if it were the right breeding and the conditions set forth on the contract made sense, I'd focus more on the breeding than the type of registration.


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

Hey, sorry- checking out after this addendum to my previous post-

note the particular angst some of those who have self identified as breeders reserve for buyers who specify a desire for "clear" female pups, there's a bit of it in this thread and its scattered throughout some other recent threads as well. 


and I will reiterate that for many, the best sales pitch is simply to suggest something just barely out of there reach. Appealing to there insecurity. The thing about this thread that is surprising is that there are some who are surprised how polarizing the issue is. 

Another point, The concept of LR presupposes that either the buyer or the dog are in someway deficient. A buyer offers a 26 month, or in some
Cases, apparently a 5 year warranty- and to me that says "I, as a breeder, am proud of what I have produced, and entirely confident that you are receiving a healthy animal"

The LR sends the message "yeah, of course you still get a warranty- but between you and me, I'm not so sure this dog is going to be healthy" unless it sends the message "oh yeah, I'm confident in the breeding, that's why I ifder the 26 month warranty- it's you I'm not so sure about"


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> LR is a "tool" used by many Breeders that are even more unscrupulous than the clients that they are so afraid to have.
> 
> It doesn't do anything to hurt the puppy mills. Anything at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> copterdoc said:
> 
> 
> > LR is a "tool" used by many Breeders that are even more unscrupulous than the clients that they are so afraid to have.
> ...


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Limited registration does not stop the severely stupid from breeding the dog.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> Gerry Clinchy said:
> 
> 
> > What, of any of that, has to do with whether or not LR does any "good" for anybody, or any breed?
> ...


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Copterdoc, that was in response to your statement that if a breeder uses LR you questioned why they should want you to do health evaluations......


 What statement are you talking about?

I said that if a breeding between the siblings of an FC x FC breeding produces puppies with the exact same pedigree as the FC x FC breeding, then that means that she must consider all of the pups in the same litter to be clones of each other.

Of course that's absurd. 

But if they were clones, as long as one of them was good enough to be sold on a Full Registration, then _all_ of them would be. They would all share identical DNA.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> What statement are you talking about?


My mistake on that quote; it was from *jhnnythndr*


> I would have a hard time personally justifying the 26 month health guarantee with the LR in my mind if selling pups- though most of these breeders do it apparently IOT get the buyer to do the clearances.


And he is right, getting the buyers to follow through on health evaluations is one reason for using it.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> .....What good does LR do? It does make some people ask some questions about the LR, and it gives me an opportunity to explain......


 LR doesn't help you explain anything.




Gerry Clinchy said:


> Goldens have a pedigree database called k9data. Labs have a similar database. Being a bit of a pedigree geek, I often look at pedigrees that are "black holes" to see where they came from. In almost every case, when I can track back far enough, they go back to kennel prefixes that are recognizable. Then I look at siblings and offspring of dogs in the pedigree. You might (or might not) be surprised how many breedings take place between the "familar" kennel name and the dog who has appeared on k9data. How many hundreds of puppies does that represent? How many of those puppies had health issues? We don't know. I would like to know about the dogs I produce and their health. LR isn't the perfect tool, but it can help me to do that......


 How on Earth does LR help you research pedigrees?




Gerry Clinchy said:


> .....I have prcd carriers. I pass along the info on that for buyers. If they sell off that dog later without my knowledge, will they pass along that information? If they do sell the dog, the buyer might question the LR and it might get those new owners to contact me?.....


 What?



Gerry Clinchy said:


> .....There is a more certain way of assuring that these puppies don't end up as puppy mills ... co-ownership. If you think LR is "controlling", co-ownership is much more so......


 I agree that co-ownership is more controlling than LR.



Gerry Clinchy said:


> copterdoc, I don't feel that you have to change your position on whether you would purchase a dog on LR or not, but what is frustrating is that you equate a breeder using LR as being equal to unscroupulous, controlling, and greedy ... and you refuse to entertain the possibility that it is not possible to use LR and still be fair and ethical......


 I never said that a Breeder that uses LR can't be fair and ethical. I said there is no basis for the reasons that even the "fair and ethical" Breeders claim to use LR.

It doesn't work for the purposes that they insist on using it for. Even if they really, really, truly and deeply believe in their reasoning, as justification for using it.



Gerry Clinchy said:


> I can agree with you that it's over-stepping to ask someone to pay again to convert an LR, after the owner has paid for all the health evaluations......


 Well, I'd hope that everybody would agree with that.



Gerry Clinchy said:


> If you have not bred any litters, or just one or two, you may not realize that even from a high-profile litter some of the pups will go to Joe Average or a light-duty hunter. They'll think their dog is the greatest thing since sliced bread even if the dog is just "average" to you or me. They can be enticed by friends or family to breed the dog, and not remember about all the info I gave them (in writing, BTW). The person who breeds that litter may naively not vet the buyers very well. I'd like to have a reason for them to call me about their LR if they end up in a situation like that.....


 You don't need LR to educate your clients.



Gerry Clinchy said:


> I also remember that when I first started in dog sport, I was pretty clueless about all the things that can go wrong with breeding. My first retriever came from a puppy farm. Got no education there. The next from a byb. Got no education there. By the time I got my 3rd dog I had begun obedience competition and had begun to get educated.....


 Again, LR has nothing to do with you, or any other person's education in the ethics of breeding.



Gerry Clinchy said:


> The more one breeds over time, the more conscious one becomes of the responsibility for the lives we create. You may disagree with how we choose to honor that responsibility, but it is not fair to assume that the motivation is always going to be one of malice or greed......


 You can't control what other people do.

It doesn't matter whether you produced a litter that ended up in a puppy mill, or the other Breeder down the street produced a litter that ended up in a puppy mill. 

A litter still ended up in a puppy mill.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Limited registration does not stop the severely stupid from breeding the dog.


LOL...It sure doesn't. I know you speak from experience and have a good idea who the severely stupid is. Chesadors, anyone?


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> Originally Posted by *copterdoc
> *I never said that a Breeder that uses LR can't be fair and ethical. I said there is no basis for the reasons that even the "fair and ethical" Breeders claim to use LR.
> 
> 
> ...


There is really no point to continuing this conversation.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> There is really no point to continuing this conversation.


 "Used by many", does not mean the same thing as "all".

It could mean most, but it doesn't mean all.

I tell you what, do a search looking for the worst possible Breeders of AKC registered dogs that you can imagine. 
And then see for yourself what percentage of them are selling on LR.


----------



## mngundog (Mar 25, 2011)

copterdoc said:


> "Used by many", does not mean the same thing as "all".
> 
> It could mean most, but it doesn't mean all.
> 
> ...


I had to check out the Silver Lab sites, 6 out of the 7 were sold on LR or full registration at a greatly inflated price. I am sure they are looking out for the best interest of their pups.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

mngundog said:


> I had to check out the Silver Lab sites, 6 out of the 7 were sold on LR or full registration at a greatly inflated price. I am sure they are looking out for the best interest of their pups.


I don't breed silver Labs. I don't think Sharon does either. Apples to oranges.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

I get that some object to breeder's using Limited Reg. Fine, don't buy from them. But the bad mouthing and negative accusations, particularly in response to some of the breeders on here who get the rejects and rescues due to irresponsible breeding, are ludicrous and insulting. I think Copterdoc and a couple others have zero clue what Limited Reg can and is used for by many responsible, reputable breeders, across many breeds. The flame throwing being done here is ridiculous and is putting an unnecessarily negative spin on LR. Yeah, I laugh at the silvers/dilutes who sell on LR, since they are already bastardizing the breed, what are they trying to protect with LR except their own bottom line? But, many fine breeders use it as intended, just leave it at that and go on with your life, maybe breed and sell a few litters, see when it hits home. Or, maybe you take no responsibility once the check clears and pup is out of your life, good riddance. That's your choice too. Not one of the breeders selling on LR is making nasty accusations against those that don't, they are simply defending/explaining their choice to do so, so really, just shut the you know what up and move along. You really and truly do not get it. 

And, while it does not involve LR, yeah, people can put on a slick show and fool you right out the door with pup in their arms. Just sent home 10 FC AFC x SH pups, 2nd pick female was "new blood", joining one of the clubs I belong to, got breeder referrals (which I greatly appreciated the compliments), going to do this and that, a young professional couple, asked and said all the right things, deposit down, months of emails and discussions, also when they picked up pup, when can they get started training at the club, yada yada. Three days later, guy wants to return pup, too much work and stress. Pup is fine, wonderful, everything I said, but, just putting too much pressure on himself at this time. Wife was sobbing, didn't want to let go. I don't know what their deal was, but, pup was back in my house within 12 hours of that email. She is a normal pup, needle teeth and all, not noisy, sleeping in her crate at night, plays, sociable, neighbor girls visit to play, she travels with me so far. So, WTH their deal was I don't know, but it was nothing, nothing at all, that I would have expected, dealing with them over the last 3+ months. I appreciate that they recognized they didn't want pup after all and returned her to me, I said nothing to them except bring her back asap, no questions or accusations. Wasn't planning on having an 8 week old pup right now, but, that's part of the job. Does make me question my radar again however. And remind me that there is simply no way to really "know" every buyer. 

Do I begrudge anyone the right to try and protect themselves and what they produce? NOT ONE IOTA.


----------



## passthru (Feb 27, 2015)

I've read through several pages of this and have come back to it a couple of times. I think I understand both sides and my initial reaction was that I wouldn't buy a LR pup. But in thinking about it, I'm not sure I will ever need to have a full registration. I'm a hunter who will train his own dog and may even check out a local club or two for the purposes of learning and improving my dog but I have no illusions of having a greatly accomplished dog as far as field trials or hunt tests. Not with my limited knowledge and background in training. Also I'm not intending to breed my dog. An LR pup would work for people like me who want a dog with some back ground of train-ability and health certs in the lineage but could pick up a good pup at a reduced price for the small "inconvenience" of a LR. Then later, if I find my dog and I have the ability to do more and I have the desire, I could pick up the full registration after meeting the breeders requirements and go from there. Does that make sense?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I purchased the dog in my avatar, Topbrass Wildfire Cody MH *** back in 1994 from Jackie Mertens with a limited registration. Jackie didn't know me from Adam, and though Cody was as well bred as you could get, she was justifiably skeptical about a newbie buying and perhaps breeding dogs irresponsibly. From our conversations I knew I was getting a discount and if I proved myself with Jackie, I could pay the difference and get a full registration down the road. As I had no interest in breeding, and saving 25% upfront sounded good, no big deal to me. 

I can see how giving up any control of their dog would be a deal breaker to some, so they just have to go elsewhere for their pup. Though not a panacea, I believe the Limited Registration option is a valuable tool for the responsible breeder.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I think what should be emphasized, is that most breeders are providing a road to Full Registration through education and mentoring. If people want to breed, the breeder offers suggestions of which lines nick well with their lines or are not a good choice, or help with decisions to make their experience a good one. This is done not with a co-ownership and control, but as a good working relationship through mentoring. There is no change except through education, and that isn't in any database.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I think what should be emphasized, is that most breeders are providing a road to Full Registration through education and mentoring. If people want to breed, the breeder offers suggestions of which lines nick well with their lines or are not a good choice, or help with decisions to make their experience a good one. This is done not with a co-ownership and control, but as a good working relationship through mentoring. There is no change except through education, and that isn't in any database.


I don't see how anyone can find fault with this breeder's statements and philosophy. (Or Rainmaker's, Sharon Potter's or likely some others whose posts I'm not capturing)

And if you don't like it, don't hate....just roll down the road to another breeder!

Chris


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

ErinsEdge said:


> I think what should be emphasized, is that most breeders are providing a road to Full Registration through education and mentoring. If people want to breed, the breeder offers suggestions of which lines nick well with their lines or are not a good choice, or help with decisions to make their experience a good one. This is done not with a co-ownership and control, but as a good working relationship through mentoring. There is no change except through education, and that isn't in any database.


That is exactly what happened with me. Jackie Mertens has become a great friend and mentor with me buying three generations of nice Golden's from her, training, trialing and breeding.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

*Rainmaker: *


> And, while it does not involve LR, yeah, people can put on a slick show and fool you right out the door with pup in their arms. Just sent home 10 FC AFC x SH pups, 2nd pick female was "new blood", joining one of the clubs I belong to, got breeder referrals (which I greatly appreciated the compliments), going to do this and that, a young professional couple, asked and said all the right things, deposit down, months of emails and discussions, also when they picked up pup, when can they get started training at the club, yada yada. Three days later, guy wants to return pup, too much work and stress. Pup is fine, wonderful, everything I said, but, just putting too much pressure on himself at this time. Wife was sobbing, didn't want to let go. I don't know what their deal was, but, pup was back in my house within 12 hours of that email. She is a normal pup, needle teeth and all, not noisy, sleeping in her crate at night, plays, sociable, neighbor girls visit to play, she travels with me so far. So, WTH their deal was I don't know, but it was nothing, nothing at all, that I would have expected, dealing with them over the last 3+ months. I appreciate that they recognized they didn't want pup after all and returned her to me, I said nothing to them except bring her back asap, no questions or accusations. Wasn't planning on having an 8 week old pup right now, but, that's part of the job. Does make me question my radar again however. And remind me that there is simply no way to really "know" every buyer.


You did get it right that these buyers were sincere! They had the good faith and good sense to recognize that it was best to get the pup back to you quickly.

You raise a good point. Some people are, indeed, sincere in presenting themselves to a breeder ... but things don't always work out as planned. For varying reasons the buyers' intentions just don't come to fruition. 

Long ago I sold a puppy to a young couple (before LR). They had some dreams for their pup. Her father had bred Brits, and he was a hunter. They lived nearby, so I could be readily available for help in training. In fact, they lived very close to where they had seen me at obedience class with one of my dogs. 

At 3 years old, this bitch was returned to me because she was "incorrigible." I did a drive-by of their home before the day I was to pick her up there. She was tethered to their concrete front porch in late November. At the end of her tether was a HUGE pile of dog doo. Obviously she spent a lot of time on that tether. She was laying on the concrete porch next to a large bag of trash. She got up to greet me in a friendly manner, but she definitely didn't have the happy face I expect from a Golden greeting. She had spent most of her life either on that porch, in an outdoor pen, and confined to the kitchen in the house. No wonder she was a "bull in a china shop" when she was in the house. 

Fortunately, during her time in the outdoor pen, neighborhood kids had socialized her (and not abused her). There was no question she would be coming home with me! I felt it was important to see her behavior in her home environment, which now included a toddler about a year old. I also brought along a dog-savvy friend who could be a second set of eyes to observe the dog's behavior.

She was filthy. After her first bath, the water was literally black. After the 2nd bath, (maybe it was 3?) she finally looked presentable. She also immediately came in season! What if she had still been tethered on that porch? 

Correctly, and unfortunately, LR would not have helped this girl if the people had not FINALLY called me to tell me what an awful dog she was.


----------



## Clint Watts (Jan 7, 2009)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I don't see how anyone can find fault with this breeder's statements and philosophy. (Or Rainmaker's, Sharon Potter's or likely some others whose posts I'm not capturing)
> 
> And if you don't like it, don't hate....just roll down the road to another breeder!
> 
> Chris


No fault taken and I hope my posts on the subject reflected this view. I respect the breeders right to use LR and can see their passion for the breed. I apologize if I offended anyone at all, that was never my intent. Thanks


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Clint Watts said:


> No fault taken and I hope my posts on the subject reflected this view. I respect the breeders right to use LR and can see their passion for the breed. I apologize if I offended anyone at all, that was never my intent. Thanks


Thanks Clint, I did not have you in mind when I wrote that.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I don't see how anyone can find fault with this breeder's statements and philosophy. (Or Rainmaker's, Sharon Potter's or likely some others whose posts I'm not capturing)
> 
> And if you don't like it, don't hate....just roll down the road to another breeder!
> 
> Chris


 I don't hate, or find fault with the philosophies of many of the Breeders that choose to use LR.

I find fault with the very logic behind the existence of LR.

A "system" like a registry, only works if those individuals that are subject to its rules, actually respect the system, and choose to honor those rules.

That also includes certain "controls" (like LR) that are employed as part of the system.

To a person that respects and honors the "rules" of the system, Limited Registration does have the power to influence what they do. However, those people don't present a problem that requires regulation by such things as LR. They just simply are not the "problem".

The ones that are a problem, are not influenced at all by a silly piece of paper. 
Since they decide to disregard what it represents, they do in fact remove its very power to influence their behavior.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I don't hate, or find fault with the philosophies of many of the Breeders that choose to use LR.
> 
> I find fault with the very logic behind the existence of LR.
> 
> ...


Wow

Copterdoc, You are officially warned and on time out. 

No more posts until June 15. You're taking a breather.

You and I can communicate via PM. I am thinking you will either post your real name in your signature line, or you will change your username.

No more posts or you're done on RTF until June 15.

Gotta go coach a baseball game for kids. 

Chris


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Oh-oh Spaghettio! I really don't get the controversy, do it if you like it, don't do it if you don't like it. It sure doesn't hurt anybody even if you believe it's worthless.


----------



## Tank137 (Dec 30, 2014)

Would not buy a dog on limited registration. 

As as for the BYB. Don't knock them. The last dogs I've purchased both in the last 18months came from well known places from top FT and NFT lines which were well advertised. I also paid over 4k for both. Both dogs were to be vet checked before delivery, even came with fancy paperwork of clean bill of health. Well one came with an obvious umbilical hernia and the other came with a corneal scar which was healed, so an old injury. 

I have had a few litters in my day and was always honest and open about everything. I never proclaimed to be the best. Just tried to improve the bred and give people a healthy friend. All with full registration. 

Just my my two cents.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Tank137 said:


> Would not buy a dog on limited registration.
> 
> As as for the BYB. Don't knock them. The last dogs I've purchased both in the last 18months came from well known places from top FT and NFT lines which were well advertised. I also paid over 4k for both. Both dogs were to be vet checked before delivery, even came with fancy paperwork of clean bill of health. Well one came with an obvious umbilical hernia and the other came with a corneal scar which was healed, so an old injury.
> 
> ...


That's fine, to each their own.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> came with an obvious umbilical hernia and the other came with a corneal scar which was healed, so an old injury.


Did either of these conditions harm the dog? The corneal scar can happen with a puppy scratching an another pup's eye. Did the dog fail cerf? Did the hernia close itself or did you have to close it with surgery? If those conditions bothered you that much, did you ask to bring the puppy back?


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Wow...What the hell happen? 
Just saying......


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

ErinsEdge said:


> I think what should be emphasized, is that most breeders are providing a road to Full Registration through education and mentoring. If people want to breed, the breeder offers suggestions of which lines nick well with their lines or are not a good choice, or help with decisions to make their experience a good one. This is done not with a co-ownership and control, but as a good working relationship through mentoring. There is no change except through education, and that isn't in any database.


Very well said.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

OK...how about we all move along?

I think this one's been been beaten about pretty thoroughly and there are clearly some who feel that they are right and the other side is wrong.

Thanks....and no, it is NOT my goal to ban anyone from RTF. It is my goal to try and keep RTF moving along in a productive manner and avoid personal attacks and such.

Thanks, Chris


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Chris Atkinson said:


> OK...how about we all move along?
> 
> I think this one's been been beaten about pretty thoroughly and there are clearly some who feel that they are right and the other side is wrong.
> 
> ...



Sounds good to me.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Rainmaker said:


> I get that some object to breeder's using Limited Reg. Fine, don't buy from them. But the bad mouthing and negative accusations, particularly in response to some of the breeders on here who get the rejects and rescues due to irresponsible breeding, are ludicrous and insulting. I think Copterdoc and a couple others have zero clue what Limited Reg can and is used for by many responsible, reputable breeders, across many breeds. The flame throwing being done here is ridiculous and is putting an unnecessarily negative spin on LR. Yeah, I laugh at the silvers/dilutes who sell on LR, since they are already bastardizing the breed, what are they trying to protect with LR except their own bottom line? But, many fine breeders use it as intended, just leave it at that and go on with your life, maybe breed and sell a few litters, see when it hits home. Or, maybe you take no responsibility once the check clears and pup is out of your life, good riddance. That's your choice too. Not one of the breeders selling on LR is making nasty accusations against those that don't, they are simply defending/explaining their choice to do so, so really, just shut the you know what up and move along. You really and truly do not get it.
> 
> And, while it does not involve LR, yeah, people can put on a slick show and fool you right out the door with pup in their arms. Just sent home 10 FC AFC x SH pups, 2nd pick female was "new blood", joining one of the clubs I belong to, got breeder referrals (which I greatly appreciated the compliments), going to do this and that, a young professional couple, asked and said all the right things, deposit down, months of emails and discussions, also when they picked up pup, when can they get started training at the club, yada yada. Three days later, guy wants to return pup, too much work and stress. Pup is fine, wonderful, everything I said, but, just putting too much pressure on himself at this time. Wife was sobbing, didn't want to let go. I don't know what their deal was, but, pup was back in my house within 12 hours of that email. She is a normal pup, needle teeth and all, not noisy, sleeping in her crate at night, plays, sociable, neighbor girls visit to play, she travels with me so far. So, WTH their deal was I don't know, but it was nothing, nothing at all, that I would have expected, dealing with them over the last 3+ months. I appreciate that they recognized they didn't want pup after all and returned her to me, I said nothing to them except bring her back asap, no questions or accusations. Wasn't planning on having an 8 week old pup right now, but, that's part of the job. Does make me question my radar again however. And remind me that there is simply no way to really "know" every buyer.
> 
> Do I begrudge anyone the right to try and protect themselves and what they produce? NOT ONE IOTA.


And that boy should be neutered ! Can't handle a puppy, should not be siring children............contempt of silly assed puppy buyer regards.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

I don't have contempt for him, John, he got in over his head I guess, and did the right thing bringing her back, could have done much worse. I felt worse for his wife. I don't know what went on behind the scenes, but, everyone screws up, and maybe the reality of a puppy didn't fit the Disney image they had. I was just trying to illustrate that we simply cannot know everyone or screen perfectly, stuff is going to happen. It was very tempting to say something snotty like, hope you don't have kids anytime soon, but, while I am not overwhelmed by puppies and dogs, the thought of an infant or toddler gives me the shakes. ;-) Cute, but, don't want to raise one (now).


----------



## Bally's Gun Dogs (Jul 28, 2010)

Kudos to you Kim (little humans aren't that bad either...well unless you have a two year old and a one year old at the same time)

I stayed out of this for the most part, but was burned pretty bad this spring. I have not sold on limited registration in the past, but will in the future. When one of the first questions asked is if you sell on full registration it raises a red flag to me. Almost two years ago sold a well bred nice pup (AFC X MH). Had corresponded with individual for a few days and even replied to the full registration question with "I sell on full, but kindly ask that clearances are obtained prior to breeding". I received email back yes, completely understand. Sold pup and a few other things came up after but I sold her. My poor decision that I now have to live with as I now feel bad for that female that was sold.

Fast forward less than two years, happened to go on said individuals website and see she is bred to a well known stud and will whelp prior to turning two so obviously no clearances, but site says she has excellent prelims (none on file with ofa). 

I guess moral of story is you can't take anyone's word anymore which is very frustrating. OFA is a great resource, double check all said clearances on any puppy you are going to purchase. Even more importantly as stud owners, do the same diligence.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Rainmaker said:


> I don't have contempt for him, John, he got in over his head I guess, and did the right thing bringing her back, could have done much worse. I felt worse for his wife. I don't know what went on behind the scenes, but, everyone screws up, and maybe the reality of a puppy didn't fit the Disney image they had. I was just trying to illustrate that we simply cannot know everyone or screen perfectly, stuff is going to happen. It was very tempting to say something snotty like, hope you don't have kids anytime soon, but, while I am not overwhelmed by puppies and dogs, the thought of an infant or toddler gives me the shakes. ;-) Cute, but, don't want to raise one (now).


Kim, 
In no way did I mean you. Know that you are too good of a person to have that point of view. Myself on the other hand would prolly THROAT PUNCH that guy for wasting my time.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I think the story here is the longer you breed, the more apt you are going to come across people where you regret selling them a dog, even to the point that it haunts you and you wish you could take it back. You can't cure bad breeding and puppy mills, but you have to be able to sleep at night knowing you have tried your best not to let them go to spend their lives chained to a doghouse or in the crate or abused because they don't have time to teach the puppy simple obedience. You take the pups back because it's best for the dog, and usually great homes appear. Those that don't breed at all don't know what a breeder goes through, dealing with people. Taking care of the pups is much easier than dealing with some people. 
Sometimes you are totally blind sided and so are the buyers, with children. Nice family and Mom gets a puppy for her birthday. 8 and 10 yo proceed to be so afraid of the puppy they not only jump out of the way, they go in their rooms and don't come out until the puppy is crated. Are there other dynamics going on here? Probably; they are jealous of the puppy. Mom brings back the puppy crying and says I will come back for a puppy when the kids are out of the house. Who could predict this? That had a good ending for the puppy. There are many stories like this, but by and far most are good placements.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> And that boy should be neutered ! Can't handle a puppy, should not be siring children............contempt of silly assed puppy buyer regards.


This fellow may have very well done the right thing. He may have realized he made a mistake, and took action to correct it That was to the benefit of the puppy. First reaction is great annoyance, but when you cool down, it makes some sense. However, there are some humans I've met who could benefit from neutering  



> Fast forward less than two years, happened to go on said individuals website and see she is bred to a well known stud and will whelp prior to turning two so obviously no clearances, but site says she has excellent prelims (none on file with ofa).


One can only hope they also did the rest of the health certs as well. A larger "sin" than the other buyer, since this person knew full well they had given their word otherwise. Maybe there were some extenuating circumstances in exact timing (depending on how close to age 2 the bitch was at the time of breeding & when those prelims were done, in which case, they might have given the courtesy of calling you in advance to explain that. When you have given your word to an honorable person who is taking you at your word, there is value in maintaining such good will.


> I think the story here is the longer you breed, the more apt you are going to come across people where you regret selling them a dog, even to the point that it haunts you and you wish you could take it back. You can't cure bad breeding and puppy mills, but you have to be able to sleep at night knowing you have tried your best not to let them go to spend their lives chained to a doghouse or in the crate or abused because they don't have time to teach the puppy simple obedience. You take the pups back because it's best for the dog, and usually great homes appear. Those that don't breed at all don't know what a breeder goes through, dealing with people. Taking care of the pups is much easier than dealing with some people.


Nancy P, you have a way with words


----------



## laurendaniel1995 (Jun 3, 2015)

In thinking about selling all on limited registration and once the pup has proved itself, has all it's health clearances and passes I would release full registration to owners. With the exception you know they will be a responsible breeder and not breed to dilutes. It's just a thought.


----------



## mngundog (Mar 25, 2011)

laurendaniel1995 said:


> In thinking about selling all on limited registration and once the pup has proved itself, has all it's health clearances and passes I would release full registration to owners. With the exception you know they will be a responsible breeder and not breed to dilutes. It's just a thought.


What do you mean by "proved itself"?


----------



## Charley (Gator) (Jun 10, 2015)

Full registration is a must for me.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Charley (Gator) said:


> Full registration is a must for me.


Can you give us your real name so Lab breeders know you're into silver and can put you on their "do not sell to" list?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Charley (Gator) said:


> Full registration is a must for me.


This is why I sell with Limited Registration, all in a nutshell. And when you tell them you only sell on limited, you should hear the verbiage that comes out of their mouths. I don't need those conversations to ruin my day or waste my time because it is time consuming to track these people down on the internet, only to find they breed silvers. Sure, they want better breeding to get titles to sell pups for more money because there are very few with titles and good health certs. Time for their own registry and they can sell to each other.


----------



## Clint Watts (Jan 7, 2009)

Charley (Gator) said:


> Full registration is a must for me.


I hate to actually say this, but I guess there are good reasons for limited that do crop up.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

clint watts said:


> i hate to actually say this, but i guess there are good reasons for limited that do crop up.


rofl.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> I do find it interesting that while some buyers insist on being taken at their word, they refuse to give the breeders the same courtesy.


This is where the rubber met the road and got me to buy my last pup on a limited reg., after many times (on here and elsewhere) insisting it was BS.

The thing is... it takes some mutual trust. I can still breed the dog indiscriminately and given the popularity of "designer breeds" I could probably let him bred to a poodle and get more money than an AKC Chessie. 

I have to trust that the registration will be released when the time comes if the SIMPLE condition of having clearances done is met.

The breeder has to trust (in our case) that not only will I do the clearances, but I won't breed a dog that isn't solid in temperament and performance. 

I remember the discussion that said 

Breeder - "I know you're not going to breed him regardless, if he's not a dog you like. If you don't like him I doubt I will either so he'll end up spayed one way or another if he isn't a solid dog."

She trusts me, but we do know each other at arms length so she wanted the piece of mind she gets out of limited. 

I thought it was OK to work together with her because barring her death or serious health complications, she'll honor her commitment once clearances are complete (and I wouldn't breed without them anyhow).

Would I do it with someone I had no impression or relationship with? NO

Did I check references on the breeder? YES

Did she check them on me? YES 

Everyone can come away happy if you believe the other party has good intentions and they have proven it in the past.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

There is a way to offset "what if something happens to the breeder" (like death or incompetence)? 

Reversal of limited cannot be done online (at least not when I did it last). It must be written. Therefore, the breeder can print the form off the AKC website, and sign the "reversal", date it, and leave the forms in the care of a trusted friend (or even an attorney) ... so that no buyer will be left out in the cold.

From a 3-yr old litter of 7 pups, the 3 bitches are spayed; 1 male didn't pass elbows; and another male was neutered. 2 males remain intact. Only one bitch & the one I co-owned, had a goal of being breeding stock ... and you see how that turned out :-( The two males who came through their clearances are doing well in competition, so may end up being bred eventually. I have good reason to believe that both of them would "do the right thing" by them. If I'm not around to advise them, there is a network of "dog family" who can do that in my stead. 

One of the odd things about agility competitors seems to be that few of them seem to be interested in breeding. They are very avid competitors; have a great time with their dogs; love to win ... but for most of them (in my limited experience) breeding is not a primary goal. If the dog turns out to be really good, then some of them may breed their dog, mostly to simply acquire a follow-up dog for competition for themselves.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

DarrinGreene said:


> This is where the rubber met the road and got me to buy my last pup on a limited reg., after many times (on here and elsewhere) insisting it was BS.
> 
> The thing is... it takes some mutual trust. I can still breed the dog indiscriminately and given the popularity of "designer breeds" I could probably let him bred to a poodle and get more money than an AKC Chessie.
> 
> ...


I did put Darrin through the wringer before I sold him a puppy. Made quite a few inquiries and talked to people who know and have trained with him.  

And now I'm wondering just what kind of puppy I sold him if it's possible to spay a male!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> I did put Darrin through the wringer before I sold him a puppy. Made quite a few inquiries and talked to people who know and have trained with him.
> 
> And now I'm wondering just what kind of puppy I sold him if it's possible to spay a male!


Is his name Caitlyn?


----------

