Dogs Queensland Wanting To Restrict The Limit Register

[JessicaM]

Alot of breeders do not show but just breed and sell the pups off as pets. I believe this has alot to do with the 'faces' game that exhibitors and local judges like to do in the ring.

I myself DO NOT enter any shows under local judges, we can pick out who gets all the awards.

I would love to get buyers keen to join the ring, we do not have many breeders in our state I am one to help out new people. Hopefully along the way the new buyers could sign up to the state canine group and start showing and breeding registered dogs.

Going back to the original post, DQ doesn't make any money off BYB litters. Thus give the public access to pedigree dogs and more members, more litters, more money.

[Angeluca]

Alot of breeders do not show but just breed and sell the pups off as pets. I believe this has alot to do with the 'faces' game that exhibitors and local judges like to do in the ring.

I myself DO NOT enter any shows under local judges, we can pick out who gets all the awards.

I would love to get buyers keen to join the ring, we do not have many breeders in our state I am one to help out new people. Hopefully along the way the new buyers could sign up to the state canine group and start showing and breeding registered dogs.

Going back to the original post, DQ doesn't make any money off BYB litters. Thus give the public access to pedigree dogs and more members, more litters, more money.

I see the business logic here, but it would also be destroying the (whats left of) pedigree quality. destroying the quality most breeders aim for with increasing the quantity of breeders will not help anyone, Labradors are a perfect example, there are so many lab breeders that poor quality dogs bred for colour are destroying the integrity and reputation of the breed. I personally know a lab breeder who breeds black dogs of excellent standard and basically has beg for buyers with lower prices that it just isn't worth the cost of breeding. How is that going to help dogsQLD. and this has been done to staffys, border collies that i know of and will happen anytime a bloody dog movie comes out and misrepresents a breed.

I hate to think what is going to happen when every border collie, Australian Shepard is born blind because those who did it properly couldn't afford to do it and every dog came from double merle breeding to maximize profits, or we get aggressive labradors and golden retrievers. What will happen to the bull breeds and any protection breed used when they are used as penis extensions and there is no more good examples of breed, that they are all put on the ban list.

Surely moral and ethical logic must come to play here? and this is no long term business plan either this is a get rich quick then retire and let the next generation fold the cards and admit defeat system.

I also don't show, I am starting out in obedience but uni and life is getting in the way of training. But all my dogs get conformation tested by a few very experience breeders which not all are of the same breed but have worked with them extensively. I try to ensure what i breed would have a good chance in a honest ring, I encourage anyone who would like to try. But I just don't as the prefixes in my lines aren't what you'd call the in group. And I got crossed by one of those in group when i was starting out because i wouldn't desex my dog, I wanted to wait and see how he turned out. He wouldn't have matched that persons lines which is why i told them my research took me in another direction. I had a pup lined up from another breeder who was thrilled to help. Until one day wouldn't return my calls and just wrote an email say they don't have a bitch for me and probably wont ever, good luck. A few days later i got a call asking how that other dog was going??????? Later found out those 2 are facebook buddies.

But i suppose corruption is in all forms.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Angeluca

[Jed]

Mystiquview - it is very difficult to tell. I once stomped up to the house, found the dog chained up (with 40 others) told her that wasn't what we agreed at time of sale, and she had a choice, I would give her $100 and take the dog, and his signed papers away with me, or the RSPCA would be calling on her.

Another I got back on loan and desexed, because she was breeding Cavoodles. I think the CCCQ fell about laughing when the owner complained to them about it.

Still - I have had two I am sad about and could never redress, despite trying to. I usually go to visit them at about 12 months .... and I tell the buyers I will.

But being on LR would not have stopped any of that. One which fell on hard times was resold by the first owner to a lovely lady with a little boy who was a puppy farmer. So now I ask them to sign a letter saying they will bring the dog back to me.

I have been breeding for a a very long time, and I haven't had too many go astray, so it could be worse, but I do grieve for each little life which isn't lived as it should be.

Removing the LR wont make people who don't stand their dogs at stud change their minds. It will make them more likely not to stand them. People who have spent $10,000+ importing dogs which go Gr Ch and do a lot for the breed, have, in my opinion, the right to say where and to whom the pups may go. If that if the price I pay to use a dog which improves my lines so be it. If there is no LR, the owners probably will not stand them any more.

Agree with you JessicaM. Every week, it seems, there are more and more registered breeders advertising on DOL, yet no one in the breed knows them.

I don't think this move will increase show/breeding numbers. CCCQ needs to think laterally and make it interesting and exciting for new owners. I am attending the meeting re this - I only go to a meeting once every 40 years, but I have a lot to say when I get there !!!

Angeluca - years ago, someone who didn't know me, and had never been to my property once told a breeder in another state that I was a puppy farmer, so I got the cold shoulder. Very difficult to be a puppy farmer with only 4 dogs. So the lovely bitch of good lines never arrived. Nothing ever changes. There are great people out there, and real grubs

Edited February 23, 2014 by Jed

[Steve]

Dogs Queensland in the February issue of Dog World under "President's Message" has printed a bit there that they are going to discuss at a "Board Level" changing the conditions of the Limited Register.

Q. Why do your breeders breed litters

A. For the betterment of the breed and for replacement of show stock etc.

Q. Do we have a Limited Register

A. Yes

Q. Is it true that the amount of puppies put on the Limited Register is increasing dramatically?

A. Yes almost 40% of all Puppies

Q. Does this mean that our Breeders are not breeding better quality dogs and their breeding programmes are not succeeding?

A. No, what it means is that a lot of our members do not fully understand why and what the limited register is to be used for

" That all application for the Limited Register shall be accompanied by a Vet Certificate/ Letter advising the reasons as to why this Dog/Bitch should be placed on the limited register.We are all so aware of the threat to our hobby from outside influences, but sometimes the threat from within can be far more destructive."

Many of us place our pups on the LR to stop unwarranted registered breeding to occur with our lines. In QLD we do not have a "Not for Breeding" box or form unlike many other states. So we place pups on the LR to prevent this. Not always because they have a true breed fault.

Take aside the early desexing argument. It really should be up to the breeder if they want to early desex or not - and that is not the point here. Although if this is adopted - many more breeders will be forced to early desexing to stop the rogue breeders of their breed from gaining access to their lines. (This also plays into the hand that some of the welfare groups wanted us to do back in before the Animal Management Act 2008 came into force - all pups are desexed prior to sale.

Please - QLD members - write in to Dogs Queensland and voice your concern and objection to Dogs Queensland taking away a breeders right on what should or not be bred. I certainly do not want the puppy farmers or colour breeders getting hold of my dogs or lines as a result of such a move. We at least need a "not for breeding" option if we are now to place most of our stock on Main Register.

I think this is what is the crux of what is happening here - someone or some group sees limited register puppies are increasing and some see that as an indication that we are not breeding better quality dogs and that our breeding programs are not succeeding. It could just as easily mean that we are being more selective about which ones we choose to show and or breed with because public perception, CC regs, state and council laws limit the amount of dogs we can own.

Its about us looking like we are breeding more puppies which are unsuitable for breeding. No vet will ever decide for me which dog should or should not be used for breeding - just one more decision they will take from breeders.

[sandgrubber]

1. I accept the argument that preservation of genetic diversity is important, hence that having a large number of dogs produce a relatively small number of pups is preferable to having a small number of 'excellent' examples dominate the next generation.

2. It is my experience that some breeders use limited register as a means to try and preserve a monopoly (ok, not a monopoly, but a restricted supply) on pups of their breed.

3. I find that 'improving the breed' in many instances means selecting for the type that is winning in the ring in this decade, often to the exclusion of earlier types with less extreme characteristics.

Putting these together, I applaud QLD in questioning widespread use of limited register.

[oakway]

The truth of the matter is simply this.....we the breeders are NOT receiving enquiries for a puppy to show.

If we don't get owners wanting to show most breeders do the right thing and place the pups on the limited register.

To encourage people to show I put mine on the main register and de sex so the owners should they want to change their minds later on and show the dog they can. Simple as that.

[Mystiqview]

I see the business logic here, but it would also be destroying the (whats left of) pedigree quality. destroying the quality most breeders aim for with increasing the quantity of breeders will not help anyone, Labradors are a perfect example, there are so many lab breeders that poor quality dogs bred for colour are destroying the integrity and reputation of the breed. I personally know a lab breeder who breeds black dogs of excellent standard and basically has beg for buyers with lower prices that it just isn't worth the cost of breeding. How is that going to help dogsQLD. and this has been done to staffys, border collies that i know of and will happen anytime a bloody dog movie comes out and misrepresents a breed.

I hate to think what is going to happen when every border collie, Australian Shepard is born blind because those who did it properly couldn't afford to do it and every dog came from double merle breeding to maximize profits, or we get aggressive labradors and golden retrievers. What will happen to the bull breeds and any protection breed used when they are used as penis extensions and there is no more good examples of breed, that they are all put on the ban list.

Surely moral and ethical logic must come to play here? and this is no long term business plan either this is a get rich quick then retire and let the next generation fold the cards and admit defeat system.

JessicaM I know where you are coming from. However as Angeluca has highlighted above, my breed is one that is gripped by a colour fad and I this get rich quick mentality of breeding puppies not for show ring quality but to gain money of the pet market. Even the top show homes, a breeder may run on one or two pups of quality. The rest make it to the pet market. Even for show dogs, they need to have excellent temperaments - a prime reason why people want dogs in general as pets.

I have shown, competed in obedience and herding. I choose not to know. I do not breed often and I prefer to sell my dogs as pets than as show dogs. That way you don't have an owner saying the ears have not come up right, or it's not winning therefore you sold me a dud or whatever such excuse is possible. However I still try to stick to the breed standard. I am selective of where my dogs go and do everything in my power to respect the wishes of stud dog owners, do the right thing by the breed and just as important do the right thing by the dog!

My lines carry three of the fad colours. I do not advertise this fact, nor have I set out to produce two of them, one of which is unrecognised in our standard. It has happened to me twice as I repeated the mating. The first time my pick bitch was an unrecognised colour - limit register and desex. The second time the colour appeared, desexed and limit register. Things like unrecognised colours do crop up. It is one thing to be responsible and do the right thing and another completely to go out of your way to produce them so you can get more money for it.

The last time I mated that bitch, I chose a stud KNOWN for not carrying colour, as I knew the dam would still throw one copy of that gene. He was a top quality dog. The condition was anything I did not keep went on LR. If not for the LR, I may not have access to this dog. If I did not care where the puppies went, and sold them into the colour homes, I would never had any chance of using the dog. As a small kennel, these are the things you have to be very mindful of if you want to have any remote chance of using quality dogs. Do the wrong thing and doors will close and it is then very hard to get them reopened.

I have no issue with helping new breeders. The problem is that many of the new ones coming into my breed, seem only to be interested in what they can gain from breeding colour border collies. The more colours the better. They are breeding red to merle which is dangerous if any resulting pups are red. To be safe, you have to assume the red pup Is also merle and never breed it back to a merle or a other red dog where one parent is merle. This could be a merle to merle mating. It has happened because the breeder was not aware, did not care or just did not understand genetics.

There is more to healthy happy pets than just basic DNA health and conformation and to the quality and longevity of breeds where fads exist. If a person is breeding for sporting, they especially have to ensure they have excellent conformation as those dogs will be adding extra pressures associated with the sport. In my opinion, conformation is just as if not more important for sporting dogs than show dogs. The physical requirement for agility is far greater than a show dog due to the jumping, turning etc. This is supported by people such as Pat Hastings and other prominent breed and vet figures.

It is fine to breed pets. But you should still be aiming for quality pets, not just average pets.

[WreckitWhippet]

The only one's this will hurt are the breeders that do care about their lines and their pups and where they end up. The puppy farmers will once again rub their hands together and simply put them all on main register as many of them already do. They naturally sell entire show quality litters and it's not going to make an ounce of difference to them.

You breed it, you put in the hard yards, you have every right to determine where the pups should end up and if you want them to be bred from or not.

At least there's the option of tubal ligation and vasectomy and the those options are quickly gaining popularity.

[dancinbcs]

In my breed there ar so many dogs who don not comply with the breed standard based in colour. In health terms they would qualify to be on the MR. Nearly five years ago, my pick bitch was ian incorrect colour so I had no choice to register her on the LR and have her desexed. Because of her colour, she could never have been shown. If I bred her today, I would do the same again as that is the breed standard. A vet would clear her as healthy. So do we need to take the breed standard along to the vet and say, this dog needs to be registered as LR because of the colour? And do we need to take a copy of the breed standard and even the extended standard for when we get our vet certificate?

Dogs qld answer to this: " Register it to the closest colour" so we are having all these unrecognised colours to our breed standard being registered incorrectly on the main register so they can be bred with. Queensland also has a high percentage of breeders and new breeding coming in breeding for colour as they can get up to $800 more per puppy compared to the standard black and white.

So with the above, for those breeding against the standard, would a vet support the limit register for all those colour breed pups because while they may be vet healthy they do not conform to the standard? (Because according to our standard, they should be LR anyway).

There is no mention in the BC breed standard that any colours are a disqualification and all colours used to be main registered as their correct colours and bred from. Those not in the breed standard, if shown, had their colour considered a fault, like any other fault. In my book something as cosmetic as colour is much less of a fault than a bad bite, cow hocks, flat withers or any other structural fault. At the moment you can main register a dog that is a complete mess structurally, so long as it is a listed colour. Keep in mind that all colours and patterns in the breed are perfectly acceptable in every other country in the world. So no colour is against the breed standard, most have just not been listed by omission. About 15 years ago, without any consultation the to breed clubs, the ANKC installed a new computer system and loaded in the all the colours listed in the breed standards for all breeds. They then decided that only those colours could be registered as main register so they have created the problem and the states just advise to register the dogs as the closest colour if you want them on main register. It is an absolutely stupid regulation to disqualify dogs from main registration based on something as irrelevant as colour. It confirms to the public that purebred dogs are all about appearance when they should be about sound health and structure as well as breed type. The cosmetic points of colours and markings should be way down the list of importance and definitely should not be the criteria to breed from but neither should they be a criteria to disqualify them from main registration.

As to the proposal in Qld that makes no sense either. Vets don't have a clue if a dog matches breed standards. It would however be a good idea for breeders to have to give a full written reason why they wish to limit register each puppy with reference to why it doesn't match the standard. Maybe some of them would be forced to read the standard that way. Those who keep breeding and sell everything on limit are contributing nothing to the future of the breeds and therefore are against the COE. The key to knowing what people will do with puppies is to get to know them first. The current trend for online questionnaires is very worrying as buyers have time to work out answers rather than asking the questions in person so they have to answer on the spot. Too many breeders rely on the online replies and a couple of phone calls and only let buyers visit when they come to collect the puppy. It saves time but doesn't allow you to really get to know them. I always had buyers come at least twice before collecting their puppy. If they lived locally I had them visit every week from 4 weeks on. The only buyer that every let me down came highly recommended but my gut feeling as the weeks went on was to say I didn't have anything suitable. Luckily I managed to buy the puppy back at 5 months and get him out of a very nasty marriage breakup situation.

[Diva]

It is an absolutely stupid regulation to disqualify dogs from main registration based on something as irrelevant as colour. It confirms to the public that purebred dogs are all about appearance when they should be about sound health and structure as well as breed type. The cosmetic points of colours and markings should be way down the list of importance and definitely should not be the criteria to breed from but neither should they be a criteria to disqualify them from main registration.

could not agree more

[Mystiqview]

Well I has a "lovely" talk to Dogs Qld today. It would seem they think that ALL breeders abuse the Limit Register and use it solely to stop people breeding. They want to open it up to everyone. They don't care if that includes those who refuse to health test, breed to the fad or anything else. They just want more people breeding. They want to go back to the good old days where the limit register first came out for "blue eyes" or other faults.

Maybe they think allowing everyone and anyone to breed cannot be worse than allowing BYB to breed with pedigree dogs "unregistered"?? Sorry I disagree there - Pedigree breeders are supposed to set the benchmark.

I had an email from someone yesterday wanting to know who to go to for an ethical BC breeder after having a bad experience with someone else. I will protect their name and ID, so please don't ask who. They emailed 16 Pedigree BC breeders looking for a new pup. Of those 16 breeders they emailed - only TWO hip/elbow scored and completely DNA health tested their dogs. The others saw it as "stressful" on the animals. Those 14 other breeders - how are they helping the breed as a whole if they cannot even do the basics for the dogs they have currently.

Karen - what used to be before they changed the standard back in then and what we have now is totally different and what used to be is totally irrelevant now. How many times have the wider community tried to have the standard changed only to have it blocked or deemed not admissible by the ANKC? The breed standard lists the recognised colours and in doing so disregards the others. It does not matter that they are all there or even accepted in other countries.

In those good old days, even when I started in the breed only 12 years ago, most people who wanted to get into breeding did not have an ulterior motive of making a quick buck. They were much more trust worthy to at least TRY to do the right thing - even if they started out with not something spectacular or made a few mistakes when first starting out.

From my talk with Dogs Qld this afternoon - they don't even care or "get involved" in what is acceptable in other states and complain they are constantly having problems with people who move to QLD from other states and now have to follow a different set of rules. I asked about the so called National Guideline to which their response was "It is only a guideline - we don't have to follow it".

Placing pet puppies on Limit Register who naturally get desexed by their owners during the course of the time is no problem. It would not matter on the whole if they were on the Main Register in those genuine situations - the pup would be desexed by 12 months and still no benefit or contribution to the breed at large. At least by placing a pup on the LR - it can always be upgraded.

The Limit Register is not a problem in itself - if people don't want to show, they don't want to show. Those who want to breed for money will always be there while they can do exactly that. Breed so they can make money. They don't care about structure - only that crucial bottom line.

[dancinbcs]

I can see what Dogs Q are trying to do and that is return to the days when everything was sold on main register and most people got into showing and breeding after buying the puppy. It usually never entered their head until the puppy started to grow. Many bitch owners bred a litter first from their pet bitch under the guidance of her breeder and then got the show bug with their first home bred puppy. This is where most breeders started out. We do need a lot more registered breeders but we need good ones who will be happy to be guided by the experienced ones. We need a lot more breeding small numbers of quality puppies rather than less people churning out puppies like livestock. Getting more people to show is a much bigger problem. Until they fix the ways shows are now conducted, nothing will change there. Newbies used to be able to start showing with a good dog and win, that doesn't happen any more. The judges and hierarchy get all defensive when the problems are raised. If they don't stop and listen they will completely kill dog showing in this country.

I just don't get what having a vet look at the puppies has to do with anything. I vet won't know if blue eyes are acceptable in a breed or not. They don't understand breed specifications so how will they decide which puppies should be limit or main. The limit register was brought in to stop puppies being exported and to stop anyone breeding from a dog with a disqualifying fault as specified in some breed standards,not to restrict bloodlines. I hate the way breeders "protect" their lines. If someone hadn't shared their lines with them they would never have been able to start breeding. No one owns bloodlines, they belong to the breed and restricting them completely can lead to what happened with Stumpies. It got to a point that there was only one registered breeder who would not sell a registered bitch to anyone. If the register hadn't been opened, the breed would have become extinct.

My thought is that it is always better for breeders to breed with better lines no matter what they are breeding for. If they never breed good puppies they have no idea what they are supposed to be breeding. More education of breeders before they get a prefix is needed along with keeping them in line re overpricing and not health testing. Maybe in consultation with the breed clubs they could set annual recommended prices ranges for each breed so the public know when they are being ripped off and have an available list of recommended health tests for each breed. Getting this basic info is just about impossible in most breeds. There was a purebred puppy of a colour listed as highly undesirable (note not a disqualification) in their breed standard, advertised this week for $20,000. What sort of message does that send about registered breeders? This breeder is listed here on DOL. I would also suggest that the very small percentage of breeders producing more than 4 litters a year should have to justify what they are doing for the future of their breed to the board of directors. Those few breeding quality dogs would do this easily. Those breeding all limit register pets should have to lift their game or lose their prefix. All of these suggestions would do more for purebred dogs than the proposal by DQ. If showing could return to judging just to the breed standard and nothing else, new showies would be easy to encourage and therefore more breeders would appear.

[espinay2]

But when we only had the main register you didn't need to register every pup in a litter. Many breeders would sell pets unregistered and only register a few. My first pyr was like this. I was buying a pet so she was unregistered (I was given a hand written 10 generation pedigree). It was only with the intro of the limited register that the requirement to register all pups was introduced.

[Jed]

Espinay, you did need to register all here. Every living pup had to be registered

However, in those days, every fourth person who wanted a pup didn't want to make lots of bucks studding their second rate dog, or breeding 10 litters out of their bitch to recoup the purchase price.

I have decided if this rule is brought in, I shall only register the pups I am keeping, rather than have the others go on MR, and I am not the only one. If it goes against the coe, sad, it wasn't the coe I originally signed, and I would not do anything which was not for the welfare of the dogs. WE have enough problems now without anti-member rules too.

DQ has demonstrated they are only interested in $$, not the welfare of the dogs. Wonder who thought this one up? There are regional meetings soon, and I think there will be quite a bit said about this.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Jed

[Jed]

I hope Q members who are concerned about this will attend one of the meetings in various areas in March and make their feelings known. Please do.

I also think this will lead to more members doing neonatal desexing.

My vet will happily sign forms to say the pup is not the quality for breeding / showing - but that should no be necessary. The breeder should be able to make that determination.

I rather fear that DQ is in favour of puppy farms and lots of lovely lolly flowing in from all those pups being bred in cages down in the shed.

[Angeluca]

I hope Q members who are concerned about this will attend one of the meetings in various areas in March and make their feelings known. Please do.

I also think this will lead to more members doing neonatal desexing.

My vet will happily sign forms to say the pup is not the quality for breeding / showing - but that should no be necessary. The breeder should be able to make that determination.

I rather fear that DQ is in favour of puppy farms and lots of lovely lolly flowing in from all those pups being bred in cages down in the shed.

I will not be doing neonatal desexing If my concerns come to the point of the pedigree isn't worth anything more than a puppy farm name or the risk to to many pups being put in a bad situation not desexed. Then I will stop breeding.

for 2 reasons

1 I would hope to find that same home that would offer a pup desexed a good life as before i desexed them.

2 I can not ask any more for a common dog desexed as everyone else does undesexed, then i have more out lay which I can not afford. I already do beyond the requirements in health testing to provide a good dog, I can not and will not breed to desex. I have no problem supplying the pet market, they deserve quality dogs, but I will not put a pup under general (and i would not just desex, it would be tubal or vasectomy as i believe the early desexing affects joint growth) just cause i'm concerned something may happen. That is just as bad as every vet pushing for preventative surgery, that may or may not be needed. If the concern out weighs the good of breeding then I just wont breed.

[dancinbcs]

But when we only had the main register you didn't need to register every pup in a litter. Many breeders would sell pets unregistered and only register a few. My first pyr was like this. I was buying a pet so she was unregistered (I was given a hand written 10 generation pedigree). It was only with the intro of the limited register that the requirement to register all pups was introduced.

When I started it was very unusual for breeders in NSW and Vic to not register all puppies and sell them on main. In my first decade in dogs, I only met two people at obedience trials who had unregistered dogs from registered breeders. Everyone had main register, whether they showed or not and none of the breeders who mentored me ever mentioned not registering every puppy. All progeny of my stud dogs were registered and sold on main as well. In those days lots of pet bitches had litters for their breeders and dogs in pet homes were used at stud to top breeders bitches. It really did help to keep the gene pool open.

[Jed]

DQ seems to have forgotten that if the pup develops into show quality and the owner wants to show the breeder can transfer from limited to main register.

People will either desex prior to sale, register only what they are keeping (against the rules) or cease breeding. Things are not as they were 15 - 20 years ago!! Not at all

There is little genuine interest from new people in breeding and showing. Look around the showring. How many new people are there? Very very few. And none of them had problems getting a dog to show and breed with. Because they are genuine. Taking LR away will not suddenly increase exhibitor numbers.

Hope everyone in Q will attend the workshop near them and have their say.

[Steve]

espinay2, on 28 February 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

But when we only had the main register you didn't need to register every pup in a litter. Many breeders would sell pets unregistered and only register a few. My first pyr was like this. I was buying a pet so she was unregistered (I was given a hand written 10 generation pedigree). It was only with the intro of the limited register that the requirement to register all pups was introduced.

Dancinbcs "When I started it was very unusual for breeders in NSW and Vic to not register all puppies and sell them on main. In my first decade in dogs, I only met two people at obedience trials who had unregistered dogs from registered breeders. Everyone had main register, whether they showed or not and none of the breeders who mentored me ever mentioned not registering every puppy. All progeny of my stud dogs were registered and sold on main as well. In those days lots of pet bitches had litters for their breeders and dogs in pet homes were used at stud to top breeders bitches. It really did help to keep the gene pool open. "

Yes I agree that it was better for the gene pool and the reality is that unless a breeder is desexing every puppy before sale now that the only people it is restricting by using limited register is people who want to become members and breed registered puppies - it doesn't stop people who will breed them without papers. Breeders need to ask themselves if they are trying to keep new members breeding registered puppies out because that is the only group which could possibly increase due to the restricted use of limited register papers. What is worse someone buying a puppy and breeding it without being able to put papers on their puppies or someone who becomes a member and breeds it to make registered puppies which become part of the gene pool.

Of course keeping it and using it as it is also prevents people who are older members trying to do the right thing by the breed and using your dogs as well but is it better for the breed when these breeders are forced to use inferior dogs?

I don't agree that having a vet make a determination that a dog should or should not be used for breeding is the answer but asking a breeder to explain why they place each dog on limited register would help to change the current view of how the limited register should be used for the betterment of the breeds and see more placed on the main register.

Some will argue that things are not as they were 15-20 years ago BECAUSE of the introduction of the limited register .It has seen less people breeding a litter or two and more people breeding a lot ,more people breeding pure bred dogs without papers ,less choices in a breeding program and a shrinking gene pool, less ANKC members and less ANKC puppy registrations.

Having everyone breeding the same genes in the same way - clones of a core group of breeders- isn't what is best for the long term benefit of a breed and that is supposed to be what our main objective is when we breed a dog. Breeders who only register what they keep and break the codes, desex what they dont want to keep or cease breeding will be seen to be part of the problem.

Sooner or later in my opinion the limited register in all states will be gone or have much greater restrictions on it . Its better for the breeds and its better for the bank.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Steve

[Steve]

double post

Edited March 1, 2014 by Steve