When Did The Limited Register Start?

[Clemevi]

Hi

I have an awful memory and when I started out in 1995 I don't think there was a Limited Register, was there one anywhere then? Am I just going senile? Hahhah it wouldn't surprise me!

:laugh:

Thanks

[Jed]

It began in 90something. Not quite sure when, but obviously after 1995!!

"They" are thinking of doing away with it in Qld.

But we did manage without it, but times were different

[Clemevi]

Thanks! :D

[JRG]

I would have said "before 1995"!!

[Steve]

In NSW I reckon about the end of 98. I know it came in when I was living at one place and I didnt move there until 97.

WA is very different and papers have always been dealt with differently than most other states.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Steve

[Mystiqview]

It began in 90something. Not quite sure when, but obviously after 1995!!

"They" are thinking of doing away with it in Qld.

But we did manage without it, but times were different

I don't think it is much doing away with it per sae. More like restricting its broad use to encourage more breeders and show dogs. They seem to have this belief that the limit register is the root cause for dwindling show entrants and an increase in BYB.

People have to WANT to show.. And I don't think the LR is the root cause. It is becoming an expensive sport for start.

And as for BYB - well those that don't want to become registered breeders won't.. Those that are serious will. Those that bred with their "pedigree" limit registered dog and advertise only "from registered pedigree parents - pups not registered" will do the same with a MR animal.

[Mystiqview]

Oops double post

Edited June 6, 2014 by Mystiqview

[piper]

My first dogs were born in 94 and 95 and there was no limit then.

[alpha bet]

I remember back in late 80's the VCA (Dogs Vic) started talking about introducing a Pet System for registration - at that point many of the breeders used to just write Pet Only in big letters on the registration papers.

In 1994 I had a litter of JRT's - the litter registration form in my file has allowance for marking a pup as Limited Register - so suspect it might have been more in 1993-94. However back then breeders tended to register most of the pups on the main register unless there was a specific reason to restrict the dog for breed or show. Usually if too small or wrong colours or some major fault was obvious.

[espinay2]

My first pyr (from Victoria) in 1994 was a pet who was sold unregistered as she had only single rear dewclaws (major fault). So at that time they were not using the limited register (or it's use was not common or mandatory). As mentioned, this was more common then. I was given a hand written 10 generation pedigree.

[dancinbcs]

I remember back in late 80's the VCA (Dogs Vic) started talking about introducing a Pet System for registration - at that point many of the breeders used to just write Pet Only in big letters on the registration papers.

In 1994 I had a litter of JRT's - the litter registration form in my file has allowance for marking a pup as Limited Register - so suspect it might have been more in 1993-94. However back then breeders tended to register most of the pups on the main register unless there was a specific reason to restrict the dog for breed or show. Usually if too small or wrong colours or some major fault was obvious.

This is what the limit register was designed for. To limit the breeding of dogs with obvious faults. It was never intended that most dogs would be limit registered.

[Steve]

I remember back in late 80's the VCA (Dogs Vic) started talking about introducing a Pet System for registration - at that point many of the breeders used to just write Pet Only in big letters on the registration papers.

In 1994 I had a litter of JRT's - the litter registration form in my file has allowance for marking a pup as Limited Register - so suspect it might have been more in 1993-94. However back then breeders tended to register most of the pups on the main register unless there was a specific reason to restrict the dog for breed or show. Usually if too small or wrong colours or some major fault was obvious.

This is what the limit register was designed for. To limit the breeding of dogs with obvious faults. It was never intended that most dogs would be limit registered.

Yep but instead we believed the crap put around by animal rights and limit register to protect our dogs from being used for breeding - what a joke all its done is limit people who may breed a litter or two and register them and still allowed people to breed them without papers anyway. Limited the gene pool and all its done is limit the dogs able to be in the ring or used for breeding by terrible people who want to have a litter and not show their dogs - heaven forbid.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Steve

[Wundahoo]

I have always pointed out that Limit Register is not a contraceptive !!!

Many people seemed somehow to believe that because a dog was registered with Limit paper it automatically meant that it couldnt be bred from...... as Steve has pointed out all this has done is to prevent the pups from being registered within the ANKC system.

ANKC breeders who use the Limit register for their puppies need to be aware that there are now alternative registries which will register litters from dogs that have ANKC Limit register papers, in spite of the clear indication from the breeder of these Limit register dogs that they are not to be used for breeding.

It appears that these alternative registries are prepared to go against the wisdom of those breeders who place their puppies on Limit register and will register litters that are produced from two parents which have Limit papers.

[Steve]

The limit register has been used so much when it shouldn't have that it is now seen as little more than a control process which restricts registered breeders breeding them - because reality is that is the only type of breeder that it ever would have or could have restricted.

If we continue to breed less and less puppies which we allow out on main register and continue to make it so difficult for people to give it a go legitimately it is inevitable that people will find an alternative.

[alpha bet]

Personally feel that the limited register is often abused by members..... I have even heard of stud dog owners who insist that only a max number (e.g. 2) pups from a litter from their dog may be put on main register - the reality is this is potentially limiting the pool of dogs for a breeder to go on with. I certainly think it would be worth breeders having to state on the form as to why they are choosing to put a pup on the limited register.

Can understand Dogs Qld looking into restricting the use.....However there are many factors that account for dropping numbers and really the ANKC groups should be reviewing their format every decade or so... they need to get more up to speed with the world around them rather than living in the 'Days 'O' Olde'.....

Consider the following in this day and age.....

....Registers still insist on using titles such as Mr/Mrs/Miss on ALL the paperwork - which is soooo old school and somewhat sexist - nowdays most businesses use a first and last name

....Dogs Vic don't even have the ability for members to pay membership etc via netbank system - Still require CHEQUES which involves more handling or credit cards which costs bank fees.

....Members have no way to access any Registration data base to check breed prefix/hip and elbow scores etc, nor do the public even have access to find out if a breeder is in fact a registered breeder.

....Public have no access to find out current pups available thru registered breeders as litters arent shown on the magazine until they are 3 months old and hence already sold.

Just my thoughts.

[Bob]

Hi All,

I am not sure what is happening in other jurisdictions but with our litter previous to this year, we had to have an agreement from buyers for those pups we determined should be on Limit Register. While w do maintain communication with our prospective buyers regarding their intentions for the pups this made placing those pups which should have been on Limit Register a difficult process.

Personally, I don't like dealing with breeders who want to put restrictions on "sold" pups whether it is for the purpose of "protecting" one's lines or to reduce the likelihood of more litters/more competition.

The aegis of breeders registered with the ANKC and affiliated bodies is to promote the ownership and breeding of purebred dogs with the aim of "improving" the breed. How can breeders suggest that they are doing this by imposing limitations and restrictions?

We will continue to do what we can by selling suitable, well socialised pups on main register and maintaining a dialogue with our puppy owners in regards to the ongoing development of their dogs, and, where possible and appropriate, promote the use of those dogs in registered breeding program's. This is achieved either through encouraging new owners to become registered breeders (which is not being facilitated by state controls, aspiring breeders are now required to jump through hoops), or by facilitating contact with other breeders who may wish to access "out crosses" that are locally available.

In my view, promotion of the dog fancy cannot be PROMOTED through limitation or restrictions. This applies at both control (registration bodies) and breeder levels.