mjp29

To each his own - to me it's just a dog that looks and acts very much like any other miniature schnauzer.

 

 

Yes, but how can you tell just based on looks that it is free of painful and crippling genetic faults or structural faults?  Dogs should not be bred until they are titled per their breed (I don't know much about mini schnauzers so I'm not sure what work/sports they do), they are cleared of carrying diseases, and a third party organization has evaluated their joints.  Breeding is to improve the breed, which is hard to do credibly by breeding dogs with no known health history or pedigree.  How would you know whether or not your dog came from lines that produced poor temperaments or certain diseases and conditions?  There's absolutely nothing wrong with a dog that is not AKC registered, in fact I'd guess that the majority of the posters here have dogs that are not registered, but it takes years of hard work and professional opinions to correctly evaluate a dog's breeding potential.

There are many reputable non-AKC registries, but the ONLY reputable all breed registries in the US are the AKC and UKC.  Even if your dog is not registered (heck, even if it was a mutt) you can still compete in all the other events.  Conformation is for evaluating breeding stock, and dogs with no known health history and pedigree should not be considered for breeding, thus they cannot be shown in AKC or UKC rings. 

I certainly don't think that the AKC is the end all be all. However, the fact remains that the majority of people using these other registries aren't very reputable, breeder wise.  It doesn't mean the puppies are mixed breeds. But I would wonder why the breeders are using these registries. I, too, wonder if perhaps there was a limited registration in the background, leaving future litters unregisterable. A reputable breeder is breeding for a specific purpose and to better the breed, not just produce cute puppies.  While I might expect some of the herding or hunting breeds to perhaps use a breed specific or working dog registry (and indeed many working dogs really don't need ANY registry, which is also fine) for a breed like the schnauzer there is no such registry. Thus, they should be breeding to better the breed, which would involve some sort of showing venue to judge the quality of their dogs. This would require AKC or UKC registration, even if they were producing performance dogs for agility/obedience.  And, as a note, not all backyard breeders live in iffy neighborhoods. To me, the definition of a backyard breeder is someone who is just breeding to produce cute pups to sell. It doesn't make the puppy bad, it just means that their breeders perhaps weren't breeding for perfect reasons.  

And as a note, my two AKC registered dogs are both neutered, never having produced litters (it wouldn't even have crossed my mind). And my sweet mix isn't registered with anything, which is just fine with me.

You wonder why the breeders are using other registries. I pondered on this and after reading about around a dozen or so other registries, to me it has occurred that over the years the AKC seems to be losing it's monopoly on the market a bit. Think about it. The first massed produced automobile was probably the model T Ford. Would you wonder why, after time, would you wonder why people started buying other automobiles that started to spring up? Think about it again. The dominant operating system on computers is Microsoft and most people use it. Would you wonder why a select few have turned to Lynux, Ubuntu, or Mac OS X Unix? Whether the alternatives are better or not, one certainly shouldn't assume that alternatives are inherently flawed from the get go. And what data or statistics can you point to that "the fact remains that the majority of people using these other registries aren't very reputable" - ? That's an easy thing to type, but do you have any data or studies that backs that up? There have at least been television reports that uncovered puppy mills that aren't very reputable that are getting AKC papers and selling the dogs in retail stores and malls - so what's the dig?

I agree with much of what you said, and disagree with some of it. I have only a few replies: I don't think AKC papers tells an owner the pup is free of any of these faults. How can you say "the ONLY reputable all breed registries are" certain ones. From life, I've learned to never say ONLY or NEVER or ALWAYS.

 Well, I totally agree with that.  AKC papers mean next to nothing as far as I'm concerned.  But as far as credible venues for evaluating breeding stock, AKC and UKC are it, period.  I'm not talking about a puppy being sold with papers/registry, I don't think just having a pedigree means THAT much even if it's the breed's greatest lines, but AKC and UKC conformation titles are the only ones that are legit, IMO.  So, with that in mind, why would anyone even bother to register with another registry to get conformation titles? 

the only reason i see for needing AKC or UKC papers is to be able to compete in AKC or UKC. the papers do not make the dog sound in body or mind. when buying a pup, what matters is the health, temperament and soundness of the parents, grandparents, and as many ancestors as are traceable, the health, temperament and soundness of the pup, the conditions of where the pup is coming from, the socializing that was done by the breeder, and if i am looking for a working dog, i want to know what work or sport the ancestors have done. and i that would be whether i was buying a pure breed or a mixed breed.

mjp29

And what data or statistics can you point to that "the fact remains that the majority of people using these other registries aren't very reputable" -

Well do you know when a lot of these registries started.  Right at the same time the AKC started their kennel inspection program.  Many commercial breeders couldn't pass the requirements of the inspection.  Tells you something doesn't it.  Btw,  The UKC has been around for a long time also.

By the way on the UABR web site the following messages are on their pages.

A Special Thank You to the professional breeders, distributors and retailers for your support and our success!

Sounds like pet stores and commercial breeders to me.

Look at there gold medal program.  Everything listed there is the USDA standards for a commercial breeding operation.

Does United inspect my facilities?

No. That is the job of the USDA. If you qualify to be a Gold Label Pets breeder (requiring an annual inspection by a veterinarian) we will print this certification on each puppy paper issued for your kennel.

Sounds like they are catering to the commercial market.

Also

Pet professionals are vital contributors to the world's demand for companion animals. One of the biggest challenges facing pet professionals today is meeting the demand while responding to ever-changing preferences.

While professional pet providers must consider the needs of the breeder, distributor, and retailer, they must remember the person buying a pet is the ultimate factor influencing pet purchases.

Sounds like pet stores to me.

You make the decision,  Do you see the AKC or UKC push pet stores so much??

 

I agree with much of what you said; however, the part about "the only ones that are legit" for "evaluating breeding stock" is a subjective statement. Case in point: An AKC dog show where one judge chooses the best breed stock among many many multiple breeds in the show is, let's say, more than a bit subjective also. You ask, "why would anyone even bother with another registry?" The AKC is a monopoly. One could just as easily ask "why would anyone even bother with using another operating system than one made by Microsoft?" I just don't buy into statements like "are it, period" or "the only ones that are legit". Just because a certain club or company is used by most, in my mind, doesn't mean it's the best. Look around, more people drive Toyotas than BMW's, so "why would anyone even bother with a BMW?"

I'm certainly not saying this registry is legit. I'm just saying that many of the things it is accused of like "it is a puppy mill registry," "it is used by distributors or retailers," "it is used by pet stores", "it's not reputable period", "commercial market" the list goes on What I'm saying is that the AKC has been used in the same venues as above. And you ask "do you see the AKC push pet stores so much?" The answer is obviously no because the AKC has been the monopoly so long they don't have to "push pet stores so much" because it's much like a computer you go buy at any store - the operating system that is going to come on it is Microsoft Windows because it is the monopoly that most use and there is little need for a push. But a company like, say Apple computer, does attempt to push people to believe they are better than the monopoly Microsoft and try to push stores to sell their products instead of the status quo being offered naturally. I see no point in continuing to argue about this. I've concluded in my mind that the AKC is the dominant force and therefore most people simply think it's the best because it's been the biggest for so long.

 

Case in point: An AKC dog show where one judge chooses the best breed stock among many many multiple breeds in the show is, let's say, more than a bit subjective also.

dogs are judged against other dogs of their breed first, then against other winners in their group, and then against the winners of the groups.

it takes a pretty exceptional dog to win best in show. 

There's no doubt about that: we can agree on that! but think about it: it's all subjective: they are all pretty exceptional dogs. p.s. i think someone posted here that opinions are like elbows - same with a judges' opinions at a dog shows, eh? touche

 why ask for opinions if you already have your mind made up?

 

i have no stake in the akc, ukc, or any other registry. none of our dogs are registered, nor could they be. they are very exceptional though. to me anyways, and that is all that matters. 

I have to admit, I find discussions regarding alternate regestries very interesting.

     I am of the sentiment that the registry is NOT akin to the quality of breeding stock or the ethics of the breeder. The United Kennel Club (UKC) has only recently (past few years) been deemed reputable by some in the dog world ... I can remember many times people questioning the breeder or accusing them of being a mill becuase they used UKC. Much of this reputation was brought about by the fact that UKC is an open registry. You can take two pictures of a stray dog that appears very much to be purebred and are likely to recieve UKC papers on that dog. Pedigree will read "open". I have to admit I am a "pedigree purist" (because, of course, its not what the dog or *** is, its what they PRODUCE) and am very leery of dogs only reg.'d with UKC and not also with a closed registry. 
     Now, on that same note, most of us here today, including myself, leery as I am about what I might purchase with UKC papers, would agree that UKC is indeed reputable becuase of the great lengths they go to preserve the working dog. I am in the process of dual registering all my hounds with them because of that reason. However, the Continental Kennel Club (other CKC) is never looked upon as a reputable registry and I have to wonder why? They are also an open registry, and they do hold sporting events, just not on the same level as some other registries, because they do not have the funding. CKC sponsors weight pull, obedience, conformation, protection training events, to name a few. So, why not reputable, when UKC is?
     This topic was brought up to ask about Untied All Breed Registry. Its a CLOSED registry, it does offer shows, but I believe on a limited basis. They also highly endorse health testing and have some sort of health cerfiticate program. I can't see why the dog would be out of a puppy miller or a BYB simply because of registry, or that, because of registry, it would be more likely to be well bred. If the breeder is ethical, is breeding to the standard, is culling appropriately, placing health & temperament in high regard, than why such emphasis on registry?
     I have been known to use APRI (America's Pet Registry, Inc.) for some of my litters ... yes, I know <> Its a CLOSED registry with very reputable conformation shows that use a fair point/judging system to make a dog a champion. I've seen numerous champions from APRI & they all deserved their title. One of the reasons I offer APRI registration is because PET OWNERS are the backbone of any breed. Their shows are fun, they allow neutered dogs, very pet, family oriented. Again, <>. All of my APRI litters were out of AKC stock. Can trace their pedigrees back to before the turn of the century with modern technology. Had one of my families who never would have shown otherwise travel quite a ways to an APRI show. This was a quality pup. I can't figure out how to post a pic here ... if anyones interested in seeing this pup he's on my website - Previous Pup's page, name is Chance.  http://houndmuzic.tripod.com APRI pup. Not too shabby, eh? He IS show quality in that he could have a championship in AKC/UKC as well, etc. Can't compete in them tho, he's neutered
     I CERF all my breeding stock, thyroid test, vet checked patellas, and will be doing hips early next year now that I'm leaning more towards show lines. When we get the hip x-rays, tho it can't be certified, I'll be doing spine as well, since its very prevalent in my breed. I use APRI. If you think I'm a puppy mill, or this pup from UABR is out of a puppy mill b/c of his registry, oh well.
     So now, concrete reasons, why would the alternate registries be inherently bad? Can't they simply be alternate choices to AKC?

Liesje

 Well, I totally agree with that.  AKC papers mean next to nothing as far as I'm concerned.  But as far as credible venues for evaluating breeding stock, AKC and UKC are it, period.  I'm not talking about a puppy being sold with papers/registry, I don't think just having a pedigree means THAT much even if it's the breed's greatest lines, but AKC and UKC conformation titles are the only ones that are legit, IMO.  So, with that in mind, why would anyone even bother to register with another registry to get conformation titles? 

 

     Sorry, but thats an ignorant statement. Some of us do enjoy showing our dogs w/o politics. Some of us still see the joy and fun of a show that is not a competition, rather, fairly evaluates each dog. It used to be that people would say show or working breeders were more reputable because they took the initiative to show/work with the dogs. Now, in the advent of the alternate registries, you cannot simply show your animal to be considered reputable, legitimate - it has to be done in a certain registry? 
     I have seen numerous APRI champions, and they all deserved it. Their owners deserve credit for taking the initiative, as well. 
    

 i looked at the united all breed registry site. i cannot find a page which tells what breeds they register and/or the standards those breeds are expected to conform to.