Hello everyone,
How common is it for breeders to withold KC registration papers when selling a pet quality puppy? I was told that this would sometimes be done in an effort to disuade the new owners breeding from the dog, or exporting it.
Thank you,
Honey

the only other way is for a breeder to place a restriction on the kc papers, saying progeny wont be registered--but that wont stop back street breeders !!!!!
it would depend on the reputation of the breeder wether id be happy taking one with no papers at all, if its genuine, and a real pet home, then no reason not too, but it it was never registered in the first place, ask yourself why?????
what breed is this, have the parents done any health tests called for ,---look a bit further into it,

Hi,
I know of many breeders who don't register mismarked or non-standard colour puppies (ie patched or lemon- or orange-spotted dalmatians), but to have registered them and then to withhold the papers, when they could simply endorse them....? Sounds odd.

Hi and thank you for the response to my message,
I should clarify the situation. I have recently created a web site for my two pet Chihuahuas, aimed at owners of companion Chi's. The site is welfare orientated, I do not breed (my two are neutered) and there are no breeders links etc.

I have mentioned on my site the importance of finding a good breeder and stated that many pups from backyard breeders, puppy farms etc will not be KC registered and that promised documentation sometimes never arrives....

I was contacted by a lady involved with Chihuahua Breed Rescue who informed me that a lot of their responsible breeders DO NOT register all puppies with the KC. But they do provide a pedigree certificate. This was to prevent the official exploitation of the dogs by back-street breeders and people who want to sell the puppy abroard. Apparently there are many ways around exemption clauses?

I'm simply a pet owner so not so knowledgable about these things, but it just seemed a bit strange to me?
Surely unless the breeder lifts a no breeding clause, pups can't be registered with the KC?

I really don't want to put on my site, not to worry about KC documentation!
Apologies if my initial post was confusing.

Thank you,
Honey

I'm afraid I would never accept a puppy without papers. As far as I’m concerned it’s not a pedigree! Breeders must understand that just as they don't know the puppy buyer, neither does the average pet person know them. The papers are a sort of proof that the dog really is what they say it is. Endorse if you want but to withhold papers, NO!

Regards, John

No disrespect to the lady from welfare who rang you but I wonder, in view of the fact that Chihuahua's don't really have large litters, that not registering a litter or puppies from a litter means they can breed from the bitch at the next season?
Bec

Adding to my previous post - if mismarks and non-standard colours aren't registered, how do breeders (now and in the future) know how prevalent they are, and how much work has to be put in to bring down the numbers, thus hopefully raising the overall level of the breed?

I would not register pups if they are pet quality however registration papers for those that are show quality would be available for owners to see as proof of pedigree and I would supply a copy of the pedigree. I know owners like to know the background of their dogs even if it means nothing to them, they just like to count up the champions :D .Initially I thought this posting could have been fron someone that had contacted me recently because I gave exactly the same answer as the rescue society.

The aim of witholding papers is to save money by not registering pet quality stock but primarily to deter people from breeding from unsuitable stock. Lots of people in my breed (cresteds) do this.

I'm afraid I must disagree with you crazicrest. A look at this board almost any day will show people breeding from unregistered dog! I personally think that endorsing the registration is more likely to be effective. At least with the registered dog there is something to loose psychologically speaking, with the unregistered dog there is nothing to loose. If the dog is registered but the papers are not passed on I don't know how that would stand with the KC, the registration belongs to the dog not the breeder!

Regards, John

I agree if people really want to breed they will regardless of endorsements or papers which is why I said deter rather than stop them from breeding. I read a article recently whereby someone bought a dog with endorsements then registered the dog with the Irish kennel club and the endorsement were not carried across and so they were able to breed and register with the Irish Kennel club.

I don't know legally but at the end of the day a registration certificate is just a registration paper and proves nothing. I know of a dog which is "pedigree" but am fairly certain that it isn't it has KC papers but we all know it proves nothing. The registration document doesn't prove ownership and I think many pet owners don't bother to reregister the dog in their name anyway. It's just a piece of paper IMO.

You’re right, it is just a bit of paper but when I hear of dogs being sold without I start to wonder. It’s a litter the KC does not know about so does not count in the total litters or any age limits. It forms an easy way of fiddling health checks. Also, it smacks of “Hiding your mistakes”, anyone looking for a stud dog would miss this litter because it would not appear anywhere.

Regards, John

But the person who *does* want to "bother" to transfer ownership DOES expect to be able to do so. There is no way I would buy a puppy that was not KC registered, and there is no way I would accept that my puppy was KC registered if I was not allowed to have the registration certificate, even if the puppy was only destined to be a pet. I would not trust anyone who decided "for the good of the breed" that they would with-hold the registration papers. Either the puppy is registered or it isn't, simple as that. Either the puppy is close to the breed standard or it isn't. I bought my puppy as a "pet". I decided at 7/8 months old to show him. He has done reasonably well in the hands of his novice handler. This would not have been possible if I had not been given his papers. I do not intend to breed from him. The breeder trusts me and I trust him.

However, as you have pointed out, whether you endorse the papers or with-hold them, or not, if I wanted to breed my puppy there is nothing you could do to stop me. Papers or no papers. So why stop your puppy buyer from having the registration certificate? I could not have his eyes tested or his hips tested without it, and just because I don't wish to breed from him is no reason why I shouldn't be able to have these health tests done!! Finally, if you think it is just a piece of paper, then again, why do you need to with-hold it? That is like saying that a Ten Pound note is just a piece of paper! I don't think so!

Trust works both ways! Sorry for the rant, but REALLY!!!

The only way you can guarantee that the pet quality/non standard pup isn't bred from is to neuter it before sale. There are some in USA advocating doing this at 8 weeks as part of responsible breeding and homing paractice!!!:(

I think the buyeer of a pedigree pup is entitled to the registration douvment, so it can take part in the BVA/KC health schemes, and the breeder use endorsements which are equally effective/ineffective as witholding the papers.

Also I never understand why breed rescues won't pass on a dogs pedigree if known? Rescue keeping the registration I understand, but the pedigree info is nice for the owner to have, especially if they would like to know who their pup is related to.

Completely agree with you MM. In fact I do not even think it is in the interests of the breed! It is in the interest of the breed, and particulaly in breeds with a small gene pool that the maximum info is available and unregistered dogs would not appear in that info.

Regards, John

Oooh dear, John, I felt my blood pressure rising then! :( I think I have now regained my composure!

If the breeder does not have confidence in the puppy buyer's intentions, then the only way he can be truly sure that the puppy will not be bred from is, as Barbara says, to have it neutered before sale, or alternatively to not sell the puppy to that person. I would not want to sell a puppy to someone who I didn't trust. I personally think it is unethical and pointless to register half the litter (the show ones) and not register those that don't make the grade. I agree with you, that it hides the true status of the breed and stops faults/mismarks from ever being eradicated.

Best wishes, (completely calm now) Monty's Mum :)

I have a 'pet quality' pup. If I had wanted a dog without papers, I would have gone to a rescue centre, as I did with my older dog. The price of my pup was immaterial - I would have paid the full price (even though I did not want to breed or show her), but wanted some quarantee of what I was buying. Surely the breeders are as proud of all their pups ?

Daisy

You said:

"I would not register pups if they are pet quality however registration papers for those that are show quality would be available for owners to see as proof of pedigree and I would supply a copy of the pedigree"

1. At 8 weeks old you cannot be sure what is pet quality and what is show quality.
2. You would let the purchaser "see" the papers as proof of pedigree??? Is that all???
3. You would supply a "copy" of the pedigree??? ie a list of names, or the actual KC certificate??? And why a copy, not the real thing???

Do you really expect your puppy buyers to believe that your puppies are KC registered? And if it is not worth the paper it is written on, then why do they want to see it and why not let them have it?????

"The aim of witholding papers is to save money by not registering pet quality stock"

Surely this is included in the puppy price anyway, and if the purchase expects it and wants it, why not let the puppy purchaser decide?!

I agree you can't say conclusivly that this put is pet quality andd another show however for some pups you can. I for example would not want ton register a very hairy pup because my pups should be hairless or powderpuff. You can get hairless pups with almost as much hair as a powderpuff. IMO it would be wrong to breed from this dog although it doesn't stop it from being a super pet. The hairyness of the dog can be seen at birth so on this point I can say which will be suitable for show or breeding although a potential show pup could develop another fault.

What I would give a copy of is the pedigree not the registration certificate. I donnot want people using dogs I have bred if they are too hairy there are far too many people doing this the way things are going it's going to be hard to tell the diffference between a hairless and a puff.

Yes I would only let a purchaser see the registration certificate as this would "prove" that the litter is pedigree (as much as any reg doc does).

It's just my opinion if people don't like it then they can go elsewhere for the pups it's a free country. There are a lot of breeders that follow this practice so they may have to look for a while though unless they want to buy show quality stock as a pet in which case I don't have a problem selling with papers.

I'm sorry crazicrest but you are making the pet buyer into a second class citizen! there is no way I would ever buy a puppy without papers.

<<I for example would not want ton register a very hairy pup because my pups should be hairless or powderpuff.>>

This is hiding your mistakes and masking the effects of both your bitch and the stud dog. The dog could be used again with similar effects.

John

I agree John,
Pet puppies come from the same litters that can produce the champions - why are some breeders ashamed of them? Not registering some pups in a litter is similar to not registering any pups from a litter to get around the 12-month rule. Just my opinion.

Totally agree - my pup is a mismark, which was evident at birth (Aussie with white too far down back). However, everything else about her is as a show quality pup. Her breeders treated us exactly the same as if she was show quality - even meeting us half way to deliver her, to save us a very long drive (we had of course seen her some weeks before). Of course - I could breed from her - but I won't. Trust works both ways - the breeders could have passed her off as show quality - I would never have known that she was a mismark, being new to the breed.

Daisy

Hello again,
Many thank's to everyone who has contributed to this thread, it's much appreciated.
The majority of the posts confirmed my concerns. Other points were raised too, that I hadn't considered, you've been very helpful.
Best wishes,
Barbara

I know this was my first litter - but they were all registered and I had the KC papers ready and waiting for the new owners - even though they were mismarked solids, which i told the people who bought them even though they only wanted pets and not showing and didn't know about mismarking. If i was buying a pedigree dog - i would want papers regardless of it being a "show" or "pet" dog. Like someone else said further up (sorry my brain is a sieve) but surely not registering dogs that aren't quite right for showing is hiding mistakes.

Nikki xx

I think it's absolutely shocking not to register all the pups in a litter, whatever their failings. What would happen if all the pups were not up to scratch & weren't registered, this would be efffectively 'hiding' a litter from a bitch's history...
Surely, if someone has taken the trouble to find a reputable breeder who registers their stock & completes all the relevent health schemes, they will expect all the documentation.
I always endorse my pups against breeding or export. Obviously if someone is going to breed from these pups without registering then I have no control over that. I am however satisfied with the fact that they would probably only sell them for peanuts & hopefully be put off doing it again, considering all the work involved.
Out of interest, are pups with papers sold for more money than those without?

Puppies without papers are sold for far less than those with eg a powderpuff would be £200 or £400 depending on whether it has papers. Financially you could argue I'm worse off but I'm not in it for the money just the good of the breed.

I'm sorry if you think I'm trying to hide something it's not about that at all although I agree that's the way it might appear to some. You're right to a certain extent it's about trust but I've seen too many people who think it's ok to breed from their pet and make some quick money. Not registering pet quality puppies is purely about discouraging this. That's all no other motives. I certainly don't look down on pet dogs or their owners in fact I have people waiting for pets from me. They know me and my reasons for not registering and they don't have a problem with it.

Hi, Just another quick question.
While I would not want to encourage people to buy unregistered puppies, in light of the comments here...
Would it be fair to say that if a breeder is selling their pups unregistered, you shouldn't expect to pay as much as you would for a registered puppy?
I find it hard to imagine Chihuahua breeders selling puppies for £200. I bought a 3 year old an ex breeding bitch for £180 almost 3 years ago. Now a much loved, neutered companion :)

Thank you,
Barbara

I don't know what a registered pup sells for but I would expect to pay half the price for an unregistered. As your dog was an adult it would be cheaper- puppies are more popular. Also without sounding cruel it had served it's purpose. I know of breeders that have imported champions from the states and a year later pet homed them because they didn't produce what had been hoped, they had served their purpose (or failed to serve it whichever way you look at it).

Personally I wouldnt touch an unregistered litter no matter how good the pedigree. Who is to say that an unscrupulous breeder doesnt register every other litter so they can breed twice a year. If the pups are going cheaper, then are corners being cut to offset costs? I never do more than break even from a litter. And thats before the first months show entry fees for the one Ive kept. No insult meant to crazicrest, I can see your reasons for doing it, and there are many different ways to skin a cat.

No offence taken. Everyone has expressed valid points I just have a different way of thinking. I don't have to break even. The truth is I'd be happier if I could order one really nice hairless bitch from my bitch and then I wouldn't need to worry about the homes my pups go to. :) The cost is irrelevant it's the product (gorgeous pups:) ) I'm concerned about but I don't disagree with what you say.

Oh crikey, dont I just agree with you on that score. I wish Ada had just had the two pups Im keeping from this litter, and the other two werent there to worry about. Luckily in my breed, you can pick and choose your homes, but it must be terrifying if you bred staffies , rotties or bullmastiffs. I appreciate that then people wouldnt have their beloved pets, but Im being selfish here. As someone said on our breed forum "If I never had to place a puppy in a pet home again, I could die happy!"

Hi, Just catching up here. The information I've gotten says you withold papers untill proof the dog has been spayed or neutered. Or you can put it in your contract that the new ownwer will take care of this. Which ever your comfortable with I guess. If they want the papers, and only want the dog as a pet, not for breeding, this shouldn't be a problem. Hope this helps:)

There are a lot of people on here who would take issue with you on that Missy. Operating on a healthy dog is not something to be undertaken lightly and more than one dog has succumbed under the anaesthetic. Some breeds are particularly susceptible.

Trust is what life is all about. I must say some people are very cynical these days. If you don’t trust your puppy buyer then don’t sell to them!

John

John, I agree you have to trust your puppy buyers. Where in my post you got that I insinuated otherwise, I don't know. I was simply trying to give another option on how a person could handle selling a pup of pet quality and not have to worry the dog would be used for breeding. I have read so many post on here about being a responsible breeder, but you don't know everyone you sell to personaly. Each individual has to decide for themselves the best way to handle a situation, I was just suggesting another option. :)

Another valid point Missy. As John says I'm not a fan of routine spaying having done it twice and both times had the bitches suffer from incontinence at 4 and 7 years. That's a long time to put up with piddly patches and giving medicine to try and resolve it. Having said that if it means you can sleep at night not worryting whether pups you have bred are being turned into puppy machines then maybe it's worth it.

I still don't see what extra protection from exploitation you gain from witholding the papers over endorsing them (yes I know the KC want it in writing that new owners know about the endorsements, so that they can be upheld in case of dispute. Most people have some kind of contract or a receipt for the pup at least that can have this included!

If the animal is intact then they can breed with it whether it has papers or not, only KC registration can be prevented.

I know some people might think I'm just doing it to avoid something or just so I can sell the pups cheaper but I tried to explain in an earlier posting. I read (I think in Dog World?) that thewre was a case where the papers had been endorsed but the dog was reregistered in Ireland. The Irish KC do not check for endorsements and so the individual was able to reister the puppies with the Irish KC and get papers. That person can sell those pups for more money than unregistered. That is what I'm trying to avoid.