by sueincc on 23 September 2007 - 01:09
I am confused about why a breeder chooses to sell pups on a limited registration. I always thought the reason was the breeder thought the pups were "pet quality" and felt a responsibility to do what he/she could to keep the dog from being bred, or wanted the buyer to attain titles first then would authorize the change to full registration, reasons like that. Now I see many advertisements that say one price for limited registration and another for full registration, and I don't get it. Here's an example, I would appreciate anyone's help here!
by animules on 23 September 2007 - 01:09
To me a limited is pet quality and would be a reduced price. Those would also come with a mandentory spay/neuter as part of the contract. That's my input on it anyway.
by JRT on 23 September 2007 - 02:09
Pets should be on limited I agree. But limited with open on titles is just similar to the SV pink paper system - dogs should not be bred without titles idea. Selling pups on limited vs open just on price difference shows more commercialism and money motivation than desire to breed to the standard and try to breed ideal dogs. Too bad that you see htis alot - it is a red flag of a savvy breeder looking to capitalize on sales for the most money.
by K-9mom on 23 September 2007 - 02:09
I sell every puppy under limited registration with the contractual agreement that once the dog is 24 months, OFA H & E passing and holds either a title (AKC or Sch) or SAR/Therapy/Patrol/Detection Certification, I will have it reversed at no extra charge to the buyer. This has actually blocked several of my puppy buyers who had done nothing with their pups from breeding them although I know of one who bred the dog against our contract and the pups simply had no papers. Her uncle owned a male, neither OFA or titled. The only pups that leave with a discounted price would be for a minor health reason or conformational flaw where the new owner will be required to spay/neuter. This program does several things to benefit my breeding program: 1) gets more pups OFA'd 2) gets more pups titled 3) keeps buyers in contact with me 4) keeps buyers more involved with their pups development 5) helps weed out those who simply want a dog to breed.
Of course, this is simply my personal opinion.
by sueincc on 23 September 2007 - 02:09
JR: That's what I was afraid of.
by sueincc on 23 September 2007 - 03:09
K-9mom: That's certainly reasonable and fair.
by Ryanhaus on 23 September 2007 - 03:09
I do the same as you, makes them stop and think about breeding to the dog next door
that has no titles or health certification.
And it's very easy to reverse.
I had a lady that had a Labrador Retriever she got from me.
The dog had limited reg.I reversed it, when she had hip, elbows & eyes cert.
It was the first therapy dog of children's hospital Boston Ma. (Miss Stella of Pembroke)
Then she wanted to breed her, last I heard, things didn't go so well in
the lets make babies department.
Everyone thinks it's easy to breed dogs, just snap your fingers & the colors
and sexes magically appear.
by Ryanhaus on 23 September 2007 - 03:09
I just looked up miss stella of pembroke,
she had a kid!
OFA good, that's good!
by JRT on 23 September 2007 - 03:09
K-9mom - well put and reasonable.
by MVF on 23 September 2007 - 03:09
sueinc: I agree that this is a disturbing COMMERCIAL trend. It's only about money. More technically, "price discrimation" (I'm an econ professor.) The breeder is sorting customers by their willingess to pay and the value they impute to the dog. Breeding rights add economic value. The old code of ethics implied you sold the breed quality pups at one price and the pet quality at another -- for the good of the breed -- and I think it should be that way. Now we have some breeders offering two prices/registrations for the same dog -- sometimes before the litter is born!
Of course, all dogs should be "limited until proven" and then "full if suitable/recommended for breeding". People who sell ALL pups on limited, are just trying to corner the market on their assets. That's ugly, too, IMO.