21st January 2007, 02:34 AM
Originally Posted by judy
I may charge more for a show potential-- but I'd never sell a "pet" quality cavalier on open registration-- never. That might not answer your question.
All my show potentials are only be sold on a co-own. fwiw-- Sandy
21st January 2007, 02:57 AM
Your practice sounds like something different. This seems to be something where the buyer chooses whether they want to pay more for full registration. I just guessed it was a way of marketing the puppies to puppy buyers who wanted to breed the dogs with the possibility of AKC registration.
Originally Posted by WoodHaven
I was always curious about co-owning when i saw ownership of show dogs listed that way. What does it mean actually?
21st January 2007, 03:07 AM
Co owners agree ,to agree in the future, about the future of the dog. I have a contract where if the dog passes all the health tests and it is a good representative of the breed -- it might be bred with a female who also passes (heart, eye, patella and possibly MRI). They can show the boy or not-- my schedule and budget doesn't always allow me to show my nicer dogs when it would be beneficial. I can't expect someone else to do more than I can possibly do.
Originally Posted by judy
for example-- two dogs are tested (heart, eyes, patella, MRI_ and they pass with flying colors). They are successfully bred. Do I want the offspring neutered???? Not necessarily- so, I find a home who is willing to keep them intact until they can be fully tested.
21st January 2007, 03:16 AM
I just reread my previous post and realised it had about a million typos! So cleaned those up.
Most websites offering dogs on one reg or the other are definitely getting people to pay more to acquire a breeding dog and not for any good reason. On all such sites I have seen of that nature, the dogs tend to be from imports that enabled the sellers to get AKC registration thru exploiting the dual registration clause (another red flag for anyone looking for a dog on breeder websites). I have never seen someone clearly a reputable show breeder with good lines offering dogs in that way.
A lot of people really misunderstand dual ownership. I have seen some people claiming this is something you never want to do with a breeder, as if it means they are being exploited. Yet dual ownership is an excellent way for someone to be mentored into showing while the breeder retains responsible control over one of their valued dogs. I guess the problem is the less scrupulous do exploit the system to tie someone into joint ownership, but I would have always thought joint ownership showed a certain amount of trust and support in a novice to a breed from a breeder (or in some cases just a straightforward partnership with someone).
In memory: Lucy