Limited vs Full Registration

[WoodHaven]

...Interestingly, with my Cavalier there was a clause in his contract that if he was still in tact at three years his limited registration could be re-evaluated. Although not spelled out in the contract, the idea was that at three years the requisite heart and other tests could be done; if he had health issues the limited registration would not be lifted even if structurally, etc. he was deemed to be "show" quality; if his testing was clear and we wanted to breed him we could discuss changing his registration so puppies could have AKC registrations. Seems like a pretty sensible approach for dogs who might not quite be show quality but if they have good health clearances based on the breeding protocols as adults you might want to reconsider breeding.

that does seem like a good idea.

i remember when i was looking for a puppy, i saw a number of websites where two prices were quoted for certain puppies, one for full registration and one for limited.

Is this just a practice of less reputable breeders, or is this done by breeders in general?

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

[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

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.

I was always curious about co-owning when i saw ownership of show dogs listed that way. What does it mean actually?

[WoodHaven]

....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

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.

I was always curious about co-owning when i saw ownership of show dogs listed that way. What does it mean actually?

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.

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.

[Karlin]

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).