Golden Retriever Dog Forums banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,679 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
New one on me-
two UR reg # dogs apparently can make AKC full registration puppies.....


I went to AKC because Goldens are mostly SR#'s- and it says there that a UR # is one from two parents who could be or who are AKC registered. Ok.... so.... I know the stud dog of the UR stud dog- and I'm pretty sure that litter was sold without papers as it was an accident...and certain the breeder would be horrified to see her puppy is sire to puppies out of a mama who ALSO has a UR#. So that says to me that some people- this person- got two puppies from at least one good breeder and then proceeded to acquire second generation AKC registration. Gonna call today. I don't get that.
Here's the
link to the pedigree on CL:
https://tampa.craigslist.org/hil/for/5885389210.html Go to image #3.
 

·
Puddles
Joined
·
3,971 Posts
Very hinky..... I was under the impression the S stood for the breed group, goldens in Sporting? What the heck does UR stand for, unregistered? AKC or Canadian KC does not recognize "utility" as a group breed... so how does it have an AKC #?

Thanks for looking into this. Can't wait to hear the answer to this one.

Horrible online pictures for Leroy Yoder PUPPY MILL, sure hope this isn't the same guy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,392 Posts
I'm also very curious about the UR numbers. What's the difference? I know very little about how the AKC registration works. I thought all Goldens were "S."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,679 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I'd never seen a UR #- and that led me to AKC query, which reads to me like if a dog 'could' be registered then he can be w a UR number- but I see down from the two UR dogs (and yes, I am sure that's the same Yoder) are puppies that are on full registration- this one on CL is one himself.... I put in a call to the breeder (Ajan) who I am sure will have a fit when she sees what came of this, and AKC is supposed to get someone in the know to call me back tomorrow.... but whatever they say, UR dogs should never be allowed to produce full registration puppies in my opinion. And especially when the dog in question was sold sans registration since it was (if it is the litter I remember) never intended to be part of a Yoder type breeding program.
Bothersome that somehow there are two UR reg dogs and they are bred to each other.... and the offspring were given full. As a breeder, this is a nightmare situation. I hope she can convince AKC to retract all the registrations down from her dog's- too bad imo if a bunch more similar breeders are cranking out puppies from them.
 

·
the party's crashing us
Joined
·
4,243 Posts
If you can get ahold of Mimi then kudos to you. I know two people with dogs sired by her Romeo, one she bred personally, one by far the most titled dog ever produced by anything with "Ajan" on it -- and it has been YEARS since she has responded to even the simplest of requests by either of them. For instance, is Romeo still alive? Did he get CERFs up until old age? Would be kinda nice to know if you have dogs out of him. I know she is out of dogs but not responding when you helped produce dogs, is irresponsible and disrespectful of the people and the breed. Sidetracked off topic but....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,679 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
DK if I will get her or not, but she's still on the roster. I did call and lm. Will let you know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,679 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
PEDIGREE researched even to APRI CKC whatever- ch 3 section 6-
if there are 'across the board' AKC dogs behind
contact litter owners and A. Ask if they can register AKC, B. if the AKC doesn't get the litter owner, then they do 'research' and register w a UR # which means 'from another registry'. In the case of the most recent bitch (Molly) behind the pup on CL, it was 5 generations back before there was an AKC reg. set of parents. FIVE!!! In the case of the most recent dog, it was only 2- Ajan's Loverboy (Romeo).

I see TONS of ways to get around this if one were a less than ethical person. Going to have to alter contract to state no other registries to be used without my permission (since UKC is pretty fun in the field I see a reason for that one). Here's an article about the breeder of this pup:
https://www.thedodo.com/amish-puppy-mills-winona-1544537772.html

(and in case anyone thinks I'm hating on the Amish- not so- love their quilts....)
PS still haven't heard back from Mimi Anney....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,679 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
So, I heard from Mimi- not that I'm special but I imagine anyone would hate to see that pedigree w their kennel name on it. She said he was sold on limited (not sans papers which is what I thought I remembered) and that she would be chasing that down w AKC. Can you imagine how many puppies he has sired, and how many they have sired and produced in the Amish puppy mill situation?
I hope that she does follow up on it- and does have success. If I hear more I will post updates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,679 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
LOL I need to not type while I am talking to AKC- trying to put in the pertinent info and left out lots of words so here it is again and hopefully clearer:
if a person wants to register their dog w AKC, as a breed dog, not a PAL or ILP dog- then AKC will ask if they have a contract that names parents in it. Then the
PEDIGREE is researched by the research department (created about 7 years ago to bring the dogs back into AKC registry that left because they were going w CKC (this was the example she gave me). Registered even to APRI, CKC(continental), whatever registry- and according to ch 3 section 6-
if there are 'across the board' AKC dogs behind the dog that is being 'researched', then they will first
contact litter owners and A. Ask if they can register AKC, and if not, they do not. But B. if the AKC doesn't get the litter owner, then they do more 'research' and register the animal w a UR # which means 'from another registry'. And that would be FULL registration. In the case of the most recent bitch (Molly) behind the pup on CL, it was 5 generations back before there was an AKC reg. set of parents. FIVE!!! In the case of the most recent dog, it was only 2- Ajan's Loverboy (Romeo).

I see TONS of ways to get around limited using this if one were a less than ethical person. Going to have to alter my contract to state no other registries to be used without my permission (since UKC is pretty fun in the field I see a reason for that one). Here's an article about the breeder of this pup:
https://www.thedodo.com/amish-puppy-...544537772.html
and really- do we think w more than 50 bitches he really knows who bred who, and do we think that 5 generations back (as in the case of Molly) all those breeders really knew who bred who?

(and in case anyone thinks I'm hating on the Amish- not so- love their quilts....)

I am going to give Mimi a week or so to see what she comes up with from AKC. She told me she had out her litter record and that dog was on limited. She said she was going to get to the bottom of it. DK if she will ... but after that, depending on what they do w her dog, I am going to start doing some research on this.... i would like to see AKC get a request from EVERY breed club in the US to prevent this sort of backdoor full registration from happening especially when it is putting pedigrees that breeders believe are safe from breeding into the hands of the commercial breeders such as Mr Yoder. It is wrong of AKC to essentially backstab their partner, the good breeder, in this way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
Sorry I didn't see this sooner. Dogs will also be designated, sometimes, with UR numbers even if they themselves were not imports. I am seeing this a lot where pregnant bitches are being imported, the litter is registered to the new owner, and the grandparents (because the imports themselves are eventually registered) are assigned UR numbers. We also see it on a lot of Canadian dogs where one of the parents has an AKC number, but the other doesn't. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to how or why.

I noticed this happening, and frankly didn't have time to pursue it. Again, one of those situations where I was working in K9data and Yearbook and said to myself, "Whaaaat....?" As far as I am concerned, this issue has reached crisis proportions. Here are some that I have already documented in K9data:
Abigale Of Rainbow UR11786501
Ajan's Adolf UR04294501
Ajan's Ivan UR01442101
B&J's Truman UR05708201
BC's Brooklyn UR00688101
BC's Rudy UR00688401
BC's Rusty UR00688301
BC's Ryder UR00688001
Carmacks Goldy Four UR05708301
China George UR08178401
dakota's zip UR08126901
DLS Molly UR08383001
Gracie Of Hunt A Lot UR11786601
Greenspace Jj Jazzy Trombone UR11786801
I&E Jean UR04338001
Kreisel's Dobie Sundancer UR01432901
Lady B Smith UR00688201
Leticia Iris Rainbow UR11786701
Miss Golden Sunshine UR07170701
Red Hill's Miss Vivian UR08178601
Roger (UR02242501) UR02242501
Sassy Red Vivian UR08178501
Spike's Sandy UR07981501
Spring Water's Big Dipper UR09171101

Big problem is that AKC also does not really track these dogs with DOB information, or anything. Order a pedigree for one of the registered offspring and you get nothing, and since you can't search the AKC database for a UR number, you can't even access what information they supposedly have for those dogs. All in all, a fail for AKC in regards to protecting the stud book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prism Goldens

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,679 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
I am glad to see your info. I too think this is a BIG fail. I didn't talk to Ajan but the one day, twice, but she ASSURED me that she never in any way gave permission for the dog I asked about to go to full w a UR #. SO- that says to me that the 'research dept' who AKC assured me does contact the breeder (and she's notoriously diff to get ahold of) actually does not.
AKC told me they want the dogs back who have AKC dogs behind them. Can $30 really be worth this to them, even magnified by the 100's of dogs? They probably spend as much researching if they indeed research. And too, what about the breeder (I have to assume at least some of these dogs were sold on limited) who did not want the dogs bred, and who went to the trouble to go limited on them. It's a loophole of sorts, by which the dog can still reproduce and make AKC SR registered puppies for the people skirting the way around the limited. It is wrong.
Do you have any idea how we can fight this?I would hate to see my pedigree on a puppy broker's site from a miller who's making hundreds of puppies I never would have wanted made... and I fear that it could happen to anyone. I would be willing to invest a good deal of personal time if you have any ideas, Lesley.
 

·
Grumpy Old Man
Joined
·
4,563 Posts
This possibility was pointed out years ago when the AKC adopted the move to recover some registrations lost. The AKC BOD knew this situation could develop, this isn't anything unforeseen.
 

·
Puddles
Joined
·
3,971 Posts
I can't begin to relate to how devastating this AKC practice is to good breeders, much less to know they understood what they were doing when they made this decision.

From the consumer point of view it's devaluating the AKC. I have learned so much from this forum (and still learning) about understanding clearances and now AKC must be researched as well. Many people don't know about clearances, how in the world do you get the word out to research the breeding line??

To learn that quantity is more important than quality of their info. just undermines their heritage. With all the hype AKC puts out about the "pure bred dog" seems to be nothing more than a marketing ploy is extremely sad. I have always understood AKC registration was not a guarantee for quality but used it as something to insure the breeding line.

In the USA we have a CKC that pretty much takes anyone that submits, no character at all. Right now the AKC seems to be striving toward the same low standard. They have been around longer, provide diverse competitions but seem to have lost the reason for their original purpose, the pure bred dog.

There has to be some show of force to clean this up but have no clue what needs to happen.
 

·
Grumpy Old Man
Joined
·
4,563 Posts
From the consumer point of view it's devaluating the AKC. I have learned so much from this forum (and still learning) about understanding clearances and now AKC must be researched as well. Many people don't know about clearances, how in the world do you get the word out to research the breeding line??
Well, the AKC has many departments and facets to its' organization, and, they don't always agree with each other. The rules that are in place reflect a compromise that tries to find balance between the various interests.

Things like health clearances and such were NEVER part of the AKC's jurisdiction (and still are not). Those things are in the domain of the parent breed club, in this case, the GRCA.

The typical puppy buyer has little if any understanding of the relationships and/or responsibilities of the AKC and the associated parent breed clubs. It can get pretty complicated.
 

·
Grumpy Old Man
Joined
·
4,563 Posts
AKC told me they want the dogs back who have AKC dogs behind them. Can $30 really be worth this to them, even magnified by the 100's of dogs?
Well, yes they do want the revenue back. You see we're not talking about hundreds of dogs, we're talking about tens of thousands of dogs, and that means a substantial amount of money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
I can tell you, between my time on the GRCA Board, and working with Shari Degan and Kathy Bourland (current and past yearbook editors), that AKC is ridiculously slow to respond. Shari can tell you stories about calling AKC about a specific dog, and they will tell her that their information is correct, and we can prove to them that it is wrong. I can show you examples of pedigrees where they have a female in the dam's position, but show the dog as a male when you look the dog up. Shari has had them research many of these dogs, many back to the original paper records, and correct them.

Please consider this: if you work for AKC in most capacities, you can not exhibit dogs in any venue. So how many employees do you think they have that actually understand the logistics of breeding and competing with their dogs?? All they understand is what they are told.

Another example: FC and AFC require all-breed all-age win(s). AKC continues to send us updates showing this dog as an AFC because he won the open and amateur at the GRCA National specialty. THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THEIR OWN RULES. This is not the only dog where this has happened.

My most hated emails are when I notice that someone updates a title in K9data, and it never comes through into the Yearbook. When you look it up on the AKC site months later, they do not show the title. So I usually politely send an email to the owner, with a screenshot of the AKC site, and include recommended actions. Yes, sometimes it is the owner's fault, but about 50% of the time it is because AKC didn't record something correctly. And how do people not notice that they didn't receive a title certificate for these achievements?

So how do we work on the problem at hand? First, I think we should all send an email to Bill Feeney (Sylvia's husband). As a member of the AKC BOD, he needs to understand that we are noticing that this is happening. Second, send a note to the GRCA Board, as well as Ellen Hardin as the GRCA's delegate. Third, follow up!! Know where your puppies are going. Research these people. I recently placed a 7 month old female puppy, tried to get some response from a couple of FB groups to find her a quality, limited registration home. I was inundated with inquiries from all kinds of people, most of whom asked first thing if I was willing to drop the limited registration requirement, and then got belligerent and harassing when I told them no, and that I didn't think it would be a good match. I continue to be appalled at the co-ownerships I see happening. The outright sales to people like Candace Warren, Kary Love, Kim Dillon and Dawn Wung. Seriously? They will sell to, from what I can see, to ANYONE. Yes, some of them will show the dog and put a title on it, and then sell offspring to someone like Clark Martin. Great. So he can sell their offspring to anyone with the $$.

There are days when I wonder why I care so much, when it is obvious that so many do not.
 

·
Puddles
Joined
·
3,971 Posts
Swampcolllie I didn't mean that one organization had anything to do with the other, it sounded less confusing in my head.

I meant as a consumer the good breeders are doing their best to educate people like me about the importance of clearances and how to read them. Now it seems they are saddled with teaching prospective buyers on how to read the AKC pedigree and it's importance to do so.

Many people don't even think about the AKC as anything more than an organization that keeps records. The post that started this thread shows me it is important to look at the tree and more than 5 generations back & learn how to read it. As a consumer you assume when you get an AKC registered dog you get one that has a history of AKC registered dogs all the way back.

What the AKC is doing is or will affect the quality of the breed, any breed. It undermines the good breeders trying to keep people from exploiting their puppies. As an organization that promotes the pure bred dog they are hurting their own cause. Just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,679 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
There are days when I wonder why I care so much, when it is obvious that so many do not.
Me, too.
On this, though, at least this one dog- I can paste you the email from Mimi who said she had the litter record in her hand and that it was a limited. They couldn't have contacted her, it is like trying to catch quicksilver. I'm shocked I got her in the first place. She never did get back to me a second time.
And if that is so that she had the record (since I remember this litter and remembered they went (I thought) without papers I do believe that she had it or at least remembered it) this is SOOOO a way for anyone who talks a good talk to buy a puppy, keep up for a year or so, and then disappear and apply for full registration, claiming, let's say, that they never got papers. It's wrong, wrong, wrong. And AKC should not be in the business of giving crap breeders papers on dogs that were never intended to be bred.
They ask us, the good breeders, to be their partners- how can we if they will just as soon stab us in the back for $30?

I will write to Bill Feeney. When AKC has people who do not understand our thought process when we sell on limited doing the research, they likely will end up no better than CKC or one of the other less-than registries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,679 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Oh and Clark Martin- he sells puppies because he is a vet- and puppy people think that a vet would NEVER do anything less than ethical. Obviously untrue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,679 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Well, yes they do want the revenue back. You see we're not talking about hundreds of dogs, we're talking about tens of thousands of dogs, and that means a substantial amount of money.
Getting the $$ back at this cost only diminishes the value they SAY they are promoting.
In a few gens, one will have to look back way far to find these dogs. I think we should mark K9data w something on the offspring- like,
UR # parent. At least then it'd be a generation closer.
Or NOT AKC REGISTERED. Or something.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top