KC or not KC

Go down

default KC or not KC

Post by Guest on Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:23 am

Just wondering how people feel about buying an unregistered Staff. I am not talking about rescue staffs I purely mean buying one.

Roxy is not KC reg and the only reason we took her is because the back yard breeder was clueless and she was neglected. We didn't pay we jsut picked her up and said we were taking her.

My next staff will definately be KC registered, not because I want to show it just because I think it is really important today with all these "type" dogs to be able to prove lineage. I also think it is important as it is very rare to find BYB who health test their dogs.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by Guest on Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:36 am

Before we rescued Jade I was completely clueless about KC registering and thought it was nothing more than an expensive piece of paper.

Since speaking to other owners and reading up about KC registering I would definately go for a KC registered puppy if I ever got one.

In saying that though, as much as I'd love one I don't think I will ever buy a puppy but will stick with rescues as I feel so strongly about the huge problem we have in this country with gorgeous staffies needing homes. :(

I'll just stick to looking at the lovely pics of everyone else's little bundles!!xx ❤
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by Suzz on Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:49 pm

It is rather a contradicting thought i have on that one. I totally agree that with all the health concerns and BYB that KC reg is the way to go.

I always think my next one will be a KC registered puppy.

But.... we have been talking about getting another dog and was looking at pedigree pups when i thought i should just nip to the local pound. There were so many dear little faces, i wanted them all! Most of them were staffs and as much as i would like a KC i don't think i could do anything other than a rescue because, as Claire said, its a huge problem i'd like to think i'm doing my bit.
Besides... Lunar came my way when i wasn't wanting another one and she is an absolute joy and Harley was a rescue and i cannot fault anything about him, perfect gent.

Suzz

Female
Number of posts : 15
Age : 40
Location : Bolton uk
Reputation : 0
Points : 0
Registration date : 2008-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by Lucy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:26 am

We wanted to get a registered pup but we saw Bonnie and the pet shop and fell in love with her before we realised we have paid, her parents are both supposed to have papers but we don't know if that was just a sales tactic.

We are definately buying from a kc reg breeder next time though.
avatar
Lucy

Number of posts : 65
Age : 35
Location : Australia
Reputation : 3
Points : 3
Registration date : 2008-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by skippy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:14 am

Aside from the legal hassles, as a rule, I would prefer non kc dogs. If you do your homework and find someone who puts in the effort and care, you will often find non kc dogs are fitter and healthier than kc and more able to work for you. You can definitely get stung if you don't put in the leg work to begin with though, so for average joe, I would say definitely KC.

skippy

Number of posts : 29
Age : 40
Location : NZ
Reputation : 0
Points : 0
Registration date : 2008-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by engladian on Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:18 pm

My preferance would be to buy a KC pup from a reputable breeder as opposed to a KC pup from an ad. Anyone can breed 2 KC dogs and get a KC litter without any regard to pedigree, conformation or health but a reputable breeder will have put much care, time and research into a planned breeding resulting in a quality litter. Being registered with a national kennel club has no bearing on a dogs fitness and health as even the best bred dogs can be unfit and unhealthy in the wrong conditions, KC or not. I do agree much research and footwork must be put into finding the right breeder, just because someone shows and breeds registered dogs for however long doesn't necessarily mean they have the breeds best interests at heart.
avatar
engladian
Admin Team
Admin Team

Number of posts : 815
Age : 56
Location : Kent
Reputation : 0
Points : -6
Registration date : 2008-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by Kyle on Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:32 pm

skippy wrote:Aside from the legal hassles, as a rule, I would prefer non kc dogs. If you do your homework and find someone who puts in the effort and care, you will often find non kc dogs are fitter and healthier than kc and more able to work for you. You can definitely get stung if you don't put in the leg work to begin with though, so for average joe, I would say definitely KC.

Erm, again Skippy how do you work tht out...

Kyle

Number of posts : 69
Age : 24
Location : London
Reputation : 0
Points : 0
Registration date : 2008-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by skippy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:15 am

Dogs bred to look good for showing are just that, dogs bred to look good for showing. If you find someone who genuinely cares about their dogs and trains them hard and breeds with the willingness to be objective in their assessment of the dogs they breed and only breed the best, fittest, healthiest, strongest... you can get a sterling dog, far better than any kc pet. Most people I know who have working dogs don't bother with kc because they don't ever intend to show their dogs. Function comes way ahead of form. Having been on both sides of the fence, I tend to agree. Also sadly, kc recognition has lead to the splitting of most breeds into show and working lines. The two usually look nothing alike. Interestingly, if you want a fighting breed for attack work such as shutzhund, the easy route is a nice compliant kc dog which has many generations of non working dogs behind it.

skippy

Number of posts : 29
Age : 40
Location : NZ
Reputation : 0
Points : 0
Registration date : 2008-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by Wiretim on Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:47 pm

I'm a new dog owner, although i've always been brought up around them, and recently got our Staffy, Milo from a couple who were moving abroad. He's Dog Lovers registered, and i have his full pedigree family history. How credible are Dog Lovers Club registrations?
avatar
Wiretim

Number of posts : 74
Age : 36
Location : Warrington, England
Reputation : 0
Points : 2
Registration date : 2008-03-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by jodie on Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:31 pm

hi rocco is not kc registered, his father and mother both had papers and i saw them both on regular occassions, still see his father around now and rocco is 4. the lady that had rocco was lovely adn really cared for the pups, rocco was hand reared (he was the runt and was being pushed out, he is now the biggest out of the litter) i would not be put off buying if it was not a kc registered pup, in fact my rottie (lexus) is not kc registered, again i knew the owners of the parents, and she has just turned 1. byb are always going to exist but i don't feel that a pup of any kind should be denied a good, loving and caring home because the owners of the parents were irresponsible.

jodie

Number of posts : 44
Age : 36
Location : perth
Reputation : 0
Points : 9
Registration date : 2008-03-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by skippy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:57 am

i don't feel that a pup of any kind should be denied a good, loving and caring home because the owners of the parents were irresponsible.

I completely disagree. It may be unfortunate for an individual dog to be bred by someone with the wrong intentions or no idea, but by taking the pups, people are encouraging them to continue the practice. If people simply can't get homes for pups they breed, even if they give them away, only a fraction of the pups which are currently being bred would exist. Its a harsh reality, but the fact is, its far better for the breed and for dogs in general if poorly bred dogs are left as a burden their inappropriate owners and never get a decent home.

skippy

Number of posts : 29
Age : 40
Location : NZ
Reputation : 0
Points : 0
Registration date : 2008-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by mikka on Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:12 am

I have one un kc dog Gypsi and 2 kc dogs Star and cloud .We bought Gypsi coz the owners were getting bored and my daughter always wanted her own staff so i bought her for my daughter for passing 8 gcse's and her 16th birthday and she is as much lved and wanted as any staff could be .
avatar
mikka

Number of posts : 71
Age : 48
Location : kent
Reputation : 0
Points : 0
Registration date : 2008-02-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default re kc or non kc

Post by beedham3k4 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:57 pm

i have 1 that is full staff but his mam dont have papers as she was a recue dog and one that has papers and i paid more for the one with paper
avatar
beedham3k4

Number of posts : 122
Age : 37
Location : yorkshire
Reputation : 0
Points : -3
Registration date : 2008-03-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by Guest on Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:24 am

I have 2 with papers and the old lady Leyla has none :D

In todays world i would only now ever buy a registered Stafford.

And guess what my KC registered show dog can do what the unreg ones do ;)
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by engladian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:34 pm

Wiretim wrote:I'm a new dog owner, although i've always been brought up around them, and recently got our Staffy, Milo from a couple who were moving abroad. He's Dog Lovers registered, and i have his full pedigree family history. How credible are Dog Lovers Club registrations?

Sorry to say Tim that DL registration is not a bonafide registry and you cannot rely on the pedigrees that people using that registry produce...thats the reason they use it as opposed to a proper one like the Kennel Club. But that being said, the fact remains that you have a loving family member to be proud of either way.
avatar
engladian
Admin Team
Admin Team

Number of posts : 815
Age : 56
Location : Kent
Reputation : 0
Points : -6
Registration date : 2008-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by Wiretim on Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:43 am

Yeah, i've since looked into it, and realised this. It wasn't the reason we got him anyway. Going back through his family history, I've found his Great Grand Sire was a KC dog (Teracota Kimbo) , but thats about all i've found so far. Either way, he's a gorgeous healthy nutter, which is all that matters to me!
avatar
Wiretim

Number of posts : 74
Age : 36
Location : Warrington, England
Reputation : 0
Points : 2
Registration date : 2008-03-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: KC or not KC

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum