First off I am going to say that I know there can be quality breeders that are one or the other or both. I have always believed AKC to be the better organization, although it is still important to research your individual breeder to make sure they are ethical and quality. That said, what do you guys say when a friend asks you the difference between ACA and AKC?

I found this article:
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-aca-and-akc/

It seems to be leaning heavily towards the AKC, which I agree with, but I was looking for some more substantial thought on the differences. What do you all think?

ACA is a joke BYB/pet store registry.

Rodeo is ACA, he's a Petland mill puppy.

I agree with Kristina 100%

Breakdown of registries:

American Kennel Club (AKC) - The most prestigious of the kennel clubs in the United States. Although there are many breeders who are unethical that register puppies with the AKC, there are some very reputable breeders. The AKC also has parent clubs for breeds. These parent clubs are responsible for setting the required health tests and breeder ethics. I do think the AKC does the best they can to set a good example for dog breeders, but they are a registry - not the police.

United Kennel Club (UKC) - I would consider this a relatively reputable registry...if your breeders is working at performance titles. There are some great people in UKC, but the often the REPUTABLE breeders show in both AKC and UKC. I will say that I show actively in UKC altered, but that is only because AKC does not have an altered category yet. If the breeder only shows in UKC, has never finished a dog in AKC, isn't a member of the parent club and/or doesn't do health testing, they are probably using the UKC as a means to register a dog that is less than a spectacular version of the breed. Note: There are some great breeders in UKC who wanted to get away from the negativity in AKC. Get to know your breeder, ask around on here and BE OPEN MINDED when people answer.

Continental Kennel Club (CKC) - This registry is a disgrace. They will register anything and usually puppy mills register their litters with this registry. It's a sham and nothing worthy comes from this registry.

American Canine Association (ACA) - This is possibly worse than CKC...if that is even possible. I've never met a registry that doesn't use the word conformation at all. These people allow anyone to register - even if they are not from another registry, there are ways around all of the rules. Many breeders that are affiliated with them are mills. Call your local pet store - you'll see it.

International All Breed Canine Association (IABCA) - This registry is complicated. SOME AKC breeders and exhibitors do go to shows affiliated with this registry because they have thorough notes and the judge actually provides a written critique of the dog. They strive to be like European shows. IMO, and this is just my opinion, I would not go to a breeder who only works with IABCA because I do not see how they can adequately regulate people who join them.

Many people will also work with breeders who breed dogs from the Canadian Kennel Club. This club is similar to AKC and is reputable.

Nice, that is pretty much what I thought but wanted to see a few others' opinion on the matter. Anyone, feel free to throw your two cents in. I was just speaking with someone who had an ACA registered siberian who claimed the parents were OVER 100 lbs. Ewww... Yeah, made me a bit sick and even more questioning of the whole ACA vs AKC thing. Sure, like you said, there will be breeders that are AKC that are not ethical but out of all the kennel clubs I have come to find them the best... at least from what I have seen.

Wow... you guys have a lot to be confused about over there...
We only have the one registry and that's it. All it seems to be here is a club of snobs who recommend other people they like for personal reasons to be a breeder - not based on their knowledge or experience with dogs or anything of the like. Although I am sure there must be some legitimately good breeders mixed in their somewhere.

In NZ you are 8 times out of 10 better off to go through a private breeder. NZKC just leaves a paper trail of how inbred your dog is.

Anyway that's my opinion, and yeah I may sound cynical... But New Zealanders in General just seem to have a higher rate of compassion for animals per head of population.
I haven't often met or heard of people who put an animals rights at stake to make a buck from puppies.

Actually I lie. I have. They were NZKC registered.

Anyway that was just probably a pile of info/opinions that aren't at all helpful because they aren't relevant to your country! Sorry this subject just gets me fuming... I should probably go be an animal activist or something...

Histi I realize what you have said is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it but I have to admit it ruffles my feathers a bit. My dog is NZKC registered - a fact I am proud of and no he is not inbreed. I chose his breeder and her lines from the registered breeders very carefully, I can guarantee you he was not breed for money and not once did I consider a private breeder, in fact I don't believe I will ever have a dog from a private breeder unless it was a rescue. I cannot of course speak up for all registered breeders over all breeds and perhaps my experience with NZKC breeders vary dramatically from yours but I have not met one is a snob or who breeds for money, they have all been people dedicated to the betterment of their chosen breed.

Anyways sorry for hijacking your thread CavingSiberian, I know my little rant isn't relevant to your topic

GeorginaMay wrote:

Histi I realize what you have said is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it but I have to admit it ruffles my feathers a bit. My dog is NZKC registered - a fact I am proud of and no he is not inbreed. I chose his breeder and her lines from the registered breeders very carefully, I can guarantee you he was not breed for money and not once did I consider a private breeder, in fact I don't believe I will ever have a dog from a private breeder unless it was a rescue. I cannot of course speak up for all registered breeders over all breeds and perhaps my experience with NZKC breeders vary dramatically from yours but I have not met one is a snob or who breeds for money, they have all been people dedicated to the betterment of their chosen breed.

Anyways sorry for hijacking your thread CavingSiberian, I know my little rant isn't relevant to your topic

Keyto is NZKC registered as well, Digger is not. Keyto is inbred too much for my personal liking.

Agree completely with you having your opinion. Peoples opinions are formed by their own experiences I may have just run into all the wrong people

If you like a specific breed of dog you have to appreciate that there are organizations to keep track of lineage. If you don't have organizations like the AKC it would be very difficult for legitimate, ethical breeders to make sure they have a good match for breeding. If you don't know the lineage and the eye/hip/health tests of the dogs' family tree you could be setting up some puppies for hip displaysia. Of course there will always be those BYB and money-greedy breeders that use the certifications as a way to attract new pet owners but the truth is, as much as you can be an animal activist, you have to appreciate having these organizations/registries. Unless you want all dogs to be of mixed breed you simply can't go without it. I love my girls, they are my children, and I knew their personality was going to get along with mine because of their breed. If we had all mixed breed dogs it would be harder to match pup to owner I think...

CavingSiberian wrote:

as much as you can be an animal activist, you have to appreciate having these organizations/registries. Unless you want all dogs to be of mixed breed you simply can't go without it.

Not sure exactly what you mean by that.

In New Zealand we have what we call 'purebred' or 'registered' or 'mongrel'

Registered: NZKC Registered, with Genealogy Records. Sometimes without Medical clearance.
Purebred: Full-blooded, No registered genealogy records. Good breeders will show you Parents medical History and copies of grandparents medical history.
Mongrel: Mixed blooded.

For example: Keyto is NZKC Registered, Digger is Purebred.

I mean that to ensure a breeding is going to produce the best quality puppies with the least health problems the registries, like AKC, are important. It allows you to look up the lineage of your purebred dog, and thus the health issues that those ancestors had, to decide if a certain sire and dam are appropriate matches. The best way to preserve a breed is to make sure you aren't breeding two dogs that both have a family history of certain health conditions (even if they don't have it themselves they could still pass these problems to their offspring).

.

Yes, thank you Megan

mbarnard0429 wrote:

In the U.S. Digger would be considered from a BYB - that's what we mean Carissa. In the U.S. an ethical breeder would register their dogs because genealogy records allow people to watch common traits (disease, faults, strong points...) and how they were passed down from line to line. A BYB has no idea what comes through their lines and genealogy is very important for watching trends in a breed.

Thank You, I understand that's how you see it, but as a person who has no intention of breeding my dog I don't see a problem. Especially when Digger's father is registered and so Is the mother's parents. So actually I do know what may come down through the line, and just because my dog isn't registered with his genealogy record on file doesn't mean he is a dog just waiting to pop out with all sorts of nasty diseases..

You need to be careful what you assume when you don't actually know all the background. Just goes to show some people automatically assume the worst without asking questions first. I don't need papers for my dog as I have not intention of breeding or showing him. He is a companion animal.

Edit: all I was trying to outlay was the difference/similarities between countries.. You didn't have to go and basically insult the integrity of my dog. The OP never did.

CavingSiberian wrote:

I mean that to ensure a breeding is going to produce the best quality puppies with the least health problems the registries, like AKC, are important. It allows you to look up the lineage of your purebred dog, and thus the health issues that those ancestors had, to decide if a certain sire and dam are appropriate matches. The best way to preserve a breed is to make sure you aren't breeding two dogs that both have a family history of certain health conditions (even if they don't have it themselves they could still pass these problems to their offspring).

I agree, and aslong as the system is not being abused, It is a good way to know what you are getting yourself into.
I also think a good breeder should know where their dogs have
come from. Some people know this without having registered dogs, by following medical records and keeping accurate records themselves... I mean, that's what people had to do before KC's came into existence. That what anyone has to do with a planned breeding programme for any species of animal.
Pity we don't with humans...   

I didn't insult your dog.

In fact, you have been insulting all dogs who come with a NZKC registry - you also stated that people from NZ are more compassionate than people in other countries. I was merely pointing out something from the U.S. point of view.

I'm no longer watching this topic. Everyone have a nice night.

mbarnard0429 wrote:

when you bashed NZKC and her dog is registered there.

Umm.. One of my dogs is registered there as well.. So it isn't like I own a pile of BYB dogs and am just having a 'racist' type rant. I also didn't 100% bash it... Just commented on the pitfalls like you did earlier with a few of the KC types you have in America. Thanks for your opinion on that by the way as I can see now how hard it can be for you guys to sort out the good breeders from the bad - I was merly reinforcing we have that problem here on a slightly smaller scale as we just don't have as many KC's as you guys. If you are interested in the novel as to why I have formed my opinions about the NZKC you are more then welcome to PM me and I can tell you all about it.

mbarnard0429 wrote:

You did not say that you had all this information about the dogs history, or that the parents were registered, or that you had medical records for every dog in the pedigree.

Nor did you ask. You just assumed I didn't know. I don't have it on me, I have seen it, so If I told you that I did I would be lying. I did however say purebred's have no registered genealogy - and because Digger doesn't exist as far as NZKC is concerned, and I do not have papers, he fits right into that catagory. So yes I still feel you insulted the Integrity of my dog. I have no issues with you over it.. Not like I'm gonna start a hate club or anything.. I however felt you should know I did find it insulting that you would do so with out getting a little more information first.

mbarnard0429 wrote:

I didn't insult your dog.

In fact, you have been insulting all dogs who come with a NZKC registry - you also stated that people from NZ are more compassionate than people in other countries. I was merely pointing out something from the U.S. point of view.

I'm no longer watching this topic. Everyone have a nice night.

Okay then, but there is nothing like a bit of healthy debate.

So to debate about your last statement...

histi wrote:

Wow... you guys have a lot to be confused about over there...
We only have the one registry and that's it. All it seems to be here is a club of snobs who recommend other people they like for personal reasons to be a breeder - not based on their knowledge or experience with dogs or anything of the like. Although I am sure there must be some legitimately good breeders mixed in their somewhere.

In NZ you are 8 times out of 10 better off to go through a private breeder. NZKC just leaves a paper trail of how inbred your dog is.

In Keyto's case it does.So it is fair for me to say that. It's my opinion.

histi wrote:

Anyway that's my opinion, and yeah I may sound cynical... But New Zealanders in General just seem to have a higher rate of compassion for animals per head of population.
I haven't often met or heard of people who put an animals rights at stake to make a buck from puppies.

Actually I lie. I have. They were NZKC registered.

Anyway that was just probably a pile of info/opinions that aren't at all helpful because they aren't relevant to your country! Sorry this subject just gets me fuming... I should probably go be an animal activist or something...

Ok, so yeah I can see how the Compassion thing could be taken as insult... but it's a fair statement, and you are more then welcome to hate me for it.

So didn't insult ALL dogs with an NZKC Registration.

Seems I upset you quite early on in the thread. Not surprised you insulted my dog.

I didn't insult your dog. I don't go around the forum insulting peoples dogs. Your dog looks fine and I'm sure your dog is fine. I'm simply stating that you can't ask everyone else not to assume things when you are assuming things all over this thread and other threads.

I'm sorry you are hurt.

However, I never stated your dog was anything. I said he would be considered to come from a BYB. I didn't say his breeders were BYB and I wouldn't because I don't even know who they are, I said that the way you described them would be seen as BYB's.

I've been here a long time and I don't make it a point to offend people or insult their dogs.

Call it a truce then ha?   

I just took it to be an insult because since coming here I have learn't what a BYB is considered in the US, watched some doco's on them and puppy mills... I wouldn't buy a dog from people like that...

Slightly off topic but reminds me of a sort of funny story. Talking with the Dentist reveled that many problems with crowding teeth comes from peoples poor breeding! People with big mouths and teeth will breed with people who have small mouths and teeth and the next thing you know teeth to big to fit into a mouth or a mouth to big for the tiny teeth.

BYBs and puppy mills are two very different things. BYBs can (and usually are) considered people who either have an intact pair and breed that registered paired. Yes, they love their dogs and yes their dogs are registered and have a pedigree. However, BYBs are not breeding with a purpose nor are they breeding dogs who have proven themselves as worthy breeding candidates. Sometimes BYBs dogs have health clearances, BUT that still doesn't mean those dogs should be bred.

2 of my 3 are registered, Nikko is registered by ACA, but he came from a pet store, so there you have it. Yukon is AKC, and I got him from a breeder. I have no idea about Kodiak because he is a rescue and I don't know his history.

I don't care much about the registration, because I don't show, nor plan to breed (all neutered), they are my pets, although like others mentioned, being registered with AKC means nothing as to the quality of the dog. I am sure Nikko came from a puppy mill, which is implied since he is ACA and I got him at a pet store, but he has never had a single health issue. Yukon, on the other hand came from a breeder and is AKC registered, and I have had several issues with him, from epilepsy, joint issues, intestinal problems, etc.

jschrader wrote:

2 of my 3 are registered, Nikko is registered by ACA, but he came from a pet store, so there you have it.  Yukon is AKC, and I got him from a breeder.  I have no idea about Kodiak because he is a rescue and I don't know his history.

I don't care much about the registration, because I don't show, nor plan to breed (all neutered), they are my pets, although like others mentioned, being registered with AKC means nothing as to the quality of the dog.  I am sure Nikko came from a puppy mill, which is implied since he is ACA and I got him at a pet store, but he has never had a single health issue.  Yukon, on the other hand came from a breeder and is AKC registered, and I have had several issues with him, from epilepsy, joint issues, intestinal problems, etc.  

So yup, everything has it flaws doesn't it?

Hughie wrote:

Slightly off topic but reminds me of a sort of funny story.  Talking with the Dentist reveled that many problems with crowding teeth comes from peoples poor breeding!  People with big mouths and teeth will breed with people who have small mouths and teeth and the next thing you know teeth to big to fit into a mouth or a mouth to big for the tiny teeth.

Wouldn't it be funny If we judged ourselves as to wether we are a 'suitable candidate for breeding'... Guess we would only have pretty people with great metabolisms and immune systems walking around this earth...

I suppose that's where Hitler was trying to go...