AKC VS UKC - Page 1

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

DesertRangers

by DesertRangers on 13 May 2006 - 20:05

We have growing number of working dog people in this area who are moving over to UKC competition and even registration. One trainer will no longer register any pups with AKC and is now using only the UKC. This has been going on for a few years but seems to be a growing movement. Your thoughts?

by Michael10 on 13 May 2006 - 20:05

The AKC is the only FCI recognized organization in the United States so i doubt if UKC papers actually mean anything? I do not believe that UKC papers are valued any where elese in the World. I am under the impression that unregistered dogs can get UKC papers and also unpapered dogs.

DesertRangers

by DesertRangers on 13 May 2006 - 20:05

But in reality what does AKC papers really mean? These people going over to UKC will argue that point very strongly.

by MikeRussell on 13 May 2006 - 21:05

In reality, AKC papers mean that the dog is certified pure bred and can be registered in any country that has a registry recognized by the FCI. If you have your dog registered with any other registry in the USA (United SchH Clubs of America, Continental Kennel Club, United Kennel Club, APRI, etc) then as far as the FCI and rest of the world is concerned, you have a mutt. No AKC papers = not purebred to FCI Plain & simple and no matter how much people may argue, it's not going to change.

DesertRangers

by DesertRangers on 13 May 2006 - 22:05

In reality Mike AKC paperwork means NOTHING!. I know of cases where breeders have switched dogs, switched pictures etc.. and many other methods of fakery. It should mean the dog is purebred? And in most cases it is but that's all it really tells you. You can read this messageboard and hear many horror tales! I am not arguing on which countries or organizations recognize AKC VS UKC but my post said many working line people in this area are starting to merge over to UKC and was interested in what was happening concerning this in other areas. Many of these people are really down on AKC because they don't think it means anything and most will tell you many valid reasons they think AKC is useless and subject to countless numbers of fraud. I will add that many of these people are professional dog handlers and have outstanding GSD's in police K9, narcotics etc... Does anyone here compete in UKC?

by MikeRussell on 13 May 2006 - 22:05

You need to separate out in your mind the true purpose of the registry versus how people lacking ethics try to cheat the system. Any registry can have paperwork faked, there have been findings that famous "high up" people in the SV have forged paperwork & registrations as well. Ethics are a separate topic entirely. There is no discussion over which countries/organizations recognize AKC versus UKC. FCI and all FCI recognized registries will only accept AKC paperwork, UKC will not be acknowledged. Honestly, it doesn't matter who is doing what in what area, because unless the dog is AKC registered, then it doesn't mean anything internationally and it doesn't mean much within the USA. People can down the registry all they want, but it is only a registry, nothing more. AKC will take action if proof of forgery is brought to them...but just whining and bitching about it and changing over to another registry who's paperwork is useless doesn't fix the problem with breeders/brokers that have a serious lack of ethics.

DesertRangers

by DesertRangers on 13 May 2006 - 23:05

Mike Get on the subject I posted or please start your own post. I asked for feedback from people concerning working line people starting to merge over to the UKC! I don't need told what I need to separate out in my mind. Let me make myself more clear. Does anyone see this happening in their area or is this just an isolated happening? If it is happening what are your thoughts on the reasons people are doing this? I am not coming down on the AKC nor supporting the UKC. I do find it interesting that these more serious type dog people are doing this. I have trained GSD's for over twenty years and fully understand what the AKC or SV papers mean. Don't mean to be rude but you are getting off the point I intended and wanted feedback on. Maybe my fault for not being clear enough in my post.

by hodie on 13 May 2006 - 23:05

DesertRanger, To answer your question, NO, in my area of the country, people who understand the relationship of the FCI and AKC would NEVER consider registering their dogs with UKC. It is true that the AKC is only a registry, but it is THE registry for this country. Though I find fault with AKC over many issues, the bottom line is that since FCI only recognizes the AKC, it matters not what I think of it. UKC papers are worthless. Several people have answered your question, but you do not seem to want to understand it. No serious GSD breeder or trainer who values the FCI, the SV, the AKC or their breed clubs would register with UKC because NO ONE recognizes the organization. Period. If there are some who do not care that their dogs would not be recognized in FCI sponsored activities (through the organizations I have already named), then fine. They are free to do it. Sadly, some will do so not understanding the relationships and the rules and come to find out some day that their papers mean nothing when the chips are down.

by Michael10 on 13 May 2006 - 23:05

I have to agree with Mike Russell AKC is the only recognized organization and it makes no sense to even compare the 2 organizations. Whether you agree with the AKC or not if a dog cannot get AKC papers there is something wrong with the dogs paperwork. It makes no sense to register with any other organization that is not recognized any where elese in the World. Even if you do not agree with the AKC it would send up a red flag to me if a dog was not AKC registered no matter what the person said.

by MikeRussell on 13 May 2006 - 23:05

I responded to what you were talking about on YOUR second post on this subject, so don't get snotty. Don't ask a question if you don't want someone to answer it. As far as "serious people" going to UKC, not around here. The people around here either have dogs that are registered with AKC or have dogs that are Mal mixes that can't be registered. UKC's performance venues really aren't that different than AKC's, so there is really no difference other than their paperwork is worthless. Since most people around here are active in either USCA or DVG (with some doing AKC events as well), nothing would be gained though a lot could be lost by going to UKC. Now, if we had quite a few UKC events around here, then maybe people would dual register so that they could compete at both AKC & UKC events during the "off season" from SchH & Ringsport, but none would flat out abandon AKC registration (if their dogs were pure breds).





 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top